The sinking of Numenor - a lesson to whom?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Incidentally, what did you make of Jonathan Strange in the end?

Sadly, I found it unsatisfying. What started out as a very intriguing and ingeniously crafted novel slowly deflated over 800+ pages, and the climax and denouement did not make up for the loss of momentum over several hundred (or so it seemed) chapters. I found only a few characters I actually liked (Childermass for one), and the use of magic seemed far too over-the-top for a conservative like me, who believes in inherent magical ability used sparingly (or in the case of Uskglass, raised in Faery and imbued with magic via long immersion). For example, a mere mortal using a spell and moving an entire city (not an illusion, mind you, but actually lifting an entire city to a far-off location) disrupted the suspension of belief for me. And the liberal use of citations for mythical books was clever at first became more and more monotonous as the book progressed (rather like the endless citations and asides in Moby Dick, it eventually drives one to distraction).

If I were the editor, I would have perhaps cut out 100 or so pages (or as the Emperor said to Mozart, 'There are too many notes"). I was also bewildered that Strange brought himself to the brink of madness to save his wife, but then blithely traipsed off with that crashing boor Norrell rather than spend time with Arabella (the only settling influence he had). It was a very odd novel: so much to commend, but just as much to condemn.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If you think about it, Men would be better off accepting their fate in a very real psychological sense. Denying death is not a healthy thing to do, as it comes to us all one day, and this idea has been explored over and over again by Artists. Even were Tolkien an out-an-out atheist it would make perfect logical sense for Men in his creation to be better off if they accept the inevitability of death - indeed that's one of the messages of Pullman's HDM and he has beliefs quite opposite to Tolkien's.

It is interesting how Tolkien though, of all people, counterbalances this with an examination of a race both immortal and bound to the fabric of the earth. I can't explain that.

Well but that's exactly it, I think - the more, in comparison to the Elves, the fate of Men stands out. The Elves are something totally alien from Men after all: or rather, something with a totally different fate. Where they share both the life in Arda (although each of them experiencing it with a bit different point of view nevertheless), the death of Men - and of Elves too, in the technical sense - is something completely different, there is a division that cannot be passed (as the tales of Beren and Lúthien etc. show in the brightest clarity). Middle-Earth is not Men's world, strangely enough. The Elves also, kind of, reflect something of the so often repeated (in RL tales, mythology etc.) idea of immortality. They are immortal, which also means bound to that world forever. Whereas Men are spared the infinity in this very same existence, their existence is seemingly mysteriously changed in some way (sure they are not anymore what they have been like while still alive), yet at the same time they seemingly remain themselves: their identity is preserved. Because we are told that Men will be present together with Ainur and the rest of the Children to sing in the Great Music at the end of days (see Ainulindalë). And that is what I had in mind when saying that it is probably where Tolkien succeeded the best (if he tried, or from where he tried) to reflect the Christian image of the world, resp. in this case human destiny in particular. I wanted to remark this purely from professional interest as it kind of popped at me. In case there were per chance any people interested in the echoes/depiction/not-depiction of whatever theological concepts in Tolkien's world reading it in the future.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Oddly enough in good ol' letter 156, Tolkien does make a comment about the Numenoreans and a known religion:

The Numenoreans thus began a great new good, and as monotheists; but like the Jews (only more so) with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma 'Pillar of Heaven'. . .but it had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations.

I presume his reference to the Jews is equating the Meneltarma with the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, and in their monotheism, not in their specific beliefs or practices.

This particular letter has quite a lot to say about the matter of Numenor, most of which we know through the published Akallabeth. Some things, however, are stated a bit more directly:

He [Sauron] finally induced Arpharazon, frightened by the approach of old age, to make the greatest of all armadas, and go up with war against the Blessed Realm itself, and wrest it and its 'immortality' into his own hands. This was a delusion of course, a Satanic lie. For as emissaries of the Valar clearly inform him, the Blessed Realm does not confer immortality. The land is blessed because the Blessed dwell there, not vice versa, and the Valar are immortal by right and nature, while Men are mortal by right and nature. But cozened by Sauron he dismissed all this as a diplomatic argument to ward off the power of the King of Kings. It might or might not be 'heretical,' if these myths were regarded as statements about the actual nature of Man in the real world; I do not know. But the view of the myth is that Death -- the mere shortness of human life-span -- is not a punishment for the Fall, but a biologically (and therefore also spiritually, since the body and spirit are integrated) inherent part of Man's nature. The attempt to escape it is wicked because 'unnatural', and silly because Death in that sense is the Gift of God (envied by the Elves), release from the weariness of Time. Death, in the penal sense, is viewed as a change in attitude to it: fear, reluctance. A good Numenorean died of free will when he felt it to be time to do so.

The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion -- for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them with any 'divine' display of the powers they held over the physical world. They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred.

Since Men and the Elves are referred to as the "Children of God," I sometimes (rather puckishly) think of the results of Eru's intervention as being an act rather like the old saying, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it." Perhaps that's the way Tolkien viewed God, but I tend to think not; having myself been raised in pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, it never fails to amaze me that he would write, "Nothing was evil in its beginnings; not even Sauron was so." It certainly wasn't what I was taught as a child, and yet, he held this view even before I was born. Even inside the myth, perhaps the sinking of Numenor is not so much meant to be taken as a punishment as it is intended to be a lesson about human nature, the great heights to which it can rise when it keeps its purpose and deeds noble and pure, and how far it can fall when those purposes and deeds become selfish and corrupt. Sadly, it seems that many of the descendants of those who survived did not learn the lesson, and like their forebears, continued to yearn for what they could not have.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Since Men and the Elves are referred to as the "Children of God," I sometimes (rather puckishly) think of the results of Eru's intervention as being an act rather like the old saying, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it." Perhaps that's the way Tolkien viewed God, but I tend to think not; having myself been raised in pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, it never fails to amaze me that he would write, "Nothing was evil in its beginnings; not even Sauron was so." It certainly wasn't what I was taught as a child, and yet, he held this view even before I was born.

I will perhaps be guilty of sending us off on a tangent here, but the quoted comments struck my interest, and I feel somewhat obliged to point out certain facts regarding said Catholic doctrine.

Firstly, the idea that nothing was evil in the beginning, that "not even Sauron was so," is a very Catholic sounding phrase to my mind. Lucifer, after all, doesn't mean "blasted evil person" but "light-bearer," and the idea of Lucifer's fall to becoming Satan was perhaps better known pre-Council than post, since more emphasis was given to the Devil than since, but it is most definitely good, old-fashioned Catholic thought to say that Lucifer was a good angel of God once.

Indeed, this harkens back very much to Augustinian thought. Augustine, in trying to account for the existence of evil in the world, comes up continually against the apparent contradiction that God, as a perfectly good being, wouldn't create evil... but He created the Devil, right? One of Augustine's answers to this question (he grappled with it long and had a few) was that God created everything Good, and things are evil only insofar as they have lost aspects of the Goodness proper to them.

In a sense, one can see this reflected in Melkor, who is, I am very willing to claim, no more evil in the beginning than Tolkien claimed of Sauron. Specifically, it seems demonstrable that as Melkor becomes more evil he loses parts of his original goodness and powers, eventually becoming completely unable to subcreate anything, but only to destroy, because creative power is a Good, and he has lost that as he has stripped himself more and more of his original goodness.

Anyway, without getting into more philosophy than my tired, addled brain can handle at this late hour, I'll basically just say that it seems very Catholic to me indeed that Tolkien should say such things of Sauron. Of course, this is not to say that such an understanding need be the household expression of faith (and no offence intended on that score to Ibri one way or another), but rather that Tolkien, given that he was raised, post-orphaning, by a Catholic priest, and was an academic with probably more than a passing knowledge of the classics (including Augustine and other church writers), would most definitely have had an understanding of evil that could accommodate a statement such as "even Sauron was not so in the beginning"--whether or not that was the understanding of the masses prior to the council, it is certainly in accord with centuries of philosophical Catholic thought.

Hmm... just ignore me if I've steamrolled too far into digression.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, I would not worry that much as in fact, this is far closer to the original topic than lots of other things which have been discussed around were. Let me say only this, what you just presented, Form, is exactly what I always thought was Tolkien's idea about the evil in Middle-Earth. I have not read any letters or such, but only from Ainulindalë and these remarks "nothing was evil at the beginning, not even Sauron", I thought that it's pretty clear: the original state of Arda (resp. of the whole universe, including Ainur and everything) was "good" at the beginning. And only due to certain "falls" - of Melkor etc. - the state did not remain just good. And just to add, I am not possibly as much of an expert on Catholicism as Form is, but certainly the idea I had about Catholicism was that - of course, as in all forms of Christianity and Judaism, too (maybe even stronger there, without the ideas of "original sin") - it clearly holds that everything was good in the beginning, i.e. that the world and creation is fundamentally good. One hears "and it was good" after every day in the first chapter of Genesis, so I strongly doubt such think could be overlooked. Any sins, even if they were hereditary, are just a secondary thing.

Anyway, to get somewhat back to the very original topic, I actually find the second thing Ibri quoted as most interesting for this discussion:

They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred.

What does it mean - "change of plan"? Does it simply refer in other words to the reshaping of the world (i.e. rather "change of architectonic plans"), or does it get to the core of the problem we are questioning here? Doesn't it seem to you that this quote sounds almost like "there happened an accident"? Perhaps it's the word "occured" that makes me think so: had there been "Eru drowned them all", I would think otherwise. This sounds rather as if it were indeed an "accident", as some were implying here. Most curious, are we getting here the chance to see what Tolkien himself thought about it, or am I reading too much to this?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

I presume his reference to the Jews is equating the Meneltarma with the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, and in their monotheism, not in their specific beliefs or practices.

Actually, do you know what the Meneltarma always makes me think of? The Kaaba at Mecca! And oddly, that itself is a pillar, maybe not in shape, but it is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

Interesting...

The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion -- for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them with any 'divine' display of the powers they held over the physical world. They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred.

My take on this is that Eru had plans, some known to the Ainur and some unknown:

Originally Posted by Sil

And many other things Iluvatar spoke to the Ainur at that time, and because of their memory of his words, and the knowledge that each has of the music that he himself made, the Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past

And so my take is Eru changed the plan completely when he changed the world. The interesting bit is what 'the plan' was in the first place and whether it was one the Valar were party to. I strongly suspect not in this case!

If I were the editor, I would have perhaps cut out 100 or so pages (or as the Emperor said to Mozart, 'There are too many notes"). I was also bewildered that Strange brought himself to the brink of madness to save his wife, but then blithely traipsed off with that crashing boor Norrell rather than spend time with Arabella (the only settling influence he had). It was a very odd novel: so much to commend, but just as much to condemn.

I agree - a hundred or so pages less and it would have been better, though I think maybe she was trying to ape the style of the picaresque, and novels of that period did tend to wander a little (like Tristram Shandy - longest shaggy dog story ever!). I would say it's not a style necessarily to modern tastes, too, but it still sold reasonably well - maybe we like to think we are getting good value from a book?

In contrast to you, I found the latter part of the book whizzed by!

Sorry, everyone BTW for turning this into Book review corner, I was curious what Morthoron thought of it, seeing as everyone else gushes about it

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Anyway, to get somewhat back to the very original topic, I actually find the second thing Ibri quoted as most interesting for this discussion:

What does it mean - "change of plan"? Does it simply refer in other words to the reshaping of the world (i.e. rather "change of architectonic plans"), or does it get to the core of the problem we are questioning here? Doesn't it seem to you that this quote sounds almost like "there happened an accident"? Perhaps it's the word "occured" that makes me think so: had there been "Eru drowned them all", I would think otherwise. This sounds rather as if it were indeed an "accident", as some were implying here. Most curious, are we getting here the chance to see what Tolkien himself thought about it, or am I reading too much to this?

First, Tolkien's conception of Sauron as inherently good (or not evil) in the beginning does not conflict with pre-Vatican II theology. To infer that Catholicism ever harbored a duality of good and evil (as would be the implication had Sauron or Morgoth been evil in the beginning) would be in error, as that was heretical back to the time of the Arian heresy as well as the Albigenses in the Middle-ages.

Second, I do not believe it was accidental, nor do I think the quote "a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred" infers any accident whatsoever. What it refers to is a surrender of choice by the Valar to the all-consuming power of Eru. In that remission of leadership, the Valar gave up any and all detente, cajoling or pleas to Numenor for a final verdict by Eru, who chose once and for all to divide Valinor from Arda and inflict the severest of all penalties upon Numenor. But even in his wrath, Eru appears as Yahweh to Noah, saving the faithful under Elendil (which I believe differentiates Atalante from Atlantis as there were no survivors in the Greek tradition).

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

First, Tolkien's conception of Sauron as inherently good (or not evil) in the beginning does not conflict with pre-Vatican II theology. To infer that Catholicism ever harbored a duality of good and evil (as would be the implication had Sauron or Morgoth been evil in the beginning) would be in error, as that was heretical back to the time of the Arian heresy as well as the Albigenses in the Middle-ages.

Actually, what I was really referring to was my specific experience with a Catholic upbringing, which can vary widely, depending on the priests and nuns doing the teaching. The words of doctrine can be the same, but the impact will differ depending on how they are presented and the commentary and interpretation that follows. The clergy who taught at my church and school were very much of the mind that we are all sinners, sinners, sinners, evil wicked things in our very creation, and we must constantly strive for what they presented as an impossible goal of redemption. I suspect that Tolkien's teachers had a somewhat less "doom and gloom" presentation of Original Sin and its relevance to his personal life and ability to achieve salvation. But because of my own rearing, it astonished me to read those words in his writing. My parish priests and nuns certainly didn't believe that nothing was evil in its beginning, and it truly amazed me to hear another Catholic say otherwise. Still does, and I've long since left the Church.

Didn't mean to start a theological bruhaha; I should've been a bit clearer that I was speaking from a very personal viewpoint.

Second, I do not believe it was accidental, nor do I think the quote "a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred" infers any accident whatsoever. What it refers to is a surrender of choice by the Valar to the all-consuming power of Eru. In that remission of leadership, the Valar gave up any and all detente, cajoling or pleas to Numenor for a final verdict by Eru, who chose once and for all to divide Valinor from Arda and inflict the severest of all penalties upon Numenor. But even in his wrath, Eru appears as Yahweh to Noah, saving the faithful under Elendil (which I believe differentiates Atalante from Atlantis as there were no survivors in the Greek tradition).

In fact, in the same letter, Tolkien does refer to the "Noachic" situation of Elendil and the Faithful. And when he says "change of plan," I wonder if he might not mean "the plan as the Valar understood it," or perhaps even "the Valar's plan," since they were the ones who came up with the idea of fashioning Numenor as a reward. The other time Tolkien refer to a "change of plan" is, I believe, elsewhere in the same letter, when he talks about the resurrection of Gandalf, and Eru's widening of a plan which began as the Valar's. In both cases, Eru intervened to change the situation after it had failed, in one way or another. The magnitude of the necessary intervention is, perhaps, in correlation with the magnitude of the error of those involved -- or perhaps of the plan itself.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Actually, do you know what the Meneltarma always makes me think of? The Kaaba at Mecca! And oddly, that itself is a pillar, maybe not in shape, but it is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

Interesting...

Interesting indeed. But truly, it would be pretty clear even had not Tolkien written it down there, that he used mount Sion (or possibly mount Gerizim for the Samaritans) as inspiration for Meneltarma, even with the annual festival of coming up there and that even then not everybody could come to the very top. Hey, wasn't there even something like that only the King (in the function of "high priest" here) would make the prayer to Eru? That would be similar to the thing in pre-exile Judaism that only the high priest would call on the Name of God once a year there.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

And when he says "change of plan," I wonder if he might not mean "the plan as the Valar understood it," or perhaps even "the Valar's plan," since they were the ones who came up with the idea of fashioning Numenor as a reward. The other time Tolkien refer to a "change of plan" is, I believe, elsewhere in the same letter, when he talks about the resurrection of Gandalf, and Eru's widening of a plan which began as the Valar's. In both cases, Eru intervened to change the situation after it had failed, in one way or another. The magnitude of the necessary intervention is, perhaps, in correlation with the magnitude of the error of those involved -- or perhaps of the plan itself.

Well, I would say it was the way that there was certain "plan" laid down in the Music - the plan with which Valar counted; and that there were some "inner laws" of the world, some apparent on first sight, some more obscure, but still, they were set in some way, so to say, to the law of action and consequences. That quote from Ainulindalë

for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past

simply means that the inner laws of the world (which were "codified" by the Music) are not compelling to Eru himself, and that the chain of action and consequences is not the final thing (as said quite explicitely in the quote).

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Hey, wasn't there even something like that only the King (in the function of "high priest" here) would make the prayer to Eru? That would be similar to the thing in pre-exile Judaism that only the high priest would call on the Name of God once a year there.

Yes, that was the way of it. During Eruhantale, when the people went up to the top of Meneltarma, only the King would speak.

Well, I would say it was the way that there was certain "plan" laid down in the Music - the plan with which Valar counted; and that there were some "inner laws" of the world, some apparent on first sight, some more obscure, but still, they were set in some way, so to say, to the law of action and consequences.

There was clearly the "plan" that was made in the Ainulindale, of course, but within the world, there are also the workings of free will, which is a quality Eru appears to have given both to the Children and the Ainur. The smaller "plans" of the Valar -- such as the sending of the Istari, the bringing of the Elves to Valinor, and the creation of Numenor -- weren't necessarily in the bigger "plan" (indeed, Eru didn't care much for the notion of the Valar taking the Elves out of Middle-earth), and thus I don't think that the destruction of Numenor was a "change of plan" that meant a change of something that was specifically included within the Music. It, I think, was a variation on a theme that cropped up as a sort of "cadenza" during the "performance," so to speak, and thus required an alteration of some "measures" to bring things back into harmony with the original "score." (Cripes, do I have "I'M A MUSICIAN" tattooed on my forehead or something...? )

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

It, I think, was a variation on a theme that cropped up as a sort of "cadenza" during the "performance," so to speak, and thus required an alteration of some "measures" to bring things back into harmony with the original "score." (Cripes, do I have "I'M A MUSICIAN" tattooed on my forehead or something...? )

I echo your sentiments regarding the tattoo burnished across my addled pate. Amusingly, I had always wondered if Morgoth was world's first jazz musician and offered syncopation and riffing in minor notes that threw off the staunch and majestic Bach-like chorals of the Ainulindalë. Or perhaps he was a Stravinsky in a china shop and upset the celestial harmony with stark motifs and variations of brashness that would appeal to the more revolutionary elements of the Ainur (after all, the Bohemian Balrogs seemed partial to his innovations).

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I echo your sentiments regarding the tattoo burnished across my addled pate. Amusingly, I had always wondered if Morgoth was world's first jazz musician and offered syncopation and riffing in minor notes that threw off the staunch and majestic Bach-like chorals of the Ainulindalë. Or perhaps he was a Stravinsky in a china shop and upset the celestial harmony with stark motifs and variations of brashness that would appeal to the more revolutionary elements of the Ainur (after all, the Bohemian Balrogs seemed partial to his innovations).

I tend to think Melkor/Morgoth was more on the order of Karlheinz Stockhausen (untraditional, controversial, and you either loved him or hated him) or Pierre Schaeffer and music concrete (which, when I was in college, often inspired reactions from students, even of jazz, on the order of, "what the heck is THAT???"). If you love what they do, you are an avid devotee of their works, but if you don't... well...

[sleepless_elf]

Originally Posted by Galorme

"The fear of God". Now that sounds just plain evil. The idea that there is a higher power who will punish you if you do wrong is just sick. Don’t you love Christianity?

In case you haven't guessed I am letting some of my Atheist beliefs infuence me here a tad.

hmm well if thats the logic, then why should the gouverment punish those who break the law? in essence they too are a higher power than us. however i do agree with you that the bible does make it sound like the god described in it is not perfect.


with regards to numenor, it was a neccessary act. it had to be done. however, what i found most sad about it is that the faithfull numenoreans suffered the worst out of it. because they had to live with the fact that their country of birth was no more. for all their faithfulness, they were exiled to middle earth!

just a side note, in the appendix of the lord of the rings, the tale of aragorn and arwen, didnt arwen clearly state that she felt sorry for even the corrupted numenoreans? '' as wicked fools i scorned them, but i pity them atlast! ''

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by sleepless_elf

hmm well if thats the logic, then why should the gouverment punish those who break the law? in essence they too are a higher power than us. however i do agree with you that the bible does make it sound like the god described in it is not perfect.

This might be off-topic, but I really have to set you straight on this one. The Bible uses language like "regret" and "repent" in reference to God in order to describe in human terms what appears to be a change in God's will. It's not, of course, and in the long run everything goes according to eternal plan.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But even in his wrath, Eru appears as Yahweh to Noah, saving the faithful under Elendil (which I believe differentiates Atalante from Atlantis as there were no survivors in the Greek tradition).

Any mention of Noah reminds me of Eddie Izzard's take: Eddie Izzard's Noah's Ark

although I suppose that with Ulmo watching over the waters, there wouldn't be any evil fish to survive.