Original Sin in Arda

[doug*platypus]

A sub-topic of Mhoram's Inherent Evil? thread. A search on Original Sin didn't turn up a lot of answers, and so I thought it would be good to separate this out and see what everyone's thoughts were.

The following quote is from an excellent post by Bill Ferny on the Eru Letting Melkor Go thread:

When ever the Eru issue pops up, its seems that most want to limit Tolkien’s vision the Christian mythos. This is probably accurate to some degree, as the monotheism in the Silm is most like Tolkien’s own Christian beliefs. Its quite possible that to some degree Tolkien modeled Eru and his cosmology on the Christian mythos. Its pretty much all there, creation from nothing, a fallen angel, and a fallen creation. But I don’t think that Christianity is the only influence at work here, and I think that Tolkien consciously diverged from the Christian mythos in some very notable ways.
What always strikes me is the ambiguity around fallen Middle-Earth. Is Middle-Earth fallen because of Melkor’s fall? This seems to be the direction that Tolkien took. Middle-Earth is stained by the presence of Melkor. It was Melkor’s music that marred Arda to begin with. That, however, is very different from the Christian mythos. In the Christian mythos, Adam’s fall, not Satan’s, corrupts the world. Death, suffering, etc., etc., is brought about by sin, the sin of human beings. For those who reduce Eru and Tolkien’s cosmology to the Christian mythos, this is a huge inconsistency.

There are fundamental differences between the cosmology of Middle-Earth and Christian cosmology (not to mention anthropology as well). No doubt there are certain Christian elements in the Silm; for example, the emergence of evil becomes an opportunity for Eru to show forth his glory. This is very much like the sin of Adam becoming an opportunity for God to show forth his infinite mercy through the cross. However, Tolkien is not CS Lewis. Tolkien was not only a devout Catholic, but from all I’ve seen he was a very knowledgeable one as well. So, I’m forced to conclude that he knowingly diverged from the Christian mythology. Why? I don’t know, but in a way, I’m glad he did.


- Bill Ferny

So, man was sinless until Adam/Eve? Then how about Elves, Dwarves, Men, Ainur in Tolkien's world? Did Melkor commit the original sin? Did Fëanor?? Or was every sentient being brought into Ëa with the capacity for sin?

[Bill Ferny]

Since Doug opened the can of worms, here's my conclusion regarding Eru if I'm right in my assessment of how Arda fell:

Because Melkor marred Arda before their awakening, we have no choice but to concede that Eru forced elves, men and dwarves (and hobbits) to live in a fallen world. Likewise, there really isn’t original sin in Middle-Earth, or at least original sin as is in the Christian mythos. Evil didn’t come into the world by the choice of elf, dwarf or man. However, since Middle-Earth is a fallen world because of Melkor, the condition of original sin definitely exists in Middle-Earth. So elves, dwarves and humans, though they didn’t initially sin, have to suffer from the condition of original sin. Hmmm… That seems a bit unfair, don’t you think?

Not only that, but elves, for some random reason, just because they were the first to awake, don’t have to suffer from all the effects of a fallen condition. This remains true despite Fëanor’s rebellion and the kin slaying! On top of that they get a nice big retirement house where they get to sit around indefinitely and drink cocktails with the Valar! Grrrrr… That seems extremely unfair!

Like the Númenórians, I would probably be a little peeved off too!

[Galorme]

There was an original sin of man. It is told about more in Morgoth's Ring. When men had just awoke they turned away from the Voice or Eru and worshiped Melkor and did evil things. The Edain were the ones who repented and fled him. Tolkein decided the original fall of Man should remain ambiguous though. The whole mythos is about a set of Falls. The elves fall due to the Kin-slayings of the Bay of Swans, the fall of Dior and the Battle at the Havens. Men fall twice, one the original fall that we aren't supposed to know about and the second fall when Numinor is destroyed. Man did not fall in the same way Adam and Eve did, but they fell nonetheless. Did this mean they forever had Original Sin? Well they carried the repercussions of it (shorter life, fear of death etc)

[Voronwe]

It is important to distinguish between the Marring (or fall) of Arda, and the Fall of Man. They are quite different things in Tolkien's work (unlike in Christianity where they are equivalent), though both were the work of Morgoth. Possibly Tolkien felt this distinction was required because there were other races in Arda besides men - all races live in a fallen and imperfect world, yet an independent fall of man is necessary for consistency with Tolkien's own beliefs.

The Marring of Arda seems pretty much to be a direct result of Melkor's own Fall during the Music of the Ainur. Arda was marred during its creation (or before, since in the Music only the uncreated vision was marred), and marred further by Melkor dissipating his evil through its substance. This concept of the corruption of Arda by Melkor was present in some of the very earliest work of Tolkien (the pre-1920 'Music of the Ainur') and underlies much of his mythology, though he only seems to refer to it explicitly in later writings.

The Fall of Man is a more complex and less certain issue. A myth of the fall exists - the 'Tale of Adanel' which is part of the Appendix to the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth. Tolkien stresses that the legend may or may not be true, though he does say that it is 'no doubt mainly derived from actual lore of the People of Marach'. It is certain that a Fall of Man took place in Middle Earth (from other sources), and this is the only legend of the fall Tolkien gives. It differs from the Biblical story of the fall in a number of respects.

In the 'Tale of Adanel', Men fall because, corrupted by Morgoth, they turn away from Eru, who is to them a 'voice in our hearts', and begin worshiping Morgoth as a god. As I see it, the actual moment at which the fall occurs is this - when Men build Morgoth a temple and bow down before it:

Then in fear we spoke as he commanded, saying: 'Thou art the Lord; Thee only we will serve. The Voice we abjure and will not hearken to it again.'
'So be it!' he said. 'Now build Me a house upon a high place, and call it the House of the Lord. Thither I will come when I will. There ye shall call on Me and make your petitions to Me.'
And when we had built a great house, he came and stood before the high seat, and the house was lit as with fire. 'Now,' he said, 'come forth any who still listen to the Voice.'
There were some, but for fear they remained still and said naught. 'Then bow before Me and acknowledge Me!' he said. And all bowed to the ground before him, saying: 'Thou art the One Great, and we are Thine.'

In a sense Tolkien's Fall of Man is much deeper and more tragic than the Biblical one. The Fall of Man in Genesis is merely, as Milton put it, "man's first disobedience", whereas in the Tale of Adanel the entire race of men reject Eru and take Melkor as their god, though some do this only out of fear.

What then are the consequences of this fall? In both Genesis and the 'Tale of Adanel' the consequence of original sin is death, though, as I see it, there is a difference between the two in what this means. In the 'Tale of Adanel', Eru speaks to the fallen men as follows:

'Ye have abjured Me, but ye remain Mine. I gave you life. Now it shall be shortened, and each of you in a little while shall come to Me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him.'

In brief, I see man's unfallen state in Arda as having free will with regard to death - the original Gift of Eru was for men to live in Arda for as long as they desired, and to choose the time of their leaving it. However, after the fall Eru limited men's lifespan, taking away their freedom of choice concerning death, since having been corrupted by Melkor men feared death rather than saw it as the gift it was intended to be. This was in part a punishment for the fall, and, perhaps, in part an act of mercy, since even men completely under the shadow of Morgoth would eventually die and be released, to go to Eru and learn the truth.

Evidence that men, in Tolkien's work, had free will with regard to death before they fell is provided by the following rather interesting passage (again from the Athrabeth appendix):

The passing 'oversea', therefore, of Mortals after the Catastrophe - which is recorded in the Lord of the Rings - is not quite the same thing [as the passing oversea of the Elves]. It was in any case a special grace. An opportunity for dying according to the original plan for the unfallen: they went to a state in which they could acquire greater knowledge and peace of mind, and being healed of all hurts both of mind and body, could at last surrender themselves: die of free will, and even of desire, in estel. A thing which Aragorn achieved without any such aid.

A little more discussion of what I just mentioned can be found on this rather dusty thread.

To this discussion I would add one more point: as I see it (though there will be many here more knowledgeable on the subject than myself) in Christianity with the fall comes the possibility of redemption, through Christ. So too in Middle Earth: in the Athrabeth Finrod believes that the only way Melkor's Marring of Men and of Arda can be healed is through the incarnation of Eru Iluvatar. Finrod also speaks of 'Arda Remade' - not merely an unfallen world, but something greater still, accomplished through men. This Arda Remade takes Melkor's Marring of Arda by Melkor and turns it back on itself, making good out of evil. From Ainulindalë:

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

Which, I think, sums it up very poetically.

[Bill Ferny]

I agree that Tolkien included the fall of man. However, there is still a serious repercussion in making the fall of Arda separate from the fall of elf/human/dwarf, and this repercussion indicates something about Eru that makes Eru very different from the Christian God.

The Christian God, when He creates human beings, gives them everything, and every chance. It is through human disobedience that all of creation is corrupted, thus all human suffering and the multiplication of sin has at its root human free will. Eru, however, has elf/human/dwarf awake in a world where they are destined for failure because that world in which they awake is already fallen. Suffering, doubt, violent death (a free choosing when someone dies is not freedom from violent death; violent death means a rending of the human person because of the separation of the rational soul from the body), misconception, and shadowed perception all exist as a pre-condition of Arda. In other words, what we Christians would call the condition of original sin already existed before elf/human/dwarf.

Given such a condition, how could one expect that all elves/humans/dwarves would not eventually sin? Is not the condition of Arda excuse enough for humans to worship Melkor? I mean, they are already suffering the pains of a fallen world, given to doubt, facing a great unknown after death, capable of misconstruing even the most simple aspects of reality. Is it any wonder that a powerful figure like Melkor should eventually fool suffering elf/human/dwarf. Don’t forget that Melkor managed to fool many of the Valar, themselves, for a time.

I just don’t see how the Tale of Adanel can speak of how human beings are abjured by Eru, and how Eru can punish human beings by shortening their lives when the fall of human beings seems to be caused more by Eru’s incompetence than a short coming on the part of humans.

True one can argue that despite fallen nature, elves/humans/dwarves would still have free-will. In every discussion about free-will on this forum, the Christian perspective has never really been adequately explained. I don’t presume to do so here, mainly because this post would become a short book. But let it suffice to say that while free-will is a natural power, free will in a fallen condition (for the Christian) can not achieve its greatest liberty… the freedom to choose rightly. In the Christian mythos, the law of the old disposition (Old Testament) is present because humans no longer have the ability to choose rightly given their own devises, because of their fallen condition. Not until the new disposition of Jesus Christ has grace made it possible for human free-will to choose rightly free of the law. Only via grace, can human beings choose rightly despite a fallen condition.

Now in Tolkien’s mythology, there is no Christ-figure, and thus no allegory for grace. Elves/humans/dwarves, therefore, if we are to take Tolkien’s faith seriously, would not have the ability to choose rightly, and thus their free-will can not achieve its greatest liberty. So, even though, elves/humans/dwarves do have free-will, Tolkien couldn’t possibly conceive of them choosing rightly given the fallen condition of Arda, and on top of that, the presence of a figure like Melkor in the world.

So, I’m still forced to concede that Eru is a mean god.

[ January 07, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[doug*platypus]

Admittedly, the whole concept is easier in our one world, because we only have one race of so-called sentient beings, humans. The repercussions of the Original Sin of Adam/Eve, humans, were felt by other humans.

Bill, I don't see how the Fall of Melkor could possibly have had repercussions for the Children of Eru (and Aulë) - is that not dissimilar to what Original Sin is about?

The Athrabeth surely is case enough to show that the Race of Men were to be subject to the Christian concept of Original Sin, although unless I'm wrong Athrabeth isn't exactly canonical (what year was it written, by the way?). Did Elves and Dwarves have to experience similar Falls in order to bring Sin and its repercussions into their worlds. Surely the Fall of Man would not have had connotations for the other races?

Could the races be ranked in terms of righteousness (or sinfulness) by their lifespans - Ents, Elves, Dwarves, Men/Hobbits? If Eru shortened the lifespan of Men because of their Fall, might he have done the same for the other Races? Elves are "not quite immortal" according to some.

Bill, what exactly do you mean by "choosing rightly"? Choosing to worship God/Eru? Gar... so many questions...

[Mithadan]

There are two elements to Arda Marred. The first is Melkor's disruption of the Music of the Ainur. The second is Melkor's actual influence on the stuff of Arda itself. For a time, Melkor worked with the Valar in constructing Arda. Then he rebelled openly so that nothing was ever as planned. Mountains were raised and he toppled them. Seas were filled and he spilled them. So he had his hands in all aspects of Arda'a assembly and, infused everything with his taint.

The Osanwë Kenta is also relevant to this discussion. There, it is revealed that Melkor's nature was, at bottom, that of the ultimate anarchist. He wanted to do what he wanted, when he wanted. In the Osanwë Kenta it is revealed that the Valar were subject to two sets of restrictions: those things that should not be done and those things that cannot be done. It relates that Melkor strove to do all things which should not be done and raged against the second set of rules which governed what is possible and impossible within Arda. This is why he was released after his imprisonment by the Valar. Manwë could not conceive that any of the Valar would wish to violate the first set of rules.

The Children of Iluvatar, being made of the stuff of the earth, were made up of Arda Marred. Melkor's marring became part of them and was the ultimate source of any "Fall". Further, the second set of rules (things which are impossible to do) prevented Melkor from changing the fundamental nature of Elves and Men; he could not make Men deathless (or if they were deathless, take that aspect of their being away) or make Elves mortal. But his violations of the first set of rules allowed him to twist them or cause them to misunderstand their natures. So he could cause Men to fear and hate Eru's Gift of mortality.

So accepting Tolkien's words and thoughts rather than seeking allegory or implication requires the view that Middle Earth, indeed all of Arda, was tainted by Melkor and that the Marring of Arda is the root source of evil.

[ January 07, 2003: Message edited by: Mithadan ]

[Kalessin]

I agree with the view skilfully argued by Mithadan and Bill that there is not a symbolic equivalent or allegory for the Christian concept of Original Sin.

Having said that, whilst the chronology and nature of the fall, from Melkor's discordant music onward, make parallels difficult, in the more general context of the sensibility behind the mythos, the way in which Original Sin arises in an apparently perfect world created by an omnipotent, omniscient (and ultimately Good) Divine Will can have some resonance in our reading of Tolkien.

The metaphysical paradox is something that has cropped up on various threads recently, but beyond the technical issues I would suggest that the parallel is more relevant to our intuitive understanding of how creation (and sub-creation) is not the same as control, and is perhaps necessarily subject to change and discord - apart from the eternal aspect of the Divine. It might be going out on a limb to say that change is necessary, or that discord serves a purpose, but for the reader familiar with the Christian cosmology the nature of creation, fall and redemption (such as it is) found in Tolkien would be familiar.

The aspect of eternal, ultimate Divinity, and the cosmological narrative, is far more of a relevant factor in The Silmarillion than LotR and in my view accounts for some of the critical differences between the works. I would argue that LotR is far more an artefact of storytelling within an admittedly highly developed context (and therefore with great 'continuity', structural integrity and depth of self-reference - quite modern literary elements), while The Sil is more of a (fictional) act of record.

Of course, the record contains stories, and the story reflects the record, and the author's hand is evident throughout, but I think the distinction, however subtle or incomplete, can be reasonably argued. But, as I have not read any contextual works (like all good dilettantes I prefer to purloin my academic understanding of Tolkien, from the many erudite posts of self-evident experts here at BD [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) I am sure there is much more to this!

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[Bill Ferny]

Doug,

Yeah, there are a lot of questions [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

As far as the fall of Melkor having repercussions for the children of Eru… I don’t understand it myself. It is apparent that Melkor’s fall marred Arda, both in the music and with his physical presence, and as Mithadan so well illustrated, his fall becomes wrapped up into the being of Eru’s children, because they are made of the stuff of the earth, the very stuff that Melkor has stained. Elf/dwarf/human, therefore, are fallen from the time of their awakening, but by no conscious act of their own. Thus the condition of, with out committing the act of, original sin (or at least the original sin that a Christian would concieve). For one who would reduce Tolkien’s mythology to a Christian cosmology, this is a huge inconsistency, and indicates to me, at least, that Tolkien isn’t using as his primary source the Christian cosmology at all. Admittedly, the Christian cosmology allows for a much more just deity than Eru.

As far as punishment in life span, I’m really at a lose. Elves in the Silm, at least from my reading, and according to my take (which, of course, may be colored by my dwarven prejudice against elves) seems to demonstrate that there were more nasty elves than nasty men, or at least elves who acted wrongly with much less justification. Féanor was just a stinker. Men, however twisted or evil they became, never saw, never experienced what Féanor had seen and experienced in Valinor. It would seem since Féanor and his kin fell from such a height, that their fall would bring upon their race a much greater punishment than the what befell the human race that never aspired to such great stature in the eyes of the Valar.

In what year the Athrabeth was written is an important question. I tend to take seriously Christopher Tolkien’s words in the introduction to the Silm where he says that many of his father’s latter revisions and adaptations were colored by philosophical and theological speculation that was contrary to his original mythology. I’m not sure when it was written, but if it was a latter writing or fruit of these latter philosophical and theological speculations, then at least in my mind it would suspect. Perhaps Tolkien was trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

(Choosing rightly: In Christian thought, especially that of Boetius, this aspect of freewill set Christian freewill apart from the mere practice of natural law. It was further developed by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Peter Abelard, and Jon Dons Scotus. Simply put, natural law enables humans to choose by the devices of human reason alone, greater goods. However, natural law alone cannot attain man’s true end, which is divination, or choosing The Good. Only via grace, the grace provided by the redemptive act of Christ, can human beings choose their ultimate final end (divination). Choosing rightly always included the will’s longing for divination, but the will can only be directed toward such an end given grace.)

Anyway, I think it can be argued that Tolkien’s cosmology is very much unchristian, and very much devoid of a principle of original sin, as is known by Christians. As Kalessin says, there is present an intuitive sense of creation, fall and redemption; I wouldn’t argue against it. But from a practical standpoint, Tolkien’s mythology is fundamentally different from the Christian mythos, and his work simply can’t be reduced to that model alone.

[Voronwe]

Due to lack of time I sadly won't be able to give the excellent posts made on this thread the response they obviously deserve. However I hope to be able to make one or two points, which I may be able to expand on later.

Firstly, Chris Tolkien dates the Athrabeth as being written in 1959, thus making it a fairly late work of Tolkien's. As Bill Ferny has pointed out, such late writings tend to focus more on the theological, philosophical and cosmological aspects of middle earth, rather than narrative, and the Athrabeth is clearly no exception. Nonetheless the Athrabeth is different from other such works in that it is presented as a dialogue between two characters, Finrod and Andreth. Thus all the philosophy presented in the Athrabeth, while it may be true or very close to the truth (if there is such a thing) is still speculation on the part of the two characters (mostly Finrod), rather than the voice of the author. Tolkien's voice is heard in the commentary to the work, but it is not clear whether he is speculating as, say, the translator would speculate in a commentary on his translation, or whether he is making authorative statements about Middle Earth. Since I know of no direct evidence for the latter, I tend to assume the former.

Turning now to Original Sin: my post above may have come off as comparing Tolkien's mythology too closely to Christianity. I was merely attempting to show that there was original sin (which is a very Christian concept) present in Tolkien's work (at least for men), though in radically altered, and perhaps less significant, form. Much of my post was devoted to analysing the 'Tale of Adanel', which, although it may not be historically true, is the only description of the original sin that Tolkien gives us.

I agree wholeheartedly that Tolkien's mythology is not equivalent, or even close to equivalent, to the Christian one. Nonetheless, Christian aspects arise in many places (as they are bound to, in a work of fiction on this scale). These aspects appear throughout the whole range of Tolkien's mythology: Heaven, hell and purgatory are essentially present in the Lost Tales (later abandoned of course), the Athrabeth is full of Christian concepts, and there are Christian concepts, of a different sort perhaps, in the Lord of the Rings, which have been discussed at length. Such things of course don't constitute allegory of any kind, which is just as well. I am sure there are just as many, if not more, connections (both obvious and subtle) with the Northern mythologies which Tolkien was so fond of.

I agree there is a significant problem with having an original sin affecting only men alongside a more general fallen world affecting all other races, and causing them to sin. Nonetheless, I don't believe it can be denied that some kind of fall of men (whether the one described in the Athrabeth or otherwise) occurred and was caused by Morgoth. It could be said, perhaps, that while the race of men fell all at once as a single race, only some of the elves and dwarves (and Ents?!) fell, due to their own individual deeds. All such falls would of course be an indirect result of Melkor's own fall. This is still, however, very unsatisfactory and doesn't even come close to resolving this most difficult of issues.

[lindil]

On the Authority of the Athrabeth of Finrod ah Andreth, on p. 303 of the american edition CJRT says that it

" ...is a major and finished work, and is reffered to elsewhere as if it had for my father some 'authority'.

He also wrote that either the Athrabeth be included as the last part of the Silmarillion. It is possible also that JRRT meant that the Athrabeth should be within the Silmarillion itself and that the commentary should be at the end. In either case it was for him a set of writings and ideas he never seriously modified or altered. As for it's date CJRT says between 1955-60 with 1959 as the most likely year.

It was closely associted with in both theme, time of writing and style with the Laws and Customs among the Eldar.

Bill ferny concluded with

Anyway, I think it can be argued that Tolkien’s cosmology is very much unchristian, and very much devoid of a principle of original sin, as is known by Christians. As Kalessin says, there is present an intuitive sense of creation, fall and redemption; I wouldn’t argue against it. But from a practical standpoint, Tolkien’s mythology is fundamentally different from the Christian mythos, and his work simply can’t be reduced to that model alone.

I would not say that the cosmology is 'very much un-Christian'. I would say that it is nearly as close as it could be while accounting for other races and a slightly different starting point of the Valar having a co-creative role in the formation and creation of Ea/Arda than we see [ I am not saying it was not so, but in the Old Testament/Torah we are not given any details as to the angels participation or lack there of] in the Biblical stories of Creation.

JRRT includes speculation [via Finrod] of the Incarnation of God and it's seeming necessity to repair the fall, a cornerstone of Christian cosmology if ever there was one.

That there are differeing details, yes, but as he grew older and his legendarium grew closer to 'Truth', it also grew closer to the cosmology which he understood to be Truth.

As he says in the Letters " ..and conciously so in the revision", refering to the implicit Christian underpinnings of the Legendarium.

I do agree that his work can not be reduced to the model of Christian accounts of the Fall alone, but I think to palce it against any other backdrop [in order to shed more light on it] and more imortantly to see it pointing in any other direction would be a mistake.

I personally see the Athrabeth as the Crown of the Legendarium, for in it he has the most noble of all of the Noldorin Princes stretching his mind out to encompass the depths of what a 'created' mind can discern of the creator, and seeing there - Christ.

You say that

In what year the Athrabeth was written is an important question. I tend to take seriously Christopher Tolkien’s words in the introduction to the Silm where he says that many of his father’s latter revisions and adaptations were colored by philosophical and theological speculation that was contrary to his original mythology. I’m not sure when it was written, but if it was a latter writing or fruit of these latter philosophical and theological speculations, then at least in my mind it would suspect. Perhaps Tolkien was trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

Suspect of what? Not being a considered and true part of his Legendarium?

The only square peg/round whole aspect I am aware of is that he, in order to give proper time for the fall to occur had to place the date of the arising of man further back than the 'flat world' cosmology [easily] allowed for.

That was a change he made based on wanting the legendarium to be more naturally realistic , than on theological grounds.

"many of his father’s latter revisions and adaptations were colored by philosophical and theological speculation that was contrary to his original mythology."

JRRT's original mythology was very far removed from the LotR/ published Silm that we have.

the Book of Lost Tales [c. 1917- early20's] was set in a pre-england/Ireland and while some characters and plots and motives were similar, virtually every aspect of the Legendarium underwent radical revision over the course of 50+ years.

There is no point that anyone other than JRRT could point to [and I doubt if he would!] and say " that was the pure and correct " legendarium. We can only go by his latest know thoughts and intentions.
the Athrabeth is certainly one of them and [in my opinion] the most important of them, and as Mithadan points out interwoven with the Osanwe-Kenta, another [ to my mind] essential work from the same period as well as the Laws and Customs among the Eldar.
JRRT's modifications and amplifications of the myth of the Fall within M-E and it's relationship to Morgoth were not isolated changes but were careful creations that were tightly interwoven thorughout the Legendarium. I would also add that IMO
the legendarium finally came to spiritual maturity during these years.

Also Bill F., I want to say that I greatly enjoyed your summary of Boetius and co. regarding natural law and grace.

[ January 10, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Bill Ferny]

the Book of Lost Tales [c. 1917- early20's] was set in a pre-england/Ireland and while some characters and plots and motives were similar, virtually every aspect of the Legendarium underwent radical revision over the course of 50+ years.

Aye, granted. I’ve spent a lot of time reviewing threads regarding Tolkien canon, and at first was amazed by the diversity illustrated throughout Middle-Earth’s development. A lot of posts in these threads caught details that I had missed during my casual reading. These threads also represent the ongoing debate over what should or should not be accepted as authoritative canon. I’m not going to attempt to get into what should or should not be considered authoritative canon; however, I do think its important in a discussion such as this to point out dichotomies in development, to pick apart and separate diverse, sometimes contrary, elements of Tolkien’s narrative and speculation over the years in order to answer the question: Did Tolkien succeed in consciously revising the text according to his Christian faith?

In regards to cosmology, though, I definitely see influences from non-Christian myths (but I wouldn’t consider myself an authority on the subject). It is especially apparent that Tolkien was familiar with the Gylfaginning saga. There is the void, called Ginnungagap in the Norse sagas, somewhat similar to Tolkien’s void (though the Greek chaos could fill the same role now that I think about it), and into Ginnungagap the world was created. The great serpent, Nidhogg, like Melkor, lives in the world, gnawing away at its roots. The parallel between Asgard and Valinor/the Aesir and the Valar is somewhat obvious. When Tolkien conceived the Dagor Dagorath, he had in mind the Norse Ragnarök. There are also many Celtic elements. The Undying Lands seem very similar to the Sidhe, the Otherworld, is explained in Celtic mythology, and Tolkien’s elves remind me very much of the Tuatha de Danann. I’m sure others could find other similarities and parallels with a plethora of other mythologies.

Any-who, its my premises that Tolkien started from these sources in the construction of his cosmology, and only afterwards, finding that his Christianity had unconsciously incorporated itself into his work, did he consciously revise his mythology according to his Christian faith and beliefs. In other words, there is a tension in both Tolkien’s speculations and narrative, between elements of non-Christian myths (as opposed to “unchristian” which on my part was probably the wrong term to use) and Tolkein’s Christian beliefs.

Like Doug and Voronwe point out, one of the biggest stumbling blocks in the revision probably was the existence of so many sentient races with different sources. Ents, elves, men, dwarves (and Valar and Maia for that matter) all share that Hildegardian cosmic center, but all have different origins and dooms, complicating x10 a notion of original sin. Tolkien is pretty much forced to present men (if Middle-Earth is a mythological set up for future redemption in Christ, which I think he wanted it to be) as sinning and falling. How to do so, given the entrenched cosmology of his world, was a bit tricky, or at least a bit tricky to get past us knit-pickers. (For what’s it worth, CS Lewis’ Aslan falls short in many ways as an allegory for Christ, but his tales of Narnia are still, simply put, awesome, both as story and as Christian allegory.)

So in answer to the above question: Tolkien never worked out this tension to his satisfaction. The end result still presents Eru as different in many ways from YHWH, and the world in which Tolkien’s characters live and play is different in many ways from the Christian world in which Tolkien wrote and prayed. Personally, I’m happy he didn’t, otherwise we wouldn’t be having discussions like this.

[Lady Of Light]

I think of it not as sin, but as what was bound to be. When Eru created the gods who would shape Arda, he left Melkor in for a purpose. All of the other gods were perfect and good. They would use their power to make Arda a beautiful place. But Melkor was perfectly evil. He had to include an evil, or "imperfect" god, because otherwise good would not exist. In the story of Adam and Eve, there is good and there is evil. They are placed in the Garden of Eden, which is a place of joy and enlightenment, but it had one bit of evil in it, the serpent. Just as Eru's gods have one bit of evil, Melkor. Adam and Eve could have chosen not to follow the serpent, but they did. Men could have not chosen to follow Melkor, but they did. People say that these are sins, but I disagree. Men both in real life and in Middle-earth are both imperfect, therefore "sin" is inevitable. That raises the question, were we meant to sin? I believe so, so I think that what we call sinning is just a part of life that must be accepted. Elves and men do not live in a fallen world, just a normal one. You cannoy appreciate the light unless it is intermingled with darkness.

[doug*platypus]

The comparisons between Christian doctrine and the world of Arda with regard to Original Sin seem to fall short in one very important respect. Whereas the Original Sin of Adam paved the way for Christ to become the path to salvation for all humans, there does not seem to be a convincing Christ figure in Middle-Earth. I have seen the arguments for both Frodo and Gandalf as this figure both come under heavy fire and not stand up as a result.

Did Tolkien intend for his invented world to blend in seamlessly with his real, Christian world, and Christ to atone for the sins of Melkor or Fëanor? I find this unlikely - it is rubbing out the line between his fiction and his reality, which I don't believe The Professor would have done. I don't think he ever entertained the notion of his invented world being real, in spite of its incredible authenticity.

So does Original Sin not need a redeeming Christ-figure for it to happen? Or is there, quite simply no Original Sin in Arda?

[Bill Ferny]

Lady,

He had to include an evil, or "imperfect" god, because otherwise good would not exist… Men both in real life and in Middle-earth are both imperfect, therefore "sin" is inevitable. That raises the question, were we meant to sin? I believe so, so I think that what we call sinning is just a part of life that must be accepted.

This apparently is a rather popular notion these days. However, its not the position of mainstream Christianity, and especially not the position of the Catholic world view that Tolkien shared. I’m not going to write this out again, so I’m copying and pasting from another thread:

Evil is simply an absence of good. Something is evil in as much as it is, to one degree or another, not what it ought to be. That presupposes that that something has a nature, which in and of itself is good, and it is evil to the degree that it fails to actualize it’s nature. Thus all evils are a corruption of things made good. Good things are more in being, because their natures are more actualized, and evil things are less in being because their natures are less actualized. This is the metaphysic accepted by Tolkien’s religious faith, Catholicism, and I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate to me, from direct narrative or latter speculations, that he had any other metaphysic in mind when he conceived the creation and fall of Arda… Melkor is evil, not by design, not because he has to be in order for there to be good, but because he wills not to be what Eru created him to be. It is a free act of will on his part. If it is necessary in any way for Melkor to be evil according Eru’s design, then Melkor would essentially be devoid of freewill.

Nothing was created inherently evil, and nothing was ever meant to be evil according to God’s, or for that matter Eru’s, plan. Evil in our world is caused by the misuse of freewill. Evil in Arda is caused by the misuse of freewill. Melkor was created inherently good.

To be honest, I’m very sad that people think sin and evil are necessary or inevitable. There’s no hope in such a position. Why try to make the world better? Why try to be virtuous?

Doug,

Judging from what Tolkien wrote in many of his letters, he did indeed intend Middle-Earth to be the real Middle-Earth, our Earth. I don’t think he would actually go so far as to believe his mythology was real or true in that the events of Middle-Earth really did happen in some pre-pre-historic time. However, like all the other mythologies that he knew and loved, he created a mythology that attempted to explain the real world in which we live. That’s the reason why there is no Christ figure in Middle-Earth, because there is already a Christ figure… the real Christ, albeit in the sequel (or rather the sequel of the sequel of the sequel of the sequel).

Like I said, I think he started his construction without reference to his Christian faith, but only latter seeing how his faith was unconsciously incorporated (those are actually his words, presenting us with a rather subjective observation), attempted in the revision to consciously incorporate it. Though not provable, we shouldn’t exclude the possibility that Tolkien underwent a spiritual conversion sometime between his first jottings and his final speculations. Rarely are people’s faith lives static. Perhaps his ever changing family life spurred him toward more Christian musings, or maybe some of the discussions during the inkling meetings resurrected spurts of religious fervor.

Just another aside (of apparently infinite asides): Original sin does not need a redeeming Christ-figure for it to happen. God could have consigned the whole human race to pain, suffering and inescapable hell on earth for all eternity. That after all that is the just reward for sin. Redemption wrought in Christ, like creation, is a free gift. Thanks, God.

[Kalessin]

Very pertinent post, Bill.

Nothing was created inherently evil, and nothing was ever meant to be evil according to God’s, or for that matter Eru’s, plan. Evil in our world is caused by the misuse of freewill. Evil in Arda is caused by the misuse of freewill.

I agree with you that the popular notion of 'necessary evil' is misplaced in application to a Christian worldview. I think this attempt to overlay a psuedo-Yin-Yang sensibility to works like LotR is at least partly down to what I call the 'Star Wars syndrome'. Star Wars is a prime example of the facile and shallow moral mysticism that, unfortunately, has actually become common currency. A genuine application of Buddhism (in any of its proper forms), with all its subtleties, is far more profound than this.

So the acceptance of free will, and therefore full responsibility, is naturally a little worrying to us all [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Perhaps it wouold be nicer to excuse our own sins by saying "I know I did wrong, but it was meant to be". I'm sure it would be. The act of passing on responsibility (or blame) for our actions is arguably particularly modern, given how generally empowered we all are today by comparison with history.

Given the above, we have already discussed here and elsewhere the metaphysical issue of Evil arising of Good. But I am wondering about your closing paragraph -

(endless pain and suffering) ... is the just reward for sin. Redemption wrought in Christ, like creation, is a free gift.

Are you making a theological point, or offering a personal view (or both?). I wonder whether the 'just reward' is in fact arguable, especially in the context of a literal interpretation of Old Testament Original Sin. In Tolkien's mythos, Melkor's punishment does seem to bear a relation to the amount of destruction he himself was directly responsible for. It is not so obvious (to me, at least), the the "sins of the fathers" are visited upon all the children of Middle Earth in an act of Divine retribution, and as we have discussed there is no clear redemptive parallel, either through individual repentance or the appearance of a New Testament-style Saviour.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Bill Ferny]

Kalessin, you touch on a nuance of original sin that is very difficult for us moderns to fathom, and I know many Catholics, myself not-with-standing, who have had a hard time accepting, that being the genitive property of original sin. Forgive me if this commentary runs a bit long, but I think it is important if we are to honestly discuss the notion of original sin that would have been held by Tolkien, or at least by the official teaching authority of his religion.

For the Medievals it was a point of obvious fact that original sin was genitive, but they belonged to a philosophical and theological tradition that was free of our prejudice for the individual. To the Medievals original sin did not belong to the individual, it belonged to the genus, but steeped as we moderns are in the language of the individual it is very difficult for us to think on this level. Original sin isn’t so much as passed down from father to son, as it belongs to the son because the son is, like his father, a human being. It is fundamentally different from actual sin, which is a conscious and willed act of the individual to separate his or her -self from God. Actual sin resides squarely in the realm of the individual. Rather, original sin is a condition of separation in which the individual is born, because the individual belongs to a fallen genus. A very regrettable state of being, indeed, when considered from the standpoint of the individual!

(Interesting side note: the fall of Satan could only affect himself, because all individual angels are their own genus.)

This is a singular problem when dealing with the sin of Melkor in Tolkien’s mythology, but only if you reduce Tolkien’s mythology to the Christian mythos. Melkor is not ent/human/elf/dwarf. If original sin comes into the world by the actions of Melkor, and he is the principle cause of Arda’s fallen condition, how can you predicate original sin to ent/human/elf/dwarf? By placing Melkor in the world, and attaching the fall of the world with his rebellion, Tolkien forces the fruits of Melkor’s rebellion upon ent/human/elf/dwarf. The only reasonable conclusion that I am able to draw is that Eru was incompetent in allowing his children to awaken in such a world.

In order to safe guard Eru's integrity it is tempting to reduce Arda to the Manachaen model. I think that you would have to surmise that there are elements that border upon the Manachaen in Tolkien’s mythology, but I don’t think this was conscious, rather it ended up there because Tolkien didn’t start his musings from a Christian perspective, but from the perspective of Norse and Anglo-Saxon cosmologies. Tolkien, after all, was a Catholic, not a Gnostic, and I think, given further revision Tolkien would have ended up changing much of his cosmology.

An aside, further explanation of the Catholic view of original sin versus the individual:

When considering original sin as belonging to the genus and not the individual, we immediately begin to think about the culpability of the individual in all this (I say this because that is exactly what I’m doing at the moment). My thought is further frustrated by considering a literal reading of Genesis, and thinking that the sin of man was the act of a single pair of people, Adam and Eve. It doesn’t seem very fair, but the fact of the matter is, is that original sin isn’t a matter of individual culpability, or a matter of the individual’s personal actions, but of genus culpability.

The Medievals, however, weren’t as callous to the individual as Aristotle was (in fact our modern prejudice for the individual has its ultimate root in Medieval thought). After all, before Christ, there was the old dispensation that provided a law for the Hebrews to follow, despite their separated condition, that brought them some measure of life with YHWH. Of course, the new dispensation through Christ dispelled the censure of original sin all together.

But what about Socrates? Peter Abelard (who at the time of his writing was roundly chastised by Bernard of Clairvoux for this principle, even though it was to become a central part of the Medieval synthesis) held that Christianity was reasonable, and thus via reason the individual could achieve some degree of sight above the condition of sin in which the individual was born, in other words, through natural law. Natural law was valid, just as the Hebrew law was valid, but I don’t think I would go so far as to say that the Medievals thought it was equally valid.

What the Medieval synthesis, and modern Catholic thought, is driving at, is that there is and was no excuse for actual sin, despite the censure and condition of original sin. They are two entirely different things, even though the condition of original sin increases the likelihood for actual sin. We see here the Hebrew notion of righteousness, or right living. It was possible, albeit only through adherence to the law, to be righteous. In the same way, but far inferior, the gentiles had a shot at righteousness as well, through adherence to natural law.

However, neither of these things have any validity or power on their own to win the individual his or her salvation, or in other words, to bridge the gulf between humanity and God. They can only provide a measure of right living. Neither go far enough, natural law being, of course, far less superior to the old dispensation. They are both irrelevant without the action of the incarnation and redemption of Christ, that both replaces and fulfills both. The Pentecost event of the New Testament is utterly unique to the New Testament, and completely different from anything found in the Old Testament. Nowhere in the old dispensation is there such an intimacy with the divine. Nowhere in the Old Testament is there that notion of an indwelling of God in the individual.

Whether or not you accept a literal reading of Genesis is beside the point. The underlying theological principle at work is that human beings sinned, transformed the world in which they lived, and brought about universal separation between themselves and God, not just upon their persons but upon their genus. However, the redemption of Christ is just as universal as original sin. But like there is no excuse for actual sin despite the censure of original sin, there is no guarantee now that all individuals will opt for salvation given the universal redemption of Christ. Why? Because of that wily thing called freewill.


Edit: changed "put" to "but"; changed "brought universal judgement upon themselves" to "brought about universal separation between themselves and God", which seems to indicate better the Catholic understanding of original sin.

[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[lindil]

Doug P. posted

The comparisons between Christian doctrine and the world of Arda with regard to Original Sin seem to fall short in one very important respect. Whereas the Original Sin of Adam paved the way for Christ to become the path to salvation for all humans, there does not seem to be a convincing Christ figure in Middle-Earth.

In the aforementioned Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth from Morgoth's Ring, we see Finrod surmising [or one could perhaps say prophecying] the need for Eru to become Incarnate to ultimately repair the marring of Arda. oF course this bald staement does not do an iota of justice to the beautiful dialog that JRRT allows between them.

So I see "original sin" within the Legendarium as having been split into two aspects [ as regards mankind - some other races receive their own treatments individually].

#2 - the fall of mankind [ as per the tale of Adanel] which resulted in the mortality of Man in M-E

and #1 - the fall of Melkor which resulted in the corruption and entering of death into Arda.

In traditional Christianity, the fall of the world and the fall of man are both the product of Adam and Eve's disobedience. In the legendarium they are split. However they both require the Incarnation of God to heal the marring. So in essence the cosmology of the Legendarium ends up being Christian, that does not mean every detail of the cosmology is Christian, it is not.

I just wish to stress again that I think it is only with the
Osanwe-Kenta,
The Athrabeth and the
Laws and Customs among the Eldar
[ and I would also add the Narn]
that the spiritual foundation of the Legendarium becomes mature, and this makes CJRT's omission of these from the Silmarillion something of a minor tragedy [ one that is however, in the process of being somewhat repaired].

[ January 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Kalessin]

I am not sure that simply requiring a Divine healing in itself substantiates that the essence of the fall or falls in Tolkein's world mirrors that in Christianity. However, the ability to perceive the spiritual foundations of Tolkien's work from a position of awareness of, understanding of and respect for (if not absolute faith in) Christian cosmogony - an assumption that Tolkien could have made with reasonable confidence given the culture of his time - is perfectly logical.

It is perhaps a point of debate as to whether the maturity of the spiritual foundation posited, equating as it does with what I assume to be the increasingly conscious Christianising revisions and expansions by the author, is necessarily appertaining to the quality of Tolkien's acknowledged masterpiece. From the critical perspective, the creation of Lord of the Rings, its vision, scope and narrative flow, is an act of integrity created by an author at the height of his powers. It is this one work which gives potency to all his other writings, a somewhat arbitrary relationship perhaps, but one which the author was certainly aware of.

It is perhaps inevitable, and certainly not without precedent, that conscientious authors themselves retain neither the sentimental attachment to, or great reverence for, the art for which they are most popularly renowned. The next or ongoing creation is what matters.

However, as readers and reluctant critics (in the widest sense) we can consider this work the fulcrum of Tolkien's mythos - and it's zenith - if we choose.

Is it arguable that, of Tolkien's canon, nothing is either sufficently complete, rounded or equivalent in scale and quality to compare with Lord of the Rings? I ask the question in order to frame the following argument : that the spiritual foundation behind Lord of the Rings, as a complete and published work, is as powerful and valid as anything in his work.

In terms of the life's work of an artist, "maturity" might typically be manifested in terms of technical skill as much as imaginative force, perhaps often in literature as economy, and the subtlety that comes from human wisdom. Yet the world of art is graced as much by brief passionate moments (followed by long mediocrity) as it is by late flowering ... ugh, those mixed metaphors will come back to haunt me [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

I am not suggesting that a real human being and real works of literature all fall neatly into these generalisations (or stereotypes). But it is possible to argue from a critical perspective that the revisions, or works in the nature of a revision of an interconnected mythos, can be qualitatively compared to the earlier work. Like all of us, the author was changed by time. But it is Lord of the Rings that stands as testament to the author. Was it flawed in some way? Of course, and the author would nodoubt have been painfully aware of many shortcomings, mostly invisible to the reader. But is it definitive - in terms of narrative power AND spiritual foundation (I can't think of any other summary term, sorry)? This is my contention.

In that context, it is the differences between the spiritual foundation definitively expressed here, and the posited maturity of subsequent revisions or additions to the canon, that can be debated. I wonder if the evident universality of Lord of the Rings is compromised, and what the implications might be? Perhaps it is what the author meant or wanted all along - if so, the work was initially a triumph of eclecticism, depth and ambiguity. Intuitively I tend to to think that art, and human beings, contain more contradictions than we are sometimes willing to acknowledge.

As such, Tolkien's notion of applicability seems to me one the most appealing aspects of the work. I wonder whether an increasingly rigid theological framework changes that.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[Bill Ferny]

lindil,

Not to be contrary, but I don’t think that the latter writings consisting of the Osanwe-Kenta and the Athrabeth should necessarily be considered the essence of Tolkien’s cosmology, nor should it necessarily be considered as indicating that the essence of Tolkien’s cosmology was Christian (at least in the beginning). Perhaps, they can be considered the essence of his revision, or the fruit of his latter speculations, and as such they can indicate Tolkien’s growing appreciation of the Legendarium’s potential to contain spiritual truth as he saw it. I think it safer to say that the Osanwe-Kenta and the Athrabeth, and perhaps the Laws and Customs among the Eldar (which I’ve never read… I know just throw an apple, I’m used to it) indicates the maturity of Tolkien’s faith life, and his willingness to express that faith life in his literature.

However, its pretty obvious to me that the literature already existed, and it existed independently in conception from the driving forces that inspired these latter works. In fact, I’m inclined to think that given another 50 years, the whole of his initial cosmology would have taken on a very different form based on the speculations that we find in these works, because the existing cosmology would have contained too many logical inconsistencies. I’m sure Tolkien would have eventually provided for a common root of all the races, placed the awakening of the races and their fall prior to the entrance of the Valar and Melkor into the world, and I’m afraid that even the music of the Ainur might have been scraped. In short, if given another 50 years, we very well could have been left with something like Narnia, a clear attempt at biblical allegory.

If this had become the case, I wonder what the implications would have been on the published work, as Kalessin points out. As it stands, The Lord of the Rings flowed from a mythology, inadequate in some regards as viewed by its own author, but a mythology that fuels and fills and fleshes out one of the most believable imaginary worlds ever created. As has been pointed out on many forums, the story in LotR contains enough Christian concepts to induce more than one person to write a book devoted to the subject, all this despite the fact that the mythology in the background is one that had some very non-Christian origins and contains some very non-Christian ideas.

[lindil]

Kalessin and Bill F.

due to time constraints i will be forced to reply peicemeal.

Kalessin posted :

From the critical perspective, the creation of Lord of the Rings, its vision, scope and narrative flow, is an act of integrity created by an author at the height of his powers. It is this one work which gives potency to all his other writings,

I disagree completly with the characterization of LotR as 'the height of his powers, or the zentih of his writings.

I think his writing on the Silmarillion after the LotR. far surpasses the LotR just as much as the LotR was better than BoLT or HoME4 and the Hobbit.

And I am not just reffering to the above essays, but the Narn, the Wanderings of Hurin, the Coming of Tuor to Gondolin, of Cirion and Eorl, the LQ2 parts of HoME10, Aldarion and Erendis, the Faithful Stone, virtually every bit of narrative and prose he wrote after the LotR is in my estimation, improved in: lucidity, the ability to transmit an image of what he is talking of [ truly an elvish charcteristic], depth of writing.

Do not get me wrong, I love the LotR, and some of the sections are particularly wonderful [ Lothlorin, Gildor, the description of Bilbo and Frodo's sneaking out of the hall of Tales in Rivendell, the Elven ringbearers sitting up late at night near Dunland, along with many others are wonderful.

However the more I read the later writings, fragmentary and disjointed though they can be, the more I am aware of the fact that his powers as a storyteller continued to grow long after the LotR, indeed till around say the end of the 60's, when if I not mistaken he no longer wrote anything of length, but short works and notes on linguistic matters or individuals.

Also I would point out that he, himself considered the Silmarillion to be his magnum opus, and the LotR to be an 'intrusion'.

Bill ferny posted "

but I don’t think that the latter writings consisting of the Osanwe-Kenta and the Athrabeth should necessarily be considered the essence of Tolkien’s cosmology, nor should it necessarily be considered as indicating that the essence of Tolkien’s cosmology was Christian (at least in the beginning). Perhaps, they can be considered the essence of his revision, or the fruit of his latter speculations, and as such they can indicate Tolkien’s growing appreciation of the Legendarium’s potential to contain spiritual truth as he saw it.

I said "with the Athrbeth and Osanwe and L&C &Co.]the spiritual foundation of the Legendarium becomes mature" - not essence.

A subtle, but I hope understandable distinction.

Meaning that it [ his legendarium's cosmology] had come to full fruition for him in this life.

It now had all of the depth and levels of meaning it could [ or at least would] be given by him.

And had come indeed full circle as a stand in mythology for England to become a pure work of co-creation, pointing back to the Creator himself [Christ] in a beautiful and subtle conversation coming from one of the most noble of his characters, Finrod.

Laws and Customs also adds to this 'spiritual maturity' not so much by it's discourse of the Valar and the Statute of F & M, but from it's achingly beautiful passages on the love of the Eldar for their children and the manner of their upbringing.

Osanwe-Kenta's high point to me is also less to do with it's lofty subject matter - the of debatings manwe's motives or ability to be duped by Morgothj, as in showing forth the ability buried within us to communicate soul to soul, if our hearts are open and 'warm' enough.

Likewise the Narn deals with the issues of the 'curse of Morgoth' that the LotR does not, and Hurin and his family's endurance under such a succession of moral catastrophe's.

I have read in CJRT's notes to the Wanderings of Hurin that for JRRT, the Hurin/Turin saga had become the central tale of the Silmarillion.

to be continued [ God willing]...

[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Kalessin]

Lindil [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I disagree completly with the characterization of LotR as 'the height of his powers, or the zenith of his writings.

I think his writing on the Silmarillion after the LotR. far surpasses the LotR just as much as the LotR was better than BoLT or HoME4 and the Hobbit.

...

However the more I read the later writings, fragmentary and disjointed though they can be, the more I am aware of the fact that his powers as a storyteller continued to grow long after the LotR, indeed till around say the end of the 60's, when if I not mistaken he no longer wrote anything of length, but short works and notes on linguistic matters or individuals.

Also I would point out that he, himself considered the Silmarillion to be his magnum opus, and the LotR to be an 'intrusion'.

I am interested in this. At least this brings us back to a matter of opinion on which we can argue our different positions. I should say that my feeling about The Silmarillion, whilst nodoubt partly antithetical to yours, is tempered by the awareness that it is unfinished.

It's a relatively common situation that the lesser-known or incomplete works of a greatly revered artist are often held in the greatest esteem by his most devoted admirers. As a phenomenon this can be a reflection of the depth of knowledge and critical appreciation of such devotees. However, it is not always so. But I can think of similar examples in relation to artists whom I am passionate about, and indeed share the sentiments in some cases.

However, in this instance if I take the liberty of making a critical judgement I would fall on the side of LotR ... or perhaps even Leaf by Niggle, as Tolkien's most perfect work. But having established simply a difference of critical opinion, which is generally to be expected, that is by the by.

At the heart of the qualitative analysis that I was taking from your earlier post was that the increasing Christianisation of his works, in revision or addition - the maturing of his personal spiritual foundation and its reflection in the legendarium - was perhaps an integral part of the greater power and quality that you posit. Do correct me if have misunderstood this point, as illustrated by -

(the author and works) ... had come indeed full circle as a stand in mythology for England to become a pure work of co-creation, pointing back to the Creator himself [Christ] in a beautiful and subtle conversation coming from one of the most noble of his characters, Finrod.

I would suggest that the 'linkage', if correctly understood, is not a priori. In a hypothetical analysis, one could see the rooting of his cosmogony within a traditional theology as something different from the development of narrative craft or thematic depth. Of course in a real person, and artist, these elements are holistic, or interwoven perhaps, and the hypothetical analysis is therefore quite subtle - especially given the eclecticism and ambiguities (or depth) that are a part of Tolkien's work.

It might be that to some both the depth of author's spiritual foundation and the literary excellence of his work advanced in symbiosis, but it is not necessarily the case that one reflects the other (or vice versa). This is the key point, and might account for our (or any) differences in critical analysis, and indeed some aspects of the perception of his works generally, along with all the other accepted variables.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[lindil]

I would say that the spiritual maturation n JRRT's writing was, of course linked to his religion, how could it not be, but not that the later Silmarillion [or more properly speaking writings of the first and second age and essays on the Elves] was matured because it revealed more fully his spiritual understanding of the world and M-E, not necessarily [ excepting the case of The Athrabeth] because it was revealing Christianity more.

Indeed, I would stand by my statement regarding his post-LotR work [very little of which actually appears in The Silmarillion by the way] even if the Athraabeth never existed, and it would still be an amazing writing even with out the specualtion of Finrod.

So to examine the point I make re: his post LotR writings one must look at Morgoth's Ring, War of the Jewels, Peeoples of M-E, the osanwe-Kenta essay [in the journal Vinyar Tengwar] and Unfinished Tales, along with some scattered sections appearing in The Silmarillion.

As for his shorter work, I find Smith of Wooten Major to also be above LotR in many ways, purely in terms of writing skills and treatment, obviously not in scope or breadth.