Is Eru God?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

I accept that Eru is Tolkien's God. I also accept from what you say that he is your God. But, to me, Eru is not God.

This about sums it up for me. And I won't be changing my vote because the poll asked if Eru was THE God, not Tolkien's God.

I envy those who can accept one view of God and stick with it, as I cannot. I see too many Gods and their most devout followers are not all bad people, so either they are all wrong or all right. I do tend to veer towards they are all right (hence my interest in Unitarianism) and I would defend to the last anyone's right to religious freedom.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If that makes you believe that Eru is not God, then clearly God as defined by most Christians (and Jews) is not someone that you believe in.

I'd question 'most Christians'. I was brought up Anglican and Tolkien's God was not the God I learned about (though I knew of this God through my grandmother's fire and brimstone beliefs). My God was inherently good. Natural disasters were just that, and as Christians our role was to help out as much as possible (usually through the jumble sale ); likewise evil was nothing to do with 'original sin' it was the fault of misguided people. The role of God was to guide us, not to punish us; more a case of do good things to make God happy rather than avoid bad things because you'll get punished.

A final thought, somewhat random...Free will. Where do the Elves fit into all of this? They are denied the most basic free will of all, to die.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'd question 'most Christians'. I was brought up Anglican and Tolkien's God was not the God I learned about (though I knew of this God through my grandmother's fire and brimstone beliefs). My God was inherently good. Natural disasters were just that, and as Christians our role was to help out as much as possible (usually through the jumble sale ); likewise evil was nothing to do with 'original sin' it was the fault of misguided people. The role of God was to guide us, not to punish us; more a case of do good things to make God happy rather than avoid bad things because you'll get punished.

Perhaps I should restate it in a different manner...

If that makes you believe that Eru is not God, then clearly certain aspects of God as defined by most Christian (and Jewish) dogma is not something that you believe in.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I do tend to veer towards they are all right (hence my interest in Unitarianism) and I would defend to the last anyone's right to religious freedom.

I'm wondering if you've ever read Left Behind, Lal?

Formendacil, what I find interesting is that I think you and I have about the same view of God (Christian) but voted differently. I'll say again that I think of Eru like I think of God, but that is not the question. And the fact that there is any difference at all makes them not the same. Yet I can definitely see why you picked what you did.

So, answering littlemanpoet's question: I would still vote the same. My views may have changed some, but not my answer.

And now I've got a question of my own. If you believe that Eru and God are the same, do you believe that Tolkien meant to leave out the coming of Men to Middle-Earth so that we could 'insert' Eden into the story? Meaning we would put the Creation of Man in the Garden of Eden into the part of the Silmarillion where Men first appear in the East.

[davem]

On the 'inscrutability' of Tolkien's God:

That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, & its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. (Letter to Rhona Beare, 14th October 1958)

So, Tolkien's God apparently 'tolerates' evil (its also interesting that in discussing the Fall of Numenor Tolkien refers to 'our' world). In another letter, to Father Robert Murray (4th November 1954) he refers to Sauron's deception of Ar-Pharazon as a 'Satanic' lie (ie, he seems to conflate Sauron & Satan).

What I find interesting is Tolkien's statement that God's toleration of evil is a 'permanent' problem. Clearly, whatever his Church's teaching on the nature of evil & free will, Tolkien couldn't understand it, & certainly had no easy answers to offer. Sauron couldn't be destroyed by Eru in his Secondary World, for the same reason that God hasn't destroyed Satan in this world - Tolkien simply didn't know what that reason was.

This 'permanent problem' suggests uncertainty, even doubt, in Tolkien's mind regarding God's purposes. In Middle-earth he explores these doubts & uncertainties but never, it seems to me, comes to a conclusion.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

On the 'inscrutability' of Tolkien's God:

So, Tolkien's God apparently 'tolerates' evil (its also interesting that in discussing the Fall of Numenor Tolkien refers to 'our' world). In another letter, to Father Robert Murray (4th November 1954) he refers to Sauron's deception of Ar-Pharazon as a 'Satanic' lie (ie, he seems to conflate Sauron & Satan).

What I find interesting is Tolkien's statement that God's toleration of evil is a 'permanent' problem. Clearly, whatever his Church's teaching on the nature of evil & free will, Tolkien couldn't understand it, & certainly had no easy answers to offer. Sauron couldn't be destroyed by Eru in his Secondary World, for the same reason that God hasn't destroyed Satan in this world - Tolkien simply didn't know what that reason was.

This 'permanent problem' suggests uncertainty, even doubt, in Tolkien's mind regarding God's purposes. In Middle-earth he explores these doubts & uncertainties but never, it seems to me, comes to a conclusion.

The letter to Rhona Beare has several interesting features, one of which is this statement which opens the paragraph davem quotes. I'm sure davem knows it, of course, but others might not.

Originally Posted by Letter 211

Sauron was first defeated by a 'miracle': a direct action of God the Creator, changing the fashion of the world, when appealed to by Manwë: see III, 317. Though reduced to a 'spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended. That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault...

I'm not by any means an authority on The Silm (nor particularly a fan of it), but this passage does seem to show that Tolkien himself conflated Eru with the Christian God. What is also mildly interesting to me is Tolkien's use of 'One' here.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

And now I've got a question of my own. If you believe that Eru and God are the same, do you believe that Tolkien meant to leave out the coming of Men to Middle-Earth so that we could 'insert' Eden into the story? Meaning we would put the Creation of Man in the Garden of Eden into the part of the Silmarillion where Men first appear in the East.

Actually, no. I think Tolkien left it out because he didn't want to directly include any of the Hebrew myth in his myth. It's interesting, no, telling, to me, that Tolkien did not include a Creation of Man story in his myth. I wonder if he felt he could not improve, or was it that he feared to write something other than what he believed to be true? *LMP shrugs at his new can of worms...*

[littlemanpoet]

Sorry to double post but I wish to respond to this:

Originally Posted by davem

What I find interesting is Tolkien's statement that God's toleration of evil is a 'permanent' problem. Clearly, whatever his Church's teaching on the nature of evil & free will, Tolkien couldn't understand it, & certainly had no easy answers to offer. Sauron couldn't be destroyed by Eru in his Secondary World, for the same reason that God hasn't destroyed Satan in this world - Tolkien simply didn't know what that reason was. ... This 'permanent problem' suggests uncertainty, even doubt, in Tolkien's mind regarding God's purposes. In Middle-earth he explores these doubts & uncertainties but never, it seems to me, comes to a conclusion.

Indeed. To believe that God is both just and merciful at once, is a problem for all humanity. But knowledge that God is both, is necessary to belief in one God, and does shed light on much that Tolkien wrote. I'd say that Tolkien did come to conclusions in LotR, just not propositional ones. Otherwise the story would not be so deeply satisfying on so many levels, not least of which is the spiritual.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Tolkien

That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, & its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. (Letter to Rhona Beare, 14th October 1958)

In response to davem: I think Tolkien 'solved' this issue quite thoroughly in Iluvatar's response to Melkor's dissonant music. To inelegantly paraphrase: Do your worst, my theme will finally, entirely triumph by including your music in a way that you cannot imagine. He goes so far as to include men in the second music of the Ainur. Not only will Melkor's, and Sauron's, dissonance be resolved in the end, but mankind will witness it.

That LotR's intrinsic conclusions are not "final" is due to its timeframe, not to any confusion Tolkien had as to why God tolerates evil. His statement in the letter does not indicate to me that Tolkien had personal problems with how God deals with evil; his use of the word "apparent" underlines this. He is simply stating that every serious enquirer will ask the question.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm not by any means an authority on The Silm (nor particularly a fan of it), but this passage does seem to show that Tolkien himself conflated Eru with the Christian God. What is also mildly interesting to me is Tolkien's use of 'One' here.

"The One" is the english translation of the elvish "Eru".

[davem]

Recently I've begun to wonder whether what we get from LotR is not 'satisfaction' a having our spiritual questions answered or our confusions & dilemmas resolved, but rather a 'confirmation' of our own doubts & uncertainties. That may seem an odd thing to say, but I can't help remembering that line from the movie Shadowlands (about CS Lewis & Joy Davidman). One of Lewis' students says at one point that 'We read to know we're not alone.' Maybe that's what we get from LotR – not 'This is the answer to your question' but ' I don't know either. We all stand in the face of a great mystery. This is how things are in the world.'

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Maybe that's what we get from LotR – not 'This is the answer to your question' but ' I don't know either. We all stand in the face of a great mystery. This is how things are in the world.'

Or... you know... we just like the story.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Letter 211

Sauron was first defeated by a 'miracle': a direct action of God the Creator, changing the fashion of the world, when appealed to by Manwë: see III, 317. Though reduced to a 'spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended. That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault...

Originally Posted by Helen

"The One" is the english translation of the elvish "Eru".

Oh, I know that, Helen. I am just intrigued by the juxtaposition of "One Ring" and "the One".

[Morsul the Dark]

I confess to voting without reading the first post i clicked yes and when i read the first post i change my vote to no

EDIT: to make this post more objective here are some thoughts...Eru can be god if you want him to be...I could be god and technicly there is no way to disprove that(Im kidding I know god knows that thats why i wont be struck by lightning) what im saying is god is anyone you want him or her (as the case more likely is) to be

[Eonwe]

yes, but that is only kind of true. you can think of god as anything you want. and you can believe god is anything you want. but that doesn't change who God really is.

in other words, you can believe an idol to be God, but that doesn't make it God. God is God no matter what you or i believe.

i think the bottom line is that Eru displays none of the charactersistics of the Christian/Jewish (aka Jehovah) God. which would be personal relationships, mercy, grace, etc.

here is something else to think about. you can't really make any kind of comparison about Eru and God without looking at morality. in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood. in teh middle-earth consept, that is not always true. the sons of feanor didn't really get punished all that much. (correctly me if im wrong, i believe they just got extra long time in the halls of mandos, which isn't much to an immortal elf.) It never says much about the fate of men, not to mention the fate of good men, and evil men. or even what make you a good man or an evil man. (well the evil is obvious i guess. but many of teh "good" men did bad things.

it seems as if Eru/the powers that be that represent Eru's intetions and wishes are quite a bit more linitent that God. and sin is a huge, major deal to God.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

God is God no matter what you or i believe.

Either that or God isn't God, no matter what you or I believe.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood.

Unless we assume that all of Tolkien's revelations were BC, then a blood sacrifice would do.

Originally Posted by davem

Recently I've begun to wonder whether what we get from LotR is not 'satisfaction' a having our spiritual questions answered or our confusions & dilemmas resolved, but rather a 'confirmation' of our own doubts & uncertainties.

Or do we see a reflection of what we want it all to be? Do Christians see the Christian God? Do others see a First Cause? And still others might see a great 'explanatory' mythology. And of course the more boring just see words on a page...

Is that the making of the next poll where one indicates his/her belief system and also how he/she perceives Eru? I'd wager that you'd see a strong correlation between 'beliefs' and the text.

[Roa_Aoife]

If we assume the LoTR is a history, it would probably be in the BC era, which, according to the Old Testament, faith and repentance were the saving grace, and nothing else. The "good guys" in LoTR seemed, for the most part, to have this faith in Eru, and to truly repent when they screwed up. And just because a character didn't fight for Suaron, it doesn't make him necessarily a "good guy" (I point to Denethor.)

Eru does fit the Deist view of God, which says that God created the world and then left it to it's own devices. Many Christians were and still are Deists, both Catholic and Non-Catholic. So it is very possible that Tolkien had a similar view. (I think from the quotes provided it is clear what Tolkien thought.)

However, Eru does act, albeit indirectly and subtlely, throught the story; and it is obvious that unseen forces are moving on both sides. Eru shows mercy in the Silm. several times, and demonstrates love of His children, both the first and second born, by giving them different gifts.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Or do we see a reflection of what we want it all to be? Do Christians see the Christian God? Do others see a First Cause? And still others might see a great 'explanatory' mythology. And of course the more boring just see words on a page...
.

I suppose we all read it in the light of our experiences - though I think we should try not to. The more of the primary world we bring in to our reading the less Middle-earth will seem a real, self-contained secondary world.

What interests me is the way reading LotR in the light of the Sil affects our understanding of the story, & in particular our understanding of Frodo's fate. Helen's post makes this point. The 'permanent problem' of evil in LotR is dealt with & answered if we read it in the light of the Sil. If we don't the problem remains unanswered. Yet many readers find The Sil difficult & have little or no time for it. It doesn't move them in the way LotR does. I wonder if this is because it offers answers to those very 'permanent problems' & that on some level those answers seem either over complex & metaphysical, or overly simplistic. Maybe those readers just feel 'No, that's not it' - even if they can't supply the 'right' answers for themselves.

LotR simply presents us with the kind of world we know, where sacrifice & suffering, selfishness & loss, cruelty, beauty, love & grief are facts of existence, existing for themselves. The Sil attempts to explain the 'why' of those things. The Sil introduces the necessity for 'faith', trust & belief in things 'beyond the circles of the World' - it requires those things from readers if they are to enter into the story. LotR does not. For all Tolkien's protests it is, ultimately, a 'secular' novel - yes, there are 'believers' in it (notably the Elves, hymning Elbereth) but there is no necessity for the reader to believe what they do.

Certainly, the massive popularity of LotR over the Sil says a great deal about our age. I daresay if the novels had been published 500 years ago the Sil would have been the more popular work.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Certainly, the massive popularity of LotR over the Sil says a great deal about our age. I daresay if the novels had been published 500 years ago the Sil would have been the more popular work.

Not sure on that. To me the difficulty of the Sil is that it reads more like a text book than a novel, and so it's not the information contained therein that is problematic but the presentation of the same. In LotR you walk along with Frodo (for the most part) and see the world through his journey. In the Sil you tend to jump around more, and I would assume that more people favor the stories in the Sil that are more complete and self-contained.

And surely others have noticed the repetitiveness of the Sil stories - the long defeat - and so might be put off by that. Also like some parts of the Christian Bible, not many lay readers are interested in lists of 'begats.' Does anyone else skip over the detailed description of Numenor after reading it the first time?

So I would guess that it's a writing style, not the answers to life's questions, that put people off.

And to be sure, does anyone know where we can find at least two literate 500 year old persons?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

I wonder if this is because it offers answers to those very 'permanent problems' & that on some level those answers seem either over complex & metaphysical, or overly simplistic. Maybe those readers just feel 'No, that's not it' - even if they can't supply the 'right' answers for themselves.

I don't know. Speaking for myself, I'm a great fan of the Silmarillion but I am not religious. If religious 'answers' are what put people off about the Silmarillion, then one would think that I'd be among the first to be put off by them.

Or maybe it works the other way - maybe because I don't approach the Silmarillion with the objective of learning about some extra-literary 'Truth', I am not disappointed when I fail to find it.

Edit: Cross-post with alatar, who makes a good point and one with which I agree. It seems to me that it is the style of the Silmarillion (and particularly the published Silmarillion) to which some people react negatively.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The 'permanent problem' of evil in LotR is dealt with & answered if we read it in the light of the Sil. If we don't the problem remains unanswered.

I don't think this is true. Bear with me as it will take a few quotes and explications to develop my point. For starters, a few quotations from Fellowship of the Ring illustrate this:

Fear seemed to stretch out a vast hand, like a dark cloud rising in the East and looming up to engulf him.

~FotR p60

Note the foreshadowing of the presence of the Dark Lord virtually reaching across Middle Earth to the Shire, in the shape of Fear. Note that this is not mere foreshadowing; the fear is real, and "seems" to stretch out from the East. Is this mere description for the sake of effect? No, it is reality that Tolkien is describing, in terms of his cosmos, and Frodo is for the first time perceiving that reality that lies behind that which he has always "known" to be real.

(Gandalf speaking)'There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master .... it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most unlikely person imaginable: 'Bilbo from the Shire!'
'Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought.'
'It is not,' said Frodo.'

~FotR p65

Setting aside Frodo's disagreement regarding encouragement a moment, who is doing the meaning? Who does Gandalf mean by it? Gandalf is an emissary from the West. He is a Maiar, who has learned great wisdom in Lorien of the West. Before that, he was amongst those who witnessed the Ainulindalë of Ilúvatar. He was in the presence of Ilúvatar before the making of Arda. So this meaning is being done either by Manwe and Varda, or by Eru. Since Manwe and Varda are viceroys of Eru, the meaning is ultimately Eru's. The Walls of Arda cannot prevent their Maker from sending messages into Arda to be heard by the Valar. Nor can they prevent the direct action of their Maker. Nor can those Walls prevent their maker from being present in Arda, even if Eru has not taken bodily shape as have the Valar. Gandalf's words here and elsewhere signify a consistent and purposeful working of Eru within Arda, even though Eru does not physically enter Arda as did the Valar of the Silmarillion.

'Of course, my dear Frodo, it was dangerous for you; and that has troubled me deeply. But there was so much at stake that I had to take some risk---though even when I was far away there has never been a day when the Shire has not been guarded by watchful eyes.

FotR ;69

Gandalf, as emissary of the Valar and Eru, reveals the heart of Eru in this kindly word to Frodo. If Eru can create a being who is as kindly and caring as Gandalf, Eru Himself must necessarily be at least as kindly and caring, and very likely much more.

A great dread fell on [Frodo], as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own word, as if some other will was using his small voice.
'I will take the Ring,' [Frodo] said, 'though I do not know the way.'
Elrond raised his eyes and looked at him, and Frodo felt his heart pierced by a sudden keenness of the glance. 'If I understand aright all that I have heard,' he said, 'I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will.'

~FotR p284

As if some other will? Any honest reader of Tolkien knows in his or her bones that the "as if" is virtually a signal that, indeed, what is about to be described, is the reality. Some other will? What will? Appointed? By whom? Again, either Manwe and Varda, or Eru.

Note also the dread of a pronouncement, and of all people, it is Frodo himself who speaks the dreaded pronouncement! ... as if another will was using his small voice. Here in poignant story, is a microcosm of the immense debate between free will and suffering, and the answer, if I may make so bold as to use that term, is "both/and". Because story, reflecting reality, is wrought from whole cloth. It's only in proposition that we can dissect such things. In other words, Frodo has made a choice, and Frodo is that choice made by Eru.

'You cannot pass,' [Gandalf] said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

~FotR p344
What is the Secret Fire, this flame of Anor? It is not merely the Elvin Ring he wears. It's something that is greater than the fire or might of the Balrog, of any demon, and must be greater than the source of the Balrog's power, Morgoth. There is only one Being greater than Morgoth: Ilúvatar. Gandalf is Eru's hand in Middle Earth, the most direct embodiment of the will of Eru.

[Melkor] had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to being into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar.

~Sil p16
The Imperishable Flame is the Secret Fire of Anor. It is with Eru/Ilúvatar. Gandalf is its wielder, in Arda. Eru is very much interested in the details of Middle Earth, very much concerned with the 'fortunes' of the Free Peoples, which are of his making. The Children of Eru, who are the Eldar, Edain, Dwarves, and Hobbits, are the special province of Eru. It is a shortsighted reading that thinks Eru is not at the back of, the power behind all that is good in, LotR, does not care for, and has no mercy or pity on all that goes on in Middle Earth.

In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien has woven Eru into the deep fabric of Middle Earth.

[davem]

LmP

I think its possible to interpret all those references to 'meaning' in another way. I was listening again last night to Ronald Hutton's talk at Birmingham 'Tolkien the Pagan'. He made the point that the version of the Silmarillion that provided the background to LotR was the one produced in the 20's (a decade which he refers to in a letter to his son Michael, describing how, due to his 'wickedness & sloth' he failed to go to mass, & where he had virtually put aside his faith), which was far more 'pagan' in form & style. The Valar were little different to the Classical Gods, with their tendency to infighting & squabbling, their marriages & production of children, etc.

Hutton made the point that Tolkien was deeply upset at accusations by early reviewers that LotR was 'athiestic' or agnostic & grabbed eagerly onto any suggestions from readers that suggested a Christian interpretation of Galadriel as the Virgin Mary, Lembas as the Host, etc. Tolkien wanted very much at that time to be accepted as a Catholic author & played up those interpretations. Remember that it was in the post-LotR period that he embarked on a major re-write of the Sil, mainly with the intention of bringing into line with his Catholic faith.

No, to the references to 'meaning'. The references are very vague. I think a far more 'pagan' alternative to Eru is available – Wyrd: the Northern equivalent of 'fate'/'destiny'. This is an impersonal 'force' (although given symbolic form in the Norns). All mentions of 'meaning' in the text can be interpreted in the light of Wyrd. The characters have destinies to fulfil, but this doesn't have to be interpreted in a Christian sense.

As I said, if read in the light of the (later) Sil (ie the one produced & published by Christopher in 1977) LotR can be interpreted as you suggest, & appears to conform with Christianity, with Eru playing the role of the Christian God in the way you suggest. If read in the light of the pre-LotR ('pagan') Sil our interpretation may be very different. In that work Eru exists but plays little part in events, leaving that sort of thing to the Gods, who, as I said, are hardly perfect representations of Angelic beings.

[Aiwendil]

Davem: I think the basic point you make above is correct (i.e. that without the Silmarillion, LotR can be read in a more 'pagan' light and that the Silmarillion became more Catholic post-LotR) - but I think you exaggerate the degree to which pre- and post-LotR Silmarillions differ.

The Valar were little different to the Classical Gods, with their tendency to infighting & squabbling, their marriages & production of children, etc.

This is true of the Lost Tales, but we ought to note that by '37 Quenta Silmarillion (i.e. immediately pre-LotR) these elements were gone (save marriage, which of course persisted into the final versions). Most importantly, the Valar had already become more thoroughly good or 'Angelic'.

In that work Eru exists but plays little part in events, leaving that sort of thing to the Gods, who, as I said, are hardly perfect representations of Angelic beings.

Where do you see an increase in the role assigned to Eru in the later Silmarillion? I agree that the work at this point was more religious, and of course there is the 'Athrabeth'. But Eru's role in the Silmarillion proper seems to me to be almost identical to his earlier role.

[davem]

My statements were based on Hutton's talk at Birmingham, but I think he got it right.

This is true of the Lost Tales, but we ought to note that by '37 Quenta Silmarillion (i.e. immediately pre-LotR) these elements were gone (save marriage, which of course persisted into the final versions). Most importantly, the Valar had already become more thoroughly good or 'Angelic'.

The Quenta is very much a 'transitional' phase - if seen in the context of Tolkien's life. Some aspects of the story had been changed, some elements of the Lost Tales remained. I will look into the details further (don't have my books with me), but, as Hutton points out overall the Legendarium is generally a 'neo-Platonic work, rather than an orthodox Catholic one. I'm not sure Tolkien saw the Quenta as necessarily superceeding the LT, or that he had rejected everything it contained.

Where do you see an increase in the role assigned to Eru in the later Silmarillion? I agree that the work at this point was more religious, and of course there is the 'Athrabeth'. But Eru's role in the Silmarillion proper seems to me to be almost identical to his earlier role.

Ok, but I certainly think its clear that Eru's role increased in Tolkien's mind - one only has to read the Letters. His focus increasingly is on Eru's role, the part he plays 'in the wings'. Tolkien wants to explain why what happened was Eru's will. I certainly think the presence of Eru runs through the post LotR Sil in a way that it doesn't in the Quenta.

I think it is clear that pre- LotR Tolkien was less concerned with the Legendarium being 'Orthodox' - because he'd never been challenged on that matter. Only in teh post-LotR period did that concern grow almost to the point of obsession. Changes made to the Legendarium to produce the Quenta were for artistic rather than theological reasons.

[Aiwendil]

The Quenta is very much a 'transitional' phase - if seen in the context of Tolkien's life.

Well, the Legendarium was always evolving, so every phase save the very first and very last was in some sense ‘transitional'. Still, I agree that '30s period in particular can be seen as a transition between one long phase and another.

I'm not sure Tolkien saw the Quenta as necessarily superceding the LT, or that he had rejected everything it contained.

It's certainly true (and a point that CRT makes several times) that details found in an earlier narrative and omitted from a later one were often not rejected but merely suppressed due to compression. Still, there are many cases where a later text clearly and explicitly contradicts (and thus supercedes) an earlier one. Many of the more Pagan elements of the Lost Tales are clearly rejected in the late '20s and '30s - for instance, Makar and Measse, the warrior gods.

Again, I don't fundamentally disagree with you; I'm just quibbling. My points, really are:

1. The Legendarium contained, at every stage, a mixture of Paganism and Catholicism; the pre- LotR Silmarillion was not wholly Pagan and the post-LotR Silmarillion was not wholly Catholic.

2. It is overly simplistic to divide the Legendarium into pre- and post-LotR phases; there was considerable evolution both from 1914-1937 and from 1951-1973.

Changes made to the Legendarium to produce the Quenta were for artistic rather than theological reasons.

Now that's an interesting statement. Surely Tolkien did not see his post-LotR work on the Legendarium as non-artistic (or even non-artistic in motivation).

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

My statements were based on Hutton's talk at Birmingham, but I think he got it right.

I wonder...

Do you think that he got it right because you wanted him to get it right? Did you find his arguments compelling because they were well-woven and because they jived with your own personal opinions?

Throughout most of this thread, it seems to me, you have argued on the side of Eru is not God. I'm minded of this quote by Alatar, several posts back:

Originally Posted by alatar

Is that the making of the next poll where one indicates his/her belief system and also how he/she perceives Eru? I'd wager that you'd see a strong correlation between 'beliefs' and the text.

I'm rather willing to agree with Alatar. Certainly, his theory seems born out in my opinion. I am a conservative, orthodox, Catholic, and I have definitely been on the list of "Eru = God" defenders.

Which brings us full circle to Tolkien... he was Catholic, if strongly interested professionally in paganism. To say that Eru is intended to be God is not a ridiculous assumption at all, as far as that goes. And, as demonstrated, Eru might not be exactly YOUR personal vision of God, whoever you are and whatever that might be, but the way Eru is presented definitely falls within the boundaries of the average definition of God.

Although, for whatever reasons, you may not want to accept Eru as God, it seems to me that you should accept that Eru, at least at the time of the writing of the Lord of the Rings, as well as thereafter, and I would even say beforehand, is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Although, for whatever reasons, you may not want to accept Eru as God, it seems to me that you should accept that Eru, at least at the time of the writing of the Lord of the Rings, as well as thereafter, and I would even say beforehand, is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.

Yes, very true.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Do you think that he got it right because you wanted him to get it right? Did you find his arguments compelling because they were well-woven and because they jived with your own personal opinions?

But could we not make the same argument about you? That you want Eru to be God and so you see the facts and interpret them to mean Eru is God?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I wonder...
Throughout most of this thread, it seems to me, you have argued on the side of Eru is not God.
.

Actually, I've said that I think Eru was the same God Tolkien believed in & the one he worshipped. I do, however, think that Tolkien's concept of God was somewhat 'unorthodox', to say the least. Tolkien clearly found something in old world paganism that he felt was necessary, & he created a secondary world where pagan gods could exist under His God, rather than being cast out & demonised by Him.

LotR, taken as a stand alone novel, could have been written by a Pagan, & I think that's why so many Pagans have taken it to their hearts. There is nothing uniquely 'Christian' in LotR. Only when LotR is read in the light of the Sil does it become part of Tolkien's 'Christian' mythology. Let's face it, if there is a 'Deity' in LotR, it is the 'Goddess' Elbereth, not Eru. In fact, all the references to 'meaning' in LotR could be taken to apply to Her.

In short, I think if we only had LotR & knew nothing of its author's life & beliefs I can't help thinking that no Christian would make a claim to its being a Christian work by a Christian author - though they may notice some 'similarities' between Galadriel/Mary, Lembas/the Host, etc.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Eru ... is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.

Well duh. I thought we'd already been over that.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

In short, I think if we only had LotR & knew nothing of its author's life & beliefs I can't help thinking that no Christian would make a claim to its being a Christian work by a Christian author - though they may notice some 'similarities' between Galadriel/Mary, Lembas/the Host, etc.

Actually, the history of the discussions surrounding LotR before the publishing of The Silmarillion are precisely the opposite of what you suggest. I remember many articles in a host of magazines that were quite specifically about Aragorn, Frodo, and Gandalf as specifically Christ figures - - before 1977. And that's just one example.

Like you, davem, I think that Tolkien has done us a service in revivifying the old pagan myths, because there were riches of truth in them. To read LotR as a pagan novel is certainly possible, but it still misses much. Too much that Tolkien included, on purpose.

To suggest that Tolkien became obsessed after LotR was published, to make it appear that there was something (Eru) in it that he hadn't put in there in the first place, doesn't square with the evidence. Tolkien plainly stated that LotR was consciously Catholic in the revision. Otherwise, Tolkien was faking himself out, and that might be going just a bit far.... It seems to me that you have to take huge efforts to wrestle the facts into this theory. Occam's Razor obtains here.

Regardless, the spiritual power in the books goes beyond anything in pagan myth. Of course, that's an opinion based on my personal perceptions, but that's what I experience when I read LotR.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well I do declare! It appears that davem is arguing in support of the reader's freedom to intepret, as against the primacy of authorial intention ...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well I do declare! It appears that davem is arguing in support of the reader's freedom to intepret, as against the primacy of authorial intention ...

Ah, but dear Wormcan Man, he's merely arguing for the adherence to the topic at hand: what the reader's interpretation is, as opposed to the author's intention.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by davem

In short, I think if we only had LotR & knew nothing of its author's life & beliefs I can't help thinking that no Christian would make a claim to its being a Christian work by a Christian author - though they may notice some 'similarities' between Galadriel/Mary, Lembas/the Host, etc.

*Fordim falls off his chair clutching at his chest. After being revived, he is carried out on a stretcher muttering...*

There was no Legendarium. He made a point about interpretation without invoking the Legendarium. I...I can't believe it....please please Eru, or God, or whoever, or Eru/God....don't let him admit The Hobbit to the Legendarium...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

*Fordim falls off his chair clutching at his chest. After being revived, he is carried out on a stretcher muttering...*

There was no Legendarium. He made a point about interpretation without invoking the Legendarium. I...I can't believe it....please please Eru, or God, or whoever, or Eru/God....don't let him admit The Hobbit to the Legendarium...

Actually, all he did was state the obvious fact that its possible to read LotR as a stand alone novel (indeed, for most of its history that's how it had to be read) & that if it is read that way the reader's interpretation may be very different from that of reading it in the light of the Legendarium as a whole

Originally Posted by LmP

Actually, the history of the discussions surrounding LotR before the publishing of The Silmarillion are precisely the opposite of what you suggest. I remember many articles in a host of magazines that were quite specifically about Aragorn, Frodo, and Gandalf as specifically Christ figures - - before 1977. And that's just one example..

Hutton was referring to the immediately post-LotR period. Tolkien actually refers to the accusations that there was an absence of religious themes/elements in LotR in The Road Goes Ever On - where he makes reference to the Elves' Hymns to Elbereth.

Hutton's point was that it was precisely readers who pointed out these 'similarities' & that Tolkien grabbed hold of these & played them up in order to point up his Catholic credentials.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Ah, but dear Wormcan Man, he's merely arguing for the adherence to the topic at hand: what the reader's interpretation is, as opposed to the author's intention.

Ah, Wormcancloser of the Peredhy,
if the evidence is most weighty
such that author's intention
and reader interpretation
ought to be one thing,
then the reader may think
what s/he wishes all the day long
and still be wrong.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien grabbed hold of these & played them up in order to point up his Catholic credentials.

Could you produce the evidence that Tolkien felt the need?

[The Saucepan Man]

Now boreding at a platforum near you (again) ...

Originally Posted by lmp

if the evidence is most weighty
such that author's intention
and reader interpretation
ought to be one thing,
then the reader may think
what s/he wishes all the day long
and still be wrong.

Hmm. A recent opinion poll suggests otherwise.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Hmm. A recent opinion poll suggests otherwise.

Opinion polls don't really prove much. After all, an opinion poll from the 1300's would say the world was flat. The opinion poll on this discussion says Eru is God, but I doubt that the numbers would change anyone's opinion.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Opinion polls don't really prove much.

*Fordim gasps, clutches his heart, and falls over dead*

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Opinion polls don't really prove much.

I would have to disagree. They provide, at a glance, the (stated) opinions of those polled, in this case a reasonably sized cross-section of Barrow-Downers.

You can make of such opinions what you will, but they can (depending upon the size and nature of the sample) be of use with regards to these kinds of questions where there is no definitive answer (or no feasible way of determining a definitive answer).

You can get up now, Fordim.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Could you produce the evidence that Tolkien felt the need?

I think we can draw conclusions. In reference to the Elves' Hymn to Elbereth he states (The Road Goes Ever On) 'The Elves sing hymns to her. (These & other references to religion in LotR are frequently missed) ie he is clearly responding to accusations that there is no religion in LotR. In the Letters he repeatedly snatches at any references to Christianity by readers (to the extent that some of his responses are not actually sent, because he decides he has gone too far in emphasising the Christian 'connections').

Its clear that early critics did not pick up on the 'Christianity' that Tolkien states is there - but is it really there? If it can (& often is) read & enjoyed by readers who do not percieve any Christian elements in it (even ones familiar with the tenets of that faith) then Christianity is obviously not something that underlies the story.

I find it very interesting that when readers/reviewers/critics assigned to the story an underlying political allegory (War of the Ring = WWII) he roundly condemned the idea, but the vaguest suggestion of any 'similarity' between elements in the story & aspects of Christianity produced the most positive response. Let's face it, the similarities between Elbereth* & Isis are far stronger than those between Elbereth & Mary. His famous statemment that the book is 'a fundamentally Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously so in the revision' is simply not true - read HoM-e. Any 'revision' of the story was made for artistic reasons, or because he realised 'what really happened'. He even contradicted himself in statements in the Letters - in one he claims that the events at Mount Doom are an exemplification of the words in the Lord's Prayer 'Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil'. In other letters he states that it is the inner dynamic of the story so far that dictated those events. The culminating events may well exemplify the words of Jesus, but Tolkien only 'realised' that after the book was published. I think its pretty clear that he wrote the story as a story, letting it flow & waiting till he realised 'what really happened'.

After publication he seems to have become distressed by statements that it was a religion-free work & eagerly took up every suggestion of an underlying Christianity. My feeling is that Tolkien never 'revised' LotR to make it 'fundamentally Christian & Catholic work' - except in his own mind after the fact. He wrote a story. Only after publication, when it wasn't recognised as the work of a Christian, did he feel he had to 'prove its credentials'.

* As she appears in LotR, that is.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I would have to disagree. They provide, at a glance, the (stated) opinions of those polled, in this case a reasonably sized cross-section of Barrow-Downers.

You can make of such opinions what you will, but they can (depending upon the size and nature of the sample) be of use with regards to these kinds of questions where there is no definitive answer (or no feasible way of determining a definitive answer).

And of course I would disagree with that, though at this point I cannot even remember the original poll, let alone the question being asked .

In this poll, like many others, we are given limited choices. Assume a poll that asks, "Do you prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream?" with the choices being *vanilla and *chocolate. Where does that leave me, a 'strawberry' fan? I could choose vanilla, as I prefer that over chocolate, but it's not really what I want to choose. Or do I not vote, as my choice is not available? And while I'm on the topic, I'm not even a big fan of ice cream, but prefer frozen yogurt. So if you can consider a preference for strawberry frozen yogurt to be a 'yes' vote for vanilla ice cream, then what is the poll truly measuring?

And actually, I'd pick coffee and a donut if I really had a choice of desserts, and so obviously I should have voted *chocolate.

And in regards to polls being a cross-section of the population, it should be obvious that only people who partake in polls...well...partake in polls, and so we leave a group completely out. Plus I would say that here at the Downs that only special people participate in these threads, mostly people with high pain thresholds...