Ooh la la, Lúthien...

[Lush]

I have a feeling that this has not been discussed here before. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

I want to bring to your attention a couple of simple facts. What interests me is how these facts relate to each other.

First of all, Tolkien was a Catholic. And we all end up making a big deal about that on numerous threads, some very interesting, some not so much, but nevertheless, its presence looms large on this board, for better or for worse. The Catholic Church is generally known for its continuous frowning upon pre-marital sex, and its harsh stance on birth control, though that's completely unrelated. In general, we all know how conservative the Catholics were in Tolkien's time, and how conservative Catholics are today, especially when it comes to sex.

Still with me so far?

Now, as it has been discussed ad nauseum, Tolkien did not overtly stick his religion into his works. At the same time, I think we can all agree that to a certain extent, the union of Aragorn and Arwen embodies the Catholic ideal. I mean, when you read about them, you do end up assuming that they did not get it on until after they were married.

Ok, so here is what I am really getting at: if the union of Aragorn and Arwen is supposed to reflect the union of Beren and Lúthien, there is a marked difference in the way Tolkien treats the latter pair. I am hinting, of course, at pre-marital sex.

Truth be told, I am not so much a total nymphomaniac not to notice the simple fact that Tolkien was completely un-interested in writing about sex. Nevethless, I think it's appropriate to point out that he is far more ambiguous about the nature of Beren and Lúthien's relationship.

The Silmarillion is not the end-all, be-all of truth in regards to Tolkien's writing, but I have read up on Beren and Lúthien in other works (I think it was the Lost Tales, but I don't have a copy with me, so I am beat), and found his writing to be equally ambiguous there as well, even more so, when it came to Daeron. But nevermind Daeron, here is what the Silmarillion says in regards to Beren first meeting Lúthien:

Then she halted in wonder and fled no more, and Beren came to her. But as she looked on him, doom fell upon her, and she loved him; yet she slipped from his arms and vanished from his sight even as the day was breaking.

(I did the bolding)

One can assume anything one wants from this statement, but doesn't it strike you as being at least pretty darn vague? If the Lost Tales say something different, please let me know, because I don't have a copy here, and I can't recall what it said exactly.

Further on, after some vaguely "joyful" times, and a not-so-vague comment from Thingol on the whole thing, Lúthien runs away and accompanies Beren on his quest, unattended, if I may note, by her daddy, or any other authority figure. And after everything is over and done with, and Lúthien is a mortal, nowhere is it mentioned that her parents bless her union with Beren, or that there even was an official wedding.

In general, Lúthien strikes the reader as being a character that is, in general, free-wheeling, and, in stark contrast to Arwen, ready to drop everything in an instant for true love (the situations of these two girls are, of course, different, but I think they are meant to be compared to a certain degree, especially when one remembers Aragorn singing about Lúthien to the Hobbits, and other such diversions).

I wouldn't be making such a big deal out of this if it wasn't for the way that some people treat Tolkien's work. They like it because it's "clean," and "moral," and "upstanding," and so on and so forth. And it is, for the most part, exactly that. A nice distraction from out otherwise dirty lives.

Buuut, for my part, I wanted to point out Tolkien's treatment of Lúthien to get you thinking. Not in stark terms, and not about pre-marital sex per se (I'm trying hard not to be obtuse), but about the general vagueness that surrounds her relationship with Beren, and stemming from that vagueness, whether it is appropriate to make a big deal out of Tolkien's Catholicism in regards to sexual innuendo or lack therof in his work and in literature in general (nevermind everything else his Catholicism gets linked to).

A reasonable question would be, if this vagueness means that Tolkien simply didn't care, then why should we? And further on, this vagueness could also be the simple main difference between the LOTR and the Sil, in which one is more detailed than the other.

Having taken all that into account, I still say that this ambiguity is worth pondering, and not just because Lúthien was the greatest of the Eldar, and so on and so forth. I'm talking here about romantic passion, something rarely touched upon in Tolkien's works. Here it is, in the story of Beren and Lúthien, and it makes this particular section all the more interesting.

This reading of the relationship of Beren and Lúthien (erroneous as it may be), does not change my personal view on Tolkien's work en masse. Which is to say that I still view it as being sexually innocent, clean, and upstanding. But, for someone who thinks otherwise of pre-marital sex (or even subsequent lack of an official marriage ceremony), what does my reading of Beren and Lúthien's relationship mean?

And what do you think about this in general? Is it reasonable to view Beren and Lúthien this way? Or has college corrupted me beyond all reason and repair? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Tar-Palantir]

hahaha! Dear Lush, I am afraid that youthful (and apparently vigorous) experimentation is your current dilemna. College is but a willing canvas for your paints.

I honestly know little of the tale of Beren and Luthien, but am now as eager as ever now to get to the reading! What I do know of the few relationships encountered in Tolkien's work shows nothing of any ambiguity. We have Faramir/Eowyn, Aragorn/Arwen and Sam/Rosie in LotR. All of which ended prosperously and were begun innocently, without rash (lustful if you like [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) behavior.

The only other instance of courtship/relationship that I know of ended with poor results or never began. Those being Grima/Eowyn and Turin/Nienor. Both were ill-concieved or vulgar from the get go and the outcomes were quite harsh. Now I know there are short-stories concerning various wives and mothers of notable figures, but I could not possibly recall them without more digging. And I doubt enough detail would be given to properly judge their wholesomeness, or, in the event of a tragic end, whether this end blossomed from a lack of innocent 'roots'. i.e. pre-marital sex.

Looking forward to seeing some responses. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[mark12_30]

After a description of gifts and ceremony, Tolkien states the following in the section entitled "Laws and Customs of the Eldar" (HoME, Morgoth's Ring; italics mine):

But these ceremonies were not rites necessary to marriage; they were only a gracious mode by which the love of the parents was manifested... It was the act of bodily union that achieved marriage, and after which the indissoluble bond was complete. In happy days and times of peace it was held ungracious and contemptuous of kin to forgo the ceremonies, but it was at all times lawful for any of the Eldar, both being unwed, to marry thus of free consent one to another without ceremony or witness (save blessings exchanged and the naming of the Name*); and the union so joined was alike indissoluble. In days of old, in times of trouble, in flight and exile and wandering, such marriages were often made.

* The Name named, is, as described in the preceeding paragraph, the name of Eru taken as solemn witness to the marriage.

This, especialy in light of the preceeding paragraphs, shows the genuine sacred purpose of sex-- it is such a sacred act that even for immortal elves it creates and ordains a bond that will last between the two as long as they live ("indissoluble"); for an elf, potentially for as long as the earth remains for Tolkien states that is their potential lifespan.

Hence, "one night" for an elf signals a lasting, permanent and sacred commitment that will last unbroken and unbreakable ("indissoluble") for thousands upon thousands of years.

Now that's real, meaningful sex...

...therefore choose wisely!

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Liriodendron]

Oh my! That is so "special"! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] The perfect union of love and lust! Sigh... [img]smilies/redface.gif[/img]

[Lush]

Tar, the fact that Beren and Lúthien's relationship is the one that's full of ambiguity is what makes it so interesting to me.

Helen, thanks for the quote, it's very educational. The only thing I can say in response to that is the fact that Beren was not an Elf, but a man, which changes things. Don't get me wrong, he was a pretty cool guy, just, you know, not an Elf.

[Diamond18]

Well, well, whatever else can be gleaned from this, Helen's quotes cement that Tolkien was an extreme idealist.

I also noticed the "ambiguity" in the Sil concerning our two love birds, and I'm not in college or...anything. So it's not your nymphomania, Lush. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I think.

At any rate, it strikes me that if Tolkien definitely wanted their first meeting to be interpreted as chaste, he would have noticed how suspicious his wording sounded and changed it.

Or maybe he would have had he lived to publish it, instead of Christopher.

How vague this reply is. But ask a vague question and you get a vague answer, right? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Bekah]

Okay, I must say that I've been influenced by many books and people - and God, or Eru. The end result is that I'm not going to even kiss before the vows have been said at the alter. Go on, call me an nutter, but it's not the point here, I'm just trying to give you guys a little idea of my view-point.

I agree with what Helen said, but I'd also like to add...it's kind of relevant on Earth too. And the elves aren't here any more - I'm talking about the race of men. And Beren, as someone pointed out, is of the race of men.

If you make love, there's a bond - not visible, of course - that's going to stay there. For those of you who are Christians, check out Paul's letters to the Corinthians - for those of you who aren't, I am not trying to force my beliefs down your throat. There's a verse in there that says something like, "if a man loves a prostitute, there will be a bond between them." I'm talking about eros here, not agape or any of the other loves. And I'm not certain about the verse, sorry. There's also a verse in Genesis that says that a man will leave his house and parents and cleave to his wife - sex is something sacred, which is why it is reserved for marriage, which is basically a statement to everyone saying that you love this person, and will stick with them, 'until death do you part'. Because sex is not something to be trifled with, it's cementing a bond of life between you.

I'm going to bed now.

God bless,

~ Elentari II

[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Bekah ]

[Lalaith]

Lush, I too had always assumed that the 'slipping from his arms" line was significant and implied that a union had taken place - whether of body, or of spirit, or of both, however, was ambigious. I don't however think the fact that Beren was a man and not an elf necessarily makes the quote about elf marriage insignificant. There was also a 'moment of truth' between Aragorn and Arwen, on Cerin Amroth.
And I also agree that Tolkien was definitely an idealist when it came to male/female relations, but in a very non-condemnatory way. I think he had a very positive - if perhaps slightly unrealistic - view of women in general, compared to say, CS Lewis who was something of a misogynist. There are no purely evil females in Tolkien (except perhaps Ungoliant) The very few unsympathetic female characters - Lobelia Sackville Baggins springs to mind - have redeeming characteristics.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

As promised, this post has been edited to expand my argument and hopefully offer some evidence in support.

I think I shall start with a brief consideration of Helen's quotation and its applicability to the case of Beren and Lúthien. Although in the published Silmarillion Beren is a Man, at the time of the Lost Tales he was a Gnome, Beren of the Noldoli; in which case the Elven marriage would apply equally to both of them. In any case it's by no means unusual for people to honour the customs of their spouses-to-be, and after all it doesn't sound like so very unpleasant a way to tie the knot.

I think that in many cases a great deal too much is made of Tolkien's Catholicism. Whilst he was clearly a committed Christian this does not mean that he sat down and compared every word he wrote to Catholic doctrine to see if the two were compatible. He was a free-thinking idealist, with a clearly defined sense of honour and moral understanding, which meant that he was quite capable of making up his own mind about moral issues; and in some cases, horror of horrors, his writing diverged from the minor tenets of his faith. This is by no means unusual: John Betjeman, a contemporary of Tolkien's and another Oxford man, suffered a great deal of anguish in trying to reconcile some of his views with his Catholicism. I should also note that the Lost Tales were written when Tolkien was still in his twenties, and I think I can say with relative authority that men of that age can find some of the stricter moral codes a little difficult to obey, no matter how noble their spirits. Also, at the time of the first composition of The Tale of Tinúviel in 1917, Tolkien was himself a man who had seen war and bloodshed on a scale unequalled at any previous time in human history. I mention this because there's nothing like seeing lives wasted, literally cast away for nothing, to make some of society's moral opinions about sex seem rather petty and unimportant; and let's not be under any illusions about this, marriage is for the benefit of other people: to announce and solemnise a commitment which already exists in the eyes of the two people involved. Without that commitment, and without love, marriage is a pointless and hollow institution, and its vows are nothing. We only need look at Aredhel and Eöl to see where a loveless union will lead, as I have mentioned in another of Lush's rather entertaining threads.

In this respect, it doesn't matter how passionate and physical Beren and Lúthien were without a marriage ceremony per se, because whatever they were doing together sprang from love. Not infatuation, momentary attraction or one too many miruvors, but love at its purest. From the moment that they first met they were joined for life, and there was nothing that they or anyone else could do about it. Similarly there was no need for an official declaration of this fact until the time was convenient: actions speak louder than words, however solemn and godly those words may be.

That's not to say that I agree with this reading of the passage in question, though. The Silmarillion also says that this meeting took place "...near dawn on the eve of Spring...", and the phrase "...and she loved him", whilst it can refer to a physical act of love, can equally mean that at that moment she fell in love with him, with all the associated birds suddenly appearing and so forth (to my mind, this passage refers to a window of no more than fifteen minutes, and I'm not sure that Tolkien was the sort to write a quick knee-trembler into his epic romance). The interesting part of this is the timing: just before dawn on the first day of spring is a very significant time of year. I shan't belabour the symbolism of rebirth and fertility implicit in this setting, rather I shall quote the much racier version of their first real meeting from the Lay of Leithian:

Then stared he wild in dumbness bound
at silent trees, deserted ground;
he blindly groped across the glade
to the dark trees' encircling shade,
and, while she watched with veiléd eyes,
touched her soft arm in sweet surprise.
Like startled moth from deathlike sleep
in sunless nook or bushes deep
she darted swift, and to and fro
with cunning that elvish dancers know
about the trunks of trees she twined
a path fantastic. Far behind
enchanted, wildered and forlorn
Beren came blundering, bruised and torn

"What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?" Where is our chaste professor here? The later version, as used in the Silmarillion works better within the framework of the story, because it ties in much more readily with the idea that it was Beren and Lúthien's fate to meet thus and love one another, and in any case the romantic in me likes to see the sudden spark in the rewritten account; but the earlier work seems more human, and perhaps more realistic. Although Tolkien seems to have intended for Lúthien to be afraid of Beren's rough appearance, as in the earlier prose version, there's something more playful about the language that suggests a game that I think we can all recognise. "Ooh la la" indeed.

I'm very much in accord with Lush's comments about Lúthien's personality. She's definitely the more rebellious of the pair, and she's certainly no thrall to convention. It is Beren who insists that he must complete Thingol's insulting mission, whereas she is perfectly happy to defy her father and to live in exile if it means that she can be with the man she loves. Beren is the more bound by social propriety, and he does have more to lose (Thingol is not the sort of person with whom one should trifle), although there's probably an element of male pride as well: nobody likes to decline a challenge.

Now I come to the tricky part of this whole discourse, because I have to bring in morality and religion. Sex within marriage is tied very strongly to the concept behind the Roman church's attitude towards contraception, which can essentially be summed up as "No copulation without procreation", in deference to Genesis II 28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth", and given that this precludes both abortion and contraception, marriage is the most sensible and logical state in which to do one's multiplication. I must stress that this is not necessarily my opinion, but that of Tolkien's Church as I see it.

However, the Bible also says

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love,
I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal

(I Corinthians XIII:1)

All loveless states and actions are as nothing, and Tolkien has extrapolated this in his portrayal of Beren and Lúthien, although he has almost certainly stepped beyond the bounds of official doctrine in so doing. What use is a ceremony when you're imprisoned by Sauron, or trying to sneak into Morgoth's fortress? It takes a lot more than a social convention to keep a relationship going under that sort of strain, and without Thingol's blessing the marriage could not be concluded anyway. In this both of the lovers are concerned, so they act as a married couple would and share the trial, which Beren would certainly have failed alone. As one saying goes, marriage isn't all about gazing into each others' eyes, but looking confidently in the same direction.

This brings me to my idea of what Tolkien probably did find morally objectionable, and the spirit that probably lies behind the traditional morals of wedlock: there is no joy or happiness to be had in loveless and mechanical fornication, which is the only form of intercourse, especially in the form of adultery, which is specifically banned in the Commandments. My objection (it would be beyond my ambit to presume what Tolkien's was, although I like to think that it was quite similar) is that such activity reduces the union to nothing more than the gratification of a bodily impulse, no more redolent of joy or love than the scratching of a troublesome itch. At several points in his works Tolkien demonstrates that it is love, not marriage that is important, because when life gets difficult and everything seems against you what will not keep you going is a piece of paper with some signatures on it and the Church's approval. Later, in Aldarion and Erendis, and later still in The Shibboleth of Fëanor, Tolkien described marriages in collapse (in the former because of a husband's inability to choose either his wife or the sea, in the latter because of a wife's unwillingness to return from the halls of Mandos to her husband and son), and it is clear from these accounts that he understood what sacrifices had to be made to maintain a successful union. Love is the only impetus that will force someone to make those sacrifices. What tragedies befell because of the bitterness that this inspired in the children of those unions? How would Fëanor have behaved in the presence of his mother's moderating influence? And people think that Tolkien didn't write about real relationships. "What fools these mortals be"

[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Lush]

Bekah, that's a very nice, thoughtful post, but I fail to see what it has to do with the discussion in general.

Lalaith, you're absolutely right in drawing that distinction between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, at least judging from what I've read of Lewis so far. And as for Ungoliant, I don't think she qualifies, because she is a spider, not a person. The fact that Ungoliant and Shelob are female is significant, of course, but I don't think that this relates to Tolkien's over-idealized view of women per se.

think that Tolkien was the sort of person who knew what was morally right without having to be told by a religious organisation, and what is morally objectionable is loveless and mechanical sexual activity, which reduces the union to nothing more than the gratification of a bodily impulse.

That's very well put. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

So I am not the only lunatic out there who was intrigued by Beren and Lúthien's first meeting, which is comforting.

Lalaith, I agree that Arwen and Aragorn also had a very big "moment" on Cerin Amroth, but I think that it was different, less passionate somehow. For my part, I justify this by concentrating on what lay ahead for Aragorn and Arwen, they felt the presence of the shadow, and Arwen, for her part, was troubled by the idea of leaving her kin behind, even though she promised Aragorn that she would cleave to him. Lúthien, for her part, was never shown to have any doubts. Maybe that has something to do with the way the Sil is written, maybe with the fact that Lúthien was the daughter of a Maia, I am not quite sure.

[Bekah]

Helen, thanks for the quote, it's very educational. The only thing I can say in response to that is the fact that Beren was not an Elf, but a man, which changes things. Don't get me wrong, he was a pretty cool guy, just, you know, not an Elf.

That was, I believe, what I was trying to reply to. Anyway, I don't have time to debate/discuss it at the moment. Sorry.

~ Elentari II

[Lush]

I just had another (brilliant) thought strike me.

I'm sure at least some of you who were around here last year remember the initial brouhaha surrounding Arwen's expanded role in the film. Most of the criticism centered on the fact that she wielded a sword, but a great deal of people also had a beef with the fact that she was out "sneaking around" with Aragorn after-hours, obviously unattended, behaving in a manner "unbecoming" of an Elf of her stature.

But, according to the quote that Helen provided, this sort of behaviour must be totally acceptable. Lúthien did it, and she was of much nobler stature than Arwen. So Peter Jackson is not entirely off the mark there, eh?

Which leads me to my next point: since what Lúthien did was in accordance with true love, and it was apparently her right to do it, and she wasn't in the wrong, then what right did Thingol have in doing what he did, especially if he knew that Lúthien had already devoted herself emotionally and physically to Beren. We know that Thingol is aware of this according to this quote:

"...shall such as these lay hands on you, and yet live?"

Hmmm. For the first time ever the reprecussions of Thingol's involvement begin to make sense to me.

But now I am also getting myself confused. If Beren and Lúthien were wedded in the fashion that Helen's quote from HoME describes, is it also not safe to assume that Arwen and Aragorn did the same thing? I.e., that they were physically involved before the official marriage ceremony after the defeat of Sauron? But if they weren't, does Elrond have anything to do with that? And if he does, why? Because Aragorn was his adopted son, and thus owed his obedience to him? But does that also mean that Elrond, in all his wisdom, could not see true love (the kind described in HoME) right in front of him? But Galadriel could (hence the Cerin Amroth episode)?

Intriguing.

[Eru]

is it also not safe to assume that Arwen and Aragorn did the same thing?

i beilieve it is since she she would rather spend one life time with him then all the ages without.

or maybe that was the movie. i'm going home and reading FoTR. it's been too long...

[red]

A Lush topic about sex. *shock*

[the mortal elf]

I'm not even going to touch on Beren and Luthien since most of you all-time-great essay writers already handled it (especially Squatter).

In reference to Aragorn and Arwen, I was under the impression that they weren't bonded in the fashion described in the quote until after they were officially married. I could be wrong, but if the quote means like it says: that you're now to stay with that person for "1000's upon 1000's of years" then how would Arwen still have the choice to go to Valinor? Wouldn't she have to cleave to Aragorn? I haven't read much of the histories or Unfinished Tales yet (aren't I a disgrace? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]), so this is just my opinion, not based on much fact.

[Bekah]

I agree. I don't think Arwen and Aragorn were bonded in the way Luthien was bonded with Beren until after their marriage. It wasn't the thing that their whole relationship revolved upon. And you guys are free to disagree if you want.

I think Elrond realized partially what was going on, but giving up your daughter, and letting her give up her immortality and her people is a big thing for a guy to do...especially if you don't know that those sacrifices will be worth it.

~ Elentari II

[Lush]

mortal elf, you have a point.

red, you expected Balrog wings?

[Orual]

Well, the thing is that the only defining requirement for marriage in the Church (don't take my word on this, though, I'm no theologian) is mutual consent on behalf of the two parties being married. The actual ceremony is formality and officiality, "for the record" and all that. If Beren and Lúthien decided that they were going to bind themselves to each other, be intimate solely with each other, in essence marry, then that's that. In essence, they're married.

Hence, "one night" for an elf signals a lasting, permanent and sacred commitment that will last unbroken and unbreakable ("indissoluble") for thousands upon thousands of years.

Choose wisely indeed. Ceremony is well and good, even preferable (as it makes matters official), but as long as they didn't...how shall I say this...get intimate with anybody but each other, they're married and in no sin.

Again, I am no theologian, but I'm pretty sure that what I said is correct.

Namárië,

~*~Orual~*~

[mark12_30]

With regard to Aragorn and Arwen: remember that when Aragorn was twentysomething he met Arwen in the woods, and Elrond figured out why he was starry eyed. He was still under Elrond's authority at that time. Here's Elrond's quote:

"Many years of trial lie before you. You shall neither have wife, nor bind any woman to you in troth, until your time comes and you are found worthy of it."
'Then Aragorn was troubled, and he said, "Can it be that my mother has spoken of this?"
"No indeed, " said Elrond. Your own eyes have betrayed you. But I do not speak of my daughter alone. You shall be betrothed to no man's child as yet. ..."

Then (after Galadriel set Aragorn up, and Elrond learned of it) Elrond tells Aragorn this: (I wonder if he was thinking of his brother Elros):
"Maybe it has been appointed so, that by my loss the kingship of men may be restored. Therefore, though I love you, I say to you: Arwen Undomiel shall not diminish her life's gracve for less cause. She shall not be the bride of any man less than the King of both Gondor and Arnor."

Aragorn accepted the challenge to make Arwen the queen of Arnor and Gondor. To do that, he's got to be a King, and he's got some footwork to do to make that happen.

Beren's challenge was not to make Luthien a queen, but to burglarize or otherwise obtain a Silmaril. Footwork involved was grueling but apolitical: go, get jewel, return.

In addition, Thingol's challenge was designed to destroy Beren and get rid of him, and Luthien joined in Beren's quest to avoid losing him. I don't think that he could have fulfilled the quest without her.

In contrast, Elrond's challenge was intended to raise Aragorn up and challenge him to come into his inheritance in the fullest sense: that of freeing Middle-Earth. And if Arwen had gone with Aragorn, would it have helped him in his quest?

Arwen's gifting, it seems to me, lies more in "watching over him in thought from afar", like Galadriel. I can't imagine Arwen turning Aragorn into a werewolf, or herself into a bat. It's not her style. She does Osanwe, not skin-changing. So would she really have been helpful if she had physically come long on the quest? Or was she more useful behind the lines? I tend to think the latter.

(We don't see Galadriel trooping off with the Fellowship either, and we don't expect her to. She belongs in the woods, wielding hre ring, doing Osanwe, sending Halbarad, etc.)

So, do I doubt that Aragorn and Arwen were physically involved before Aragorn was crowned? Yes; for one thing, they both knew the conventions, Aragorn having been raised by Elrond and not by men; for another, Aragorn accepted Elrond's challenge to make Arwen a queen; and for a third, Aragorn and Arwen were not going off together in peril, wanderings, or war or other forms of duress mentioned by Tolkien in his discussion.

Luthien: to love is to give; to serve; greater love has no man (or elf-woman) than this: to lay down one's life for another.

Arwen: Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Both true.

[Tar-Palantir]

Poor Aragorn, 87 years without any? And Arwen, almost 3 millenia? Ouch... I assume they both kept themselves... ummm 'pristine'? Since they met when Aragorn was young (20?), and he knew she was one hot tamale, he probably waited. And judging from what I read a few posts up about the elvish views on the physical side of love, that Arwen too had waited (did I mention the 3 millenia??).

I suppose this long wait was far from common, most men and hobbits don't live long enough for that kind of torture. But what I find strange also (yet another segue from the topic, sorry) is that Bilbo especially never got hitched. Neither did Frodo. Neither did Gimli, or most dwarven males for that matter. Legolas might have found someone to 'betrothe' later if he made it to Valinor, but even so, that is a loooooong dry spell he endured. What about Saruman, and Gandalf? What about how long the Ents have been without the Entwives? A reeeeaaallllly long time. So does it seem to anyone else like the shorter your lifespan is the quicker you need to buffer the population numbers? And the longer you live, the less 'urgency' you may have? Sorry, but I have to come up with some kind of theory to justify this post! Because, I'll tell you, romantic love or just plain old procreation is ingrained in our DNA, it seems twisted to deprive these characters of their needs for so long.

Happy Valentine's Day! hehehe...

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Bekah]

Bother! I lost my copy of the LOTR. Could someone please look up for me how long Aragorn ruled? He had a pretty long life-span, I know that...and hobbits seem to live a little longer than most humans, and they don't 'come of age' until the age of 33. Dwarves? They live for about twice the life-span of most humans. As for elves...they're immortal. If anyone wants to know the relevance of this, it's in response to something Tar-Palantir said.

Anyway, I'd rather not contemplate the sexual feelings of the people of Middle-earth. It's either a long, long, long time ago, on another planet, or on another world (Narnia?), and for all of those options Tolkien wrote the story not knowing that it was true. Or else, the most common theory, it doesn't exist. For all of those theories, the peoples are different from us. So they might not feel the same way about sex as we do, living here and now.

But I still like reading these intelligent posts in a good, friendly debate. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

~ Elentari II

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Bekah ]

[Diamond18]

Actually I don't think Tolkien thought that far into the matter for it to be an issue in his writing. I mean, roughly 3,000 years not just without sex, but without romance or any kind of boy/girl relationship? What did they do all that time? (Remember, Arwen was old by the time she met Aragorn, so she didn't have him to look forward to all those years.)

Of course, the point has been made that Elves are immortal so maybe there's no urgency to get hitched, have children to ensure posterity, so on.

But, they did mate, so we must assume they had some sex drive. Or not?

As I said before, from the quotes Helen provided it sounds very "ideal" in the sense of "unrealistic". I mean, it reads as if this permanent union never to be dissolved marraige was not just the way it would be in a perfect world, but the way it was. Now, we know that in our world the proscribed customs are not always followed and not everyone believes in the same truths. Our world isn't a perfect place where what is good and pure reigns. And neither was Middle-earth, ever since Melkor got his hands on it.

What I'm saying is that Middle-earth seems to be represented as a fallen world in every aspect except sex. I mean, so far the worst scenario has been unhappy and loveless marraiges. But since Middle-earth isn't a perfect world, why don't we have playboy elves or loose she-elves? Or are they just "loser-elves" who didn't deserve to be mentioned in the great tales? Should we assume that they were present in the world but not mentioned in the books because of the chaste nature of Tolkien's writings, or did they really not exist in Arda?

Elves were not above greed and murder, so why should we think they were above lust?

Though I can't really picture Tolkien sitting at his desk thinking "How long can they endure without sex before they snap?"

That's Lush's department. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Bekah]

Yes...but not only is this bonding the way it was, it is for some people, the way it is. I'm not saying they live happily ever after, or don't argue, or whatever...but they really love each other so much that they would willingly give their immortality for them, as Arwen and Luthien did...only they're already mortal. My point is, if you check out the lives of those people who end up being divorced, they're not happy. Some people who are married, of course, aren't happy, but most long-standing marriages are happy.

~ Elentari II

[Marigold Hedgeworth]

Once I'd read this thread I found a copy of the Catechism to look up exactly what the Catholic Church says about marriage, just to see what Tolkien would be drawing from, if he was, in fact, trying to reconcile his writing and the Church. Here's what I found:

In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church.

And skipping a bit farther on:

Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses); the public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

Now, assuming that elves and 'early' men were a bit more apt to keep their word than those of us today, it would seem that beginning a marriage with the...err..consummation wouldn't be a problem.

Beginning with consummation. That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]. I think I'll just go to bed now, so I can stop making my poor little brain work so hard [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img].

[Tar-Palantir]

So for the Eldar, if they did not bond in time of crisis by consumating in the night, then you needed some witnesses and a minister from the 'Church of Eru' to wed you? Is that right? No church of Eru? So just witnesses then?

What about Hobbits, they have no churches as far as I know, filthy little Hobbitsess.

Woses, Dunlendings? Rohirrim? Church of the Charging Steed?

I just realized that the complete lack of sex in LotR is counter-balanced by the complete lack of an organized religion - not a single pew to be found. Hmmm... coincindental?

Bekah - on the subject of ages this is my judgement, in list form for easier digestion:
Hobbits, Men - short
Dwarves, Numenorean - medium
Elves, Maia (Gandalf, Saruman), Ents - REALLY long
BTW- Aragorn lived to 210 years.

cheers,
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I would like to add a Biblical quote to this discussion, the very first mention of marriage in the Bible, before the Fall of Man into sin, mind you!

Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24, KJV)

Though it was Adam who said it, in my King James Bible, there's a heading over the three verses from which this is taken: 'God institutes marriage'. Originally, nothing more was needed to make a marital bond binding but the union, exclusively and obviously physically, of two persons. Perhaps Tolkien was taking his story, which is intended to be prehistoric for our present world, back to the original principle of marriage that is accounted in Genesis. He would most certainly have been familiar with the story of creation as told there.

Another sociological aspect that has not yet been mentioned here is the history of ‘common-law’ marriages, which were traditionally considered legally binding without a formal ceremony or document. Perhaps someone knows more details about that than I do.

[mark12_30]

More from Alfwine's preamble, HoME, Morgoth's Ring:

The Eldar grew in bodily form slower than men, but in mind more swiftly. They learned to speak before they were one year old; and in the same time they learned to walk and to dance, for their wills came soon to the mastery of their bodies....

The Eldar wedded only once in life, and for love or at least by free will upon either part. Even when in after days, as the histories reveal, many of the Eldar in Middle-Earth became corrupted, and their hearts darkened by the shadow that lies upon Arda, seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them.

[Marigold Hedgeworth]

Tar,I wasn't trying to say that witnesses were required for marriage(although I think they would be, in more conventional situations). I was trying to point out that giving one's word seems to have been much more of a serious thing in Middle Earth than it is in our modern world. (Feanor and sons, for example. They didn't go back on their word, no matter how much they hated what they had to do.) If this was the case, then witnesses wouldn't have been an absolute necessity, since the partners weren't likely to go back on what they were promising each other. Sorry if that was a bit ambiguous.

As for hobbits and marriage, I seem to remember having read something, somewhere about the Mayor officiating at Shire weddings. I can't find this quote for the life of me, so I may have just dreamed it up. Does anyone know if such a passage exists, and what book it's in if it does?

And on a rather unrelated note, I just realized that my earlier post could be read as advocating pre-marital sex. In point of fact, I'm staunchly opposed to sex outside of marriage. Just for the record [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .

Mari

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mari,

I don't recall that about hobbit marriages. In HoMe, Tolkien says that hobbits keep their engagements secret and often run off to elope. He does allude to the possibilty of a "ceremony" but doesn't say anything about who officiates or the form it

JRRT once toyed with the idea of having Bilbo disappear from the Shire by eloping (at a younger age than 111!), with the subsequent birth of a son.

BTW, when I read the Luthien/Beren scene, I immediately had the same impression as Lush, but I set that impression within the context which Mark12_30 sets forward, the exchange of private vows before Eru. My impression is that, Man or not, Beren would have gone to extraordinary lengths to please the one whom he loved, and would have respected her traditions.

By the same token, I agree with Marigold that folk took their promises very seriously in Middle-earth. Even among the hobbits, divorce or remarriage was said to be virtually unknown.

If Beren pledged his life and love to Luthien, I think he would see that as forever binding. For this reason, I don't think we can equate the modern incidence of premarital sex (whether you think it's a 'bad' thing or not) with what happened between these two characters. The context and usual intention is totally different.

sharon

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Magician of Nathar]

A very...interesting topic.
Here is my two penny worth of thoughts

Elves were not above greed and murder, so why should we think they were above lust?

Well, i rather think they aren't. Remember Maglor?

[red]

Should we assume that they(unchaste elves) were present in the world but not mentioned in the books because of the chaste nature of Tolkien's writings, or did they really not exist in Arda? (parentheses mine)

Arda itself does not exist outside of Tolkien's writings so this question is moot. Actually your very first sentence, Diamond, is the key:

Actually I don't think Tolkien thought that far into the matter for it to be an issue in his writing.

And that's that.

[the mortal elf]

Remember Maglor?

*shudders* actually, I'd rather not. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, I was just reading through these continually excellent points of view when a quote came to mind. I perceive it as having relevance, but I'm having trouble putting it into words. Infer all you like. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Elrond:

...On him alone is any charge laid.....The others go with himas free companions to help him on his way. You may tarry, or come back, or turn aside into other paths, as the chance allows. The further you go, the less easy it will be to withdraw; yet no oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will....

(other conversations)

Gimli:

Yet strong word may strengthen quaking heart.

I'm trying to put my connections into words, but it probably won't make much sense. We were talking about how as long as you're devoted to the person, marriage is just an official ceremony, possibly to help you in times of trouble because "strong word may strengthen quaking heart." I related marriage to the fellowship, which might not be proper or relevant, but you can draw your own conclusions.

[Lush]

A very...interesting topic.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to start these topics.

Here is what I can add to the discussion so far: Celegorm is a great example of an Elf that was definitely not above lust. He was the illustrius dude that kept Lúthien captive, and wanted to marry her against her will, and against Elvish custom, as I recall.

And relating marriage to the Fellowship is an intersting and, I think, relevant way of thinking about this.

[the mortal elf]

Thanks Lush, for starting this topic in the first place and for the compliment. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Tar-Palantir]

Actually I don't think Tolkien thought that far into the matter for it to be an issue in his writing.

That, is not that [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] He obviously decribed in his letters, as posted above, what was required for a union between the Eldar. He included in his books weddings of various sorts alongside instances of lust. The tales are simply incomplete in certain details of the process and more importantly, what was their standard?? What policies did most people adhere to? How prevalent was deviant behavior? Who was prone to be the deviant one (men v. women, humans v. elves)?

Like Estelyn said, he was presumably writing a prehistory to our modern day world. That is why I believe Tolkien most certainly thought about it, when studying histories of varying cultures this subject is eminently worthy of attention, given that every culture you could wish to study is invariably different regarding marriage and man/wowan relationships.

I prefer to think he rejected the idea of greatly broaching the subject because it would do little to further improve the richness of this story without causing mountains of problems. In example, I doubt he wanted to get stuck between A) including (according to his beliefs) deviant sexual behavior; or B) writing a manual of how perfect or ideal love should manifest itself.

No offense intended, but I think the argument that a legally binding document is necessary today because someone's word 'back then' was worth more is a huge pile of hooey. The idea that the our societys today don't know how to express and interpret love anymore is a better argument.

Cheers,
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Kalimac]

Lush, great topic. And Squatter, I'm impressed as always [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

Orual - your point about the church is well taken. I was brought up Catholic, and from what I remember, the situation NOW is that the marriage must be officiated by a priest, who of course automatically witnesses the thing.

But in early and even late medieval times it was very different; all that was needed was that the two parties involved make a vow to each other, followed by consummation (in fact, it was common for consummation to follow the betrothal, and not wait until the actual ceremony). The vow had to be made, but consummation was what put it into force, so to speak - simply making vows to each and not doing anything would not have the binding force of a marriage. There was a case in about the 14th century, I *think* in the Paston family (but don't quote me on that) where a high-born girl had married a young man beneath her in social standing, and what they had done was simply make vows to each other and then consummate. Her family tried to get it annulled, but the two were examined separately by a bishop and asked what words they had used to make their vows. Their versions of what they had said were identical, so they were declared to be officially married.

I'm guessing that it's like that for the Elves; witnesses are nice but not necessary; the vow and the consummation together are what make the marriage. I haven't read too much about Beren and Luthien so can't pronounce one way or the other, but if they've vowed to be faithful to each other and then slept together, I'm betting that Tolkien is regarding that as either a marriage or a very close equivalent.

Also, one other point. Tolkien was indeed a very serious Catholic, but he was also an artist, and his characters came to life under his pen while he wrote about them. The first thing a fiction-writer learns is that you do not control the story so much as your characters do, and sometimes they'll spring up and do things that you didn't expect, or hadn't planned. (Think of Pushkin's famous comment on finishing Eugene Onegin: "Did you know my Tatiana has rejected Onegin? I never would have expected it of her.") Even if Luthien had slept with Beren on a whim and with no commitment - only a marriage by the strictest Old Testament definition, and even that's arguable - it wouldn't necessarily say anything about Tolkien's views on the Church. I try to live according to the rules of religion - well, most of the time, anyway - but that does not mean that every story I write will have people behaving as the Church thinks they should, even the protagonists. Stories just don't work like that.

[Bekah]

There's also a verse in Genesis that says that a man will leave his house and parents and cleave to his wife

This is a quote of my first post on this thread, in response to Estelyn's later, though more specific, quoting of that verse. But I'm glad that someone else other than me thought it was relevant...

And now I'm going to read all these interesting posts that sprang up while I was at church (it's Sunday over here).

~ Elentari II

P.S. I have nothing to add...

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Bekah ]

[Nuranar]

This is indeed a fascinating topic. I wish I could offer my dos pesetas, but alas I have not done the reading I feel necessary to have an adequate understanding. I do want to respond to something, however.

Squatter, your post was excellent; I both enjoyed and appreciated your insightful and sensitive exposition. I just had a quick comment about one thing:

However, the Bible also says

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love,
I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I Corinthians XIII:1)
All loveless states and actions are as nothing, and Tolkien has extrapolated this in his portrayal of Beren and Lúthien, although he has almost certainly stepped beyond the bounds of official doctrine in so doing. (boldface mine)

I agree; no matter how "good" or noble or beneficial the action, without love it means absolutely nothing. The love that Paul writes of here, however, is probably not the love that existed between Beren and Lúthien. (I used an online lexicon available here.

In New Testament Greek, I found two different kinds of love: agape and phileo. Phileo is defined as:

1. to love: to approve of; to like; sanction; to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend
2. to show signs of love: to kiss
3. to be fond of doing: be wont, use to do

I would say romantic love falls in this category. It is the root from whence comes philadelphia, brotherly love.

By contrast, agape means:

brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence

This is the love found in I Corinthians 13:1. From scanning a lexicon, I see that Paul (the author of I Corinthians) uses it almost exclusively to refer to the love of God, of Christ Jesus, and of the Spirit.

From various sermons and Bible studies I had thought there was a third kind of love. I have e-mailed my father (he has studied NT Greek), and if he confirms I will update this post.

I really appreciate your post, Squatter; I just wanted to clarify that small point. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lush]

Don't forget eros, Nuranar, the third kind of love.

[Diamond18]

Yes, but wouldn't bringing that one up be a little redundant, Lush? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

red (note the lower-case r...):

Arda itself does not exist outside of Tolkien's writings so this question is moot.

I only meant that just because Tolkien didn't describe it doesn't automatically mean he viewed it as not being there. For instance, I don't recall him ever talking about bathrooms and the biological plumbing system, but I think it's safe to assume that people performed that bodily function. That's somewhat along the lines of how I was thinking about lust and fornification in Arda.

But Helen came through again and answered the questions posed in my inane ramblings with another Alfwine quote:

Even when in after days, as the histories reveal, many of the Eldar in Middle-Earth became corrupted, and their hearts darkened by the shadow that lies upon Arda, seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them.

But as to this:

Well, i rather think they aren't [above lust]. Remember Maglor?

I must admit that even though I read the Silmarillion and I know who Maglor is (2nd son of Fëanor, he's even on the front of my copy of the Sil, for pity's sake) I have no idea what you're talking about.