The Lord of the Bible?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

. . . . Both of these exercises are fulfilling and will get you a little closer to Tolkien's head. . . .

But it's only when you realize that both these strains were somehow tangled up in the soul of a single man, that you get to the heart of what is going on. . . .

As an historian, the next thing I want to do is bang on the table and demand to know where this dichotomy comes from in Tolkien.

This is the point at which I will simply retire from commenting, as I don't think one needs to resort to biographical construction to understand how a text can reflect a cultural dilemma or dichotomy. People have a difficult enough time understanding their fellow family members, friends, and others in their community--let alone internet posts and posters--to say nothing of the difficulty in reconstructing a person from literary remains.

Of course, others are welcome to discussing it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Though of course my attempts at explanation of scientific theory will not be troubling Stephen Hawking for any time.

I think that you've stated it well enough. Some theories indicate (and I can't remember if these theories hinge on whether 'Dark Matter' is found or not) that the universe will expand to a certain point, then fall back on itself, becoming a single point...at which time it will explode blazingly once again into a completely new universe, complete with new car smell.

At least we'll all be back together for a time.

Or, as stated, the universe will expand until everything is a large homogenous soup of atoms, die a heat death, and silence (and darkness) will reign.

Regardless, I doubt that I'll be around. Think that the last sound heard will be either "Is too," or "Is not." Whether from this thread, the Gandalf vs Witch King thread, or the infamous Balrog's wings thread, we'll just have to wait and see.

Learning a lot from this thread. Cheers.

[Mister Underhill]

Well, there's also the rather dramatic Big Rip theory, which does have to do with dark matter and such.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This theory doesn't give any kind of rebirth, though one theory does - that of the Elastic Universe.

We don't get too much BBC here in the States, except for what they choose to show on Public Telly (PBS); but then I don't have cable or dish either. But I've heard of the Elastic Universe theory; it is considered the least viable of those having to do with the subject.

Actually, the dichotomy you speak of, Child, is not at all esoteric or psychological. Tolkien's primary areas of thought are well known to have been his faith and his area of professional expertise; the former of course providing source material for his Catholic thought, the latter by way of Germanic and Northern language, myth, and legend (and all things adhering thereto), providing source material for his pagan-rooted (that is Germanic, Celtic, and Finnish) thought.

What strikes me as so interesting is that this particular dichotomy is not at all that which normally bedevils Western civilization, which is the dichotomy between mind and matter for which we can thank the Greeks (may they boil in dichotomous mental oil for the bequest. ).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now let me step aside for a moment and ask that people do not post deeply personal interpretations (sermons?) of their own faiths as 'information'. I was enjoying the debate but it so easily slides back into what has already caused trouble and I am feeling provoked (as predicted, and as such, why hit 'send' after this week's events?). One person this week was admonished for their own thundering and tendency to hit 'send' without thinking, and I can add that he is very sorry to have caused offence and knows that to step back would have been the better move. I am sorry myself to have seen this done again so soon. I could have argued against what has been said and given my own interpretation (as I spend a lot of time thinking about faith and philosophy - it's important to me), but I do not see the point, enough upset has been caused for one week.

Well, mark12_30 has edited the original post, and I hope that addresses your principal concern.

But let me make clear the "official" position on this so that there can be no misunderstanding and no lingering doubts that double-standards are being applied.

There is a difference between stating one's beliefs and commenting unfavourably and disrespectfully on the beliefs of others. The former is perfectly acceptable, provided that it is relevant to the subject matter of the thread and otherwise in accordance with the forum rules. The latter is not acceptable as it is contrary to the principles of this site, which strives for tolerant, courteous and respectful debate. I fully accept, as a committed advocate of freedom of speech myself, that there is a slight tension here between freedom of speech and the forum rules which we apply. Anyone who has visited a less ordered site than this, and there are many where insults, cruelty and the flaming of other peoples' posts are common-place, will appreciate, I am sure, why those rules are in place and therefore the justification for the (very limited) limitations on freedom of speech which they impose.

That said, I do have some sympathy for your point Lal, and my position has always been to challenge any statement of belief which is made in such a way as to suggest that it should or must necessarily be accepted by others, either generally or as the basis for the discussion in question. There is a fine line between stating Biblical text (or any other religious source) to justify a particular point (for example, in the context of this thread, a personally drawn Biblical parallel) and "sermonising" to others involved in the debate. The latter can come across as aggressive and cause offence, which is why I expressed my hope earlier in this thread that those who might be inclined to indulge in it would refrain from doing so.

Mark12_30 was answering a specific question that had been raised and was at pains to point out in her original post that she had no intention of causing offence. Nevertheless, and particularly in threads like this, a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is required (on all "sides" of the debate). This may not be a matter of changing the content of what you want to say, but considering the manner in which you express it. Generally, personal beliefs should be expressed as just that - personal beliefs - rather than as assumed realities.

I hope that clarifies the position and would ask that all involved in this discussion bear these points in mind, since continued Mod and Admin intervention is both disruptive of the ongoing debate and time-consuming for the Mods/Admins involved.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thanks for your thoughts--- Helen, Littlemanpoet, and many others. I admit I purposely pushed hard on my previous posts to generate discussion. The line I enthusiastically drew was probably too dramatic. As a Catholic, Tolkien would have accepted and understood that evil is real…. that it is personal and possessing in a way some modern thinkers totally fail to see . Even so, the Northern pagan world view is, in my eyes, ultimately more negative, fatalistic, and pessimistic than that espoused by the Christian faith.

The best way I can address this is by stressing the Christian and pagan views of hope and hopelessness.. This contrast is one of the most poignant themes running through the Legendarium. I think it's fair to state that Hope is rarely seen in the context of the old Northern myths. In speaking of Beowulf, Tolkien himself described the pagan era as “heathen, noble, and helpless.” In several interviews and published writings, Tom Shippey has argued that one of Tolkien’s main motivations was to consider how pre-revelation men, who were placed in an utterly hopeless situation, still chose to make moral choices.

All of this leads us back to the question of the world's end, something others also talked about on this thread. In Christianity, goodness remains even if it lies beyond the walls of the world and we can not reach it in our human state. In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

LotR is filled with examples of pagan hopelessness. Just a few come to mind. There is Aragorn’s grim statement after the loss of Gandalf that “We must do without hope”, the totally hopeless assault of the Free Peoples at the Black Gate, and Frodo’s grim comment to Sam, “It’s all quite useless….You are the fool, going on hoping and toiling.” These could be multiplied a hundred times. Yet there are also the other statements and examples of hope strewn throughout the book, which we have discussed a hundred times before on this board. The presence or absence of hope best sums up the Christian/pagan dichotomy for me.

When I read biographical accounts of Tolkien, I see some of this dichotomy in the author’s personal life. (My apologies to Bêthberry--I can't resist.) Tolkien apparently fought back against moodiness and depression much of his life. He was constantly struggling back to hope. This could also explain why he appended the Athrabeth to the Legendarium. He felt the need to resolve the vexing dilemma of pagan hopelessness and Christian hope late in his own life. In the end, Tolkien came down at least publicly on the side of hope and his own religious faith.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

When I read biographical accounts of Tolkien, I also see this dichotomy in the author’s personal life. (My apologies to Bêthberry as I can't resist.) Tolkien apparently fought back against moodiness and depression much of his life. He was constantly struggling back to hope. This could also explain why he appended the Athrabeth to the Legendarium. He felt the need to resolve the vexing question of pagan hopeless and Christian hope near the end of his own life and, in the end, came down at least publicly on the side of hope and his own religious faith.

Please, Child, there's no need to apologise, as I always enjoy your historical observations. I don't by any means wish to deny the possibility of historical study. My interest is simply to suggest that a biographical/psychological motivation is not the only reason why LotR might harbour this kind of dual vision. Writers can be inspired as much by what they read as by their own lives; what I think is interesting is that one of Tolkien's favourite poems demonstrates a quality which we find--or which some find--in his work.

There are writers whose work is constantly reduced to their lives, everything explained by recourse to their personal lives and self-expression. This tack really does a disservice to the works which the authors produced and so I am leery of always going solely to the life to explain something in the work. There could well be an artistic or storytelling purpose for the text which the biographical methods misses.

Originally Posted by Child

All of this leads us back to the question of the world's end, something others also talked about on this thread. In Christianity, goodness remains even if it lies beyond the walls of the world and we can not reach it in our human state. In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

This reminds me of a saying in philosophy: "When the ends keep receding, the means must justify themselves." Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario? Is this admittedly very modern morality explored in LotR?

[Lalwendë]

Yes, and I'd like to extend some genuine thanks.

I was just disappointed that after what's happened this week I saw information across in a deeply personal way which was admitted might provoke people. I know one person who has learned something from what's happened, I hope others have also learnt when to wave the white flag. I also know I have! And I might add that my reasons for calling it 'deeply personal' is that I saw posts peppered with exclamations and asides expressing primacy of faith, not strictly from one person either so I'm not picking on anyone. I have also noticed a few posts where Pagans have been associated with demons etc, which will be offending some Downers as I know we have Pagans here, and that faith is also a deeply held one. And they're too scared to post now.

I guess we have to accept that whatever we might think, not everyone else is going to believe it too. I know that all too well as the last Socialist in the Western World (no I don't sell those newspapers).

Anyway, back to it, as I might be a terrier at times when challenged, but I know when to drop the bone. Not least to give SpM a chance to have his tea.

Originally Posted by lmp

But I've heard of the Elastic Universe theory; it is considered the least viable of those having to do with the subject.

Originally Posted by alatar

Some theories indicate (and I can't remember if these theories hinge on whether 'Dark Matter' is found or not) that the universe will expand to a certain point, then fall back on itself, becoming a single point...at which time it will explode blazingly once again into a completely new universe, complete with new car smell.

At least we'll all be back together for a time.

Or, as stated, the universe will expand until everything is a large homogenous soup of atoms, die a heat death, and silence (and darkness) will reign.

There's as many scientific theories on the Universe as there are religions! Which suggests that even followers of strict Reason have a few schisms, and they're not united in any way. I'm often struck by how mystical science can be, too. Ever since I read of The Walls of the Universe, I've been a little obsessed with the phrase (not just with the concept) as it's just so...poetic! Basically we're all trying to find what it all means - and therefore I'm not surprised Tolkien's own views can seem confusing and even contradictory. Hey, we were knocking Pullman not that long ago (still reading HDM and hoping to get some new conclusions because I do love the book, and Pullman is really a nice guy by the sounds of it) but is he really any more 'confused' than Tolkien?

If we do look at what he reflects of Pagans, I don't think it's pessimism or anything like that at all, partly because that's not what paganism is broadly about. He writes of characters like Eowyn who want to die gloriously, of Eomer who goes into battle full throttle, and Theoden who dies expressing the consolation that he will go to his forefathers. Paganism is not pessimistic! Death is a welcome thing as much as it can be in other religions; the warrior who dies in battle is going to feast with the other great warriors who preceeded him (or her!). Ragnarok is not bad, it is to be welcomed. It's the ultimate chance for glory, and a 'good death'. Of course, there are as many flavours of Paganism as there are of Christianity so some may disagree.

Originally Posted by Child

In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

But there is. After Ragnarok, Balder will return and all the dead will live together and enjoy life everlasting.

Other Pagan faiths don't even have an end time philosophy.

The modern scientific theories all end in lights out however. Even if we all go back to helping make up a new star, (if from stars we came) even the atoms will cop for it in the end.

[Child of the 7th Age]

But there is. After Ragnarok, Balder will return and all the dead will live together and enjoy life everlasting.

Ah, that is interesting....

[littlemanpoet]

It would help us to be aware of a distinction between modern paganism and pre-Christian paganism. The modern variety has at its beck and call all the resources (of thought, technology, etc.) of the modern world, whereas the pre-Christian had only the culture and traditions thereof within each local people group. The pre-Christian is documented as having been quite pessimistic, despite the Balderic resurrection.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It would help us to be aware of a distinction between modern paganism and pre-Christian paganism. The modern variety has at its beck and call all the resources (of thought, technology, etc.) of the modern world, whereas the pre-Christian had only the culture and traditions thereof within each local people group. The pre-Christian is documented as having been quite pessimistic, despite the Balderic resurrection.

Depends where you get your sources from really. The Romans of course liked to depict the British Celts as a brutish race and their scribes reserved particular hatred for the druids, seeing them as animals compared to their own sophisticated Gods. Yet archaeological and mythological evidence bears out that the Celts were possibly more sophisticated than the Romans in many ways - not least in the higher status of women, who had no status in Roman society. The druids were certainly not animals as they were depicted! Of course then the monks came along and they too had to make the old religions seem dangerous and unattractive. Some things could be absorbed whereas others had to be discredited - that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable.

Even going further back, the incredible amount of megalithic remains that litter the British Isles betrays that there was a highly advanced society with awareness of geometry and astronomy way before the Greeks, maybe even ways to predict eclipses. It doesn't suggest a pessimistic outlook to have societies which could spare the time and resources to build such monuments - it would have been the ancients' equivalent of having a Humber Bridge or Hoover Dam in every village.

And that's just in my own back yard. We've not even looked at other ancient 'pagan' faiths including some biggies such as Zoroastrianism, Shinto or Buddhism.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Some things could be absorbed whereas others had to be discredited - that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable. . . .
And that's just in my own back yard. We've not even looked at other ancient 'pagan' faiths including some biggies such as Zoroastrianism, Shinto or Buddhism.

True indeed. Those who write the history books control the representation.


Just for the sake of clarification, Lal, my comments pertained to Norse mythologies only. Also to clarify my point, I don't see where the statement that a world view is pessimistic necessarily means it lacks sophistication or is uncultured. Far from it! I personally find Norse myths incredible.

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled topic ...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Just for the sake of clarification, Lal, my comments pertained to Norse mythologies only. Also to clarify my point, I don't see where the statement that a world view is pessimistic necessarily means it lacks sophistication or is uncultured. Far from it!

What I'm trying to say is that a culture which was inherently pessimistic would not invest huge amounts of resource into making long lasting monuments, temples, scientific observatories - whatever these enigmatic remains might be. Pessimistic cultures would live for today and not look to the future generations, not assume that time invested in constructing elaborate structures would be worth it in the long run. Look at the great cathedrals of the world - built by people who felt assured of their future, just as did the peoples who built Stonehenge.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

This is admittedly a rough sketch of a post... I'm still hashing my way through the thoughts.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable.

And the literature that Tolkien loved so well and drew so heavily upon comes from a society rife with conquering.

It's fun that we're discussing this just as I start a new class that's very heavily reliant on Middle English lit. First day of class we rehashed why it is the way it is: looking at Brit history shows a pretty grim life. Small wonder there's all this talk of doom and gloom in Tolkien's work, in the period work; sure there was Christianity, the life after death, the thought of hope, but there was also the pious monk that was writing his alliterative poetry about roods and was on watch those late nights when the Vikings sailed up to the coastal monastery and started pillaging. Life was hard.

The narrator of The Wanderer sums it up nicely with "It will be well with him who seeks favor, comfort from the Father in heaven, where for us all stability resides."

Yep. Doom and gloom. Belief and faith, but also logical pessimism. This wouldn't necessarily mean anything to me if these lines, just a few before that translation, weren't so... um... reminiscent... of something else.

Originally Posted by The Wanderer

Therefore the man wise in his heart considers carefully this wall-place and this dark life, remembers the multitude of deadly combats long ago, and speaks these words: 'Where has the horse gone? Where the young warrior? Where is the giver of treasure? What has become of the feasting seats? Where are the joys of the hall? Alas, the bright cup! Alas, the mailed warrior! Alas the prince's glory! How that time has gone, vanished beneath night's cover, just as if it had never been!'

[Lalwendë]

I'm always interested in interpretations of British history from other perspectives. Remember that the Saxons had the serious advantage of having been the first to write it all down, and they did put a spin on things, much of it involving huge enthusiasm for their new religion, as you would! We also think of hard done to Saxons being raped and pillaged by Vikings, but that's not the whole truth. The Saxons were a conquering race who had not been on the island for all that long before the Vikings began raiding.

They were also not innocent, as genetic evidence proves that they practised apartheid and were quite successful at preventing Britons from breeding. When the Vikings arrived, some of the Britons pushed into unwanted corners of the island welcomed the new invaders. And of course talk to a Norwegian and they might tell you that all the Vikings only wanted to trade (I did, and that's what she was taught at school). The truth is probably that some raided, some traded.

Hmm, pessimism. I would say that a monk in those days, who would be the scribe of an epic poem, would indeed be pessimistic. Putting aside Vikings, life in the early monasteries was tough, and being a scribe was even tougher!

I wonder if we should call it pessimism. Maybe, from our nice comfy lives in the modern age these poets looked liked pessimists. Perhaps they were instead realists? They accepted that they would one day die? And that they might also die young. We on the other hand have long lives and pensions to look forards to, if nothing else on the 'other side'. Few of us, especially those of us who are young, have that acceptance of mortality. Yet speak to my father and he will sound pessimistic - he would call it resignation.

There's another thing - natural English nostalgia. There was an item on the news today about how people thought 1985 was better than now. Excuse me? Three million unemployed? The Miners' strike? They came to the conclusion that it was the same old nostalgia we just love to indulge in. Mustn't grumble.

[littlemanpoet]

Lal's on vacation and I can tell.

I'm about caught up with this page of the thread (I admit to not entirely being attentive for a good four of them, and apparently I did myself a favor ).

I'm familiar, Lal, with pretty much all the history you describe, except for the Saxon penchant for rendering the Brits incapable of progeny. It wouldn't surprise me.

The Celtic outlook has, by and large, been more "upbeat" than the Nordic, as you say, Lal.

Now, how did we get here? (LMP scratches head trying to recall the order of the links in the spilled chain on the floor) Oh yeah, that dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario? Is this admittedly very modern morality explored in LotR?

Yes and maybe.

As for the 'yes', it seems to be based on survival necessity. As soon as a civilization has reached the point at which its members cease to be primarily concerned about survival (except for the poor of course), morality begins to alter such that it's based on things other than survival. Such as personal inclinations. People of 150 years ago would be horrified at what we just look the other way from or outright tolerate.

As for the 'maybe', what's 'admittedly' mean? LotR is a very modern story. It couldn't have been written before WW One. Its themes have much in common with the so-called Lost Generation. Speaking of which (this is just occurring to me based on having mentioned the 'LG' above), The LG had only the dry husk of a Christian faith which they more or less didn't really take seriously, they had science, and they had their classical education which had long since replaced anything remotely Germanic until perhaps the university level and then only by choice. You may recall that from Renaissance until mid-way through the last century, it was generally accepted that Roman and Greek is Good, Germanic is at best embarrassing. Then here comes J.R.R. Tolkien who has the nerve to write a book in which Roman and Greek are virtually non-existent and Germanic/Celtic/Finnish are glorious! The literati were not pleased (snicker), especially after a Mein Kampf kind of war had just been fought and won or lost depending which side you were on, in which the 'bad guys' had celebrated their German-ness. The nerve of that Tolkien.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bethberry
Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario?

It depends on what you mean by the end here.

Every action one makes is based on values eg. ends. If you value bildung you go to higher education, you value social hanging around with mates with no questions asked, you go to a football match and the round in the pub required... Every thing you do is done because you have a value which you crave for. An end you see worthy, a value. As philosophers say, an axiologigal choice.

There was a time when most of the people (a majority anyhow) in western civilisation had somewhat similar views of these ends and they included scenarios of the End. People were taught that what you do is waged in the afterlife. Or that the things you do become meaningful only in the light of those last time occurences. There was a view of the common end then.

In the individualistic West today the thing is different. That is a truism, surely. But as a "non-believer" or an agnostic bent to atheism, I can't see how the "believers" could rob us of our morality? I need no compensation of being nice to others or a metaphysical story of the end to guide me acting morally towards others. I just do not see the need of an end-time scenario to act morally. I just believe being human is what it takes...

So is there a moral basis without an end-time scenario? Surely there is. Being good, whatever the consequence. That is moral.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What I'm trying to say is that a culture which was inherently pessimistic would not invest huge amounts of resource into making long lasting monuments, temples, scientific observatories - whatever these enigmatic remains might be. Pessimistic cultures would live for today and not look to the future generations, not assume that time invested in constructing elaborate structures would be worth it in the long run. Look at the great cathedrals of the world - built by people who felt assured of their future, just as did the peoples who built Stonehenge.

Originally Posted by Tolkien via Legolas, The Ring Goes South

"But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them. Only I hear the stone lament them: deep they delved us,fair they wrought us, high they builded us; but they are gone. They are gone. They sought the Havens long ago."

Originally Posted by Beowulf poet, from Heaney, ll.3150 ff

A Geat woman too sang out in grief;
with hair bound up, she unburdened herself
of her worst fears, a wild litany
of nightmare and lament: her nation invaded,
enemies on the rampage, bodies in piles,
slavery and abasement. Heaven swallowed the smoke.
[Heofon rece swealg.]
Then the Geat people began to construct
a mound on a headland, high and imposing,
a marker that sailors could see from far away,
and in ten days they had done the work.
It was their hero's memorial
. . .
kindest to his people and keenest to win fame.

Originally Posted by Beowulf via Beowulf poet, from Heaney, ll. 2814 ff

Fate swept us away,
sent my whole brave high-born clan
to their final doom. Now I must follow them.

Why does the epic poem end not with victory but with the death of the hero king and the defeat of his people, their loss?

Why does LotR end not with Frodo's recovery or Aragorn's coronation and wedding but with the inescapable consequence of Frodo's decision and the departure of the elves?

Perhaps you would prefer the word elegaic rather than pessimistic, as I see you have also suggested nostalgic. Nostalgia suggests a bit too much sentimentalism, from my way of thinking. I will respectfully submit that we are dealing here with your interpretation and mine and I will respectfully insist upon my right to call these mythologies and world visions pessimistic.

Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last.

EDIT: Sorry, cross posted with several and no time to reply further, except yeah, what Fea said.

[Lalwendë]

I wasn't talking talking about Saxons nor was I talking about Elves, I was talking about ancient Britons (and Bretons, because they built these cultures too). These are the people who did not have a pessimistic view, but looked to the future as shown by their building of remarkable structures which would last down the millennia.

Yes, the Saxons may have had a sense of pessimism as they actually left us with little physical evidence - their wealth was portable (and this is reflected in the culture of the Rohirrim, who only left one substantial, optimistic cultural landmark, Helm's Deep, and possibly their barrows). But even so I would argue against the Saxons being totally pessimistic. We can only see a small proportion of what they most likely did produce in terms of literature, and its by no means all doom and gloom, they also left books of riddles. So we can't just make the sweeping statement that they were pessimistic.

And like it or not, nostalgia is a part of life in Britain. There's a whole industry based around it from selling National trust memberships to peddling 1950s CDs to producing endless TV shows which look back to what it was like in our schooldays. The word Retro excites us, and we argue about whether to save an old building or knock it down to put up new ones. Where I work they have had to create an entire division called Change, just to deal with out reluctance to let go of the past. It's real.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I wasn't talking talking about Saxons nor was I talking about Elves, I was talking about ancient Britons (and Bretons, because they built these cultures too). These are the people who did not have a pessimistic view, but looked to the future as shown by their building of remarkable structures which would last down the millennia.

Isn't this logic a bit circular? Those who left stone monuments were optimistic, those who didn't, pessimistic? How do we know, unless we also have their literature to look at?

[Lalwendë]

Investing valuable resources in building complex constructions, as I've already said, suggests a culture which has a sense of permanence and optimism, whereas a culture which senses it is transient does not invest its resource in fixed objects and constructions. We see the same with the builders of the great medieval cathedrals - they felt their culture would endure for ever. Likewise the builders of the monumental waterfront in Liverpool - they felt that the sun would never set on the empire.

Funnily enough, there are more things in culture than books. Older socities may not have had literature, and there are still cultures today which do not have literature. To suggest that we can't learn anything about them because they do not hold the written word in the same way we do is cultural supremacism.

In fact, even Tolkien's work bears out what I've said. Contrast the Gondorians who have a culture existing for thousands of years, they have been shapers, builders, creators of monumental architecture which is permanent, with the Rohirrim who are newly arrived, living an uncertain existence - they are not builders, they have a sense of transience. And contrast Faramir's sense of hope when he looks to the West and thinks of Numenor and remembers a cultural memory of promise and even paradise, with Theoden's words on his death. He doesn't go to a place he simply goes to his ancestors. Even so, the Rohirrim are not strictly pessimistic, more that they simply live for the now, whereas the Gondorians live for the past and for the future, not in the now. Even Tolkien knew the significance of transient versus permanent cultures.

Look at the modern world. I would only take a mortgage if I felt assured of my permanence but if I felt insecure I would instead rent, and be transient.

[littlemanpoet]

I can't help wondering if the assertion that cultures which build great monuments are essentially optimistic, and those that do not are essentially pessimistic, does not bear up against scrutiny. Bethberry's quotes are much to the point. Is it not just as plausible to reason that cultures that have little hope of long continuation, build monuments precisely because they expect that these will be all that's left to represent them some day? This seems to bear up when we listen to individuals in our own culture who intend to leave some kind of legacy to their own short lives. The concern for legacy seems to go hand in hand with a recognition of approaching death rather than with "lightness of being" or whatever you want to call it.

Bethberry, I think elegiac is perhaps the most useful word for the present turn of the discussion.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I can't help wondering if the assertion that cultures which build great monuments are essentially optimistic, and those that do not are essentially pessimistic, does not bear up against scrutiny. Bethberry's quotes are much to the point. Is it not just as plausible to reason that cultures that have little hope of long continuation, build monuments precisely because they expect that these will be all that's left to represent them some day? This seems to bear up when we listen to individuals in our own culture who intend to leave some kind of legacy to their own short lives. The concern for legacy seems to go hand in hand with a recognition of approaching death rather than with "lightness of being" or whatever you want to call it.

Bethberry, I think elegiac is perhaps the most useful word for the present turn of the discussion.

No, the quotes were not to the point of what I was saying, as I was not talking about either Saxons or Elves, but about ancient Britons (and other ancient civilisations). They only cast light on what Tolkien or the author of Beowulf thought. They don't cast any light on the anonymous architects of Avebury because they can't. To look at what they thought we must use our minds and interpret what we have got. Not assertion but archaeological theory.

The urge to be personally remembered is in fact more a product of modern secular society, or indeed a vain and self-centred society, witness the current Cult of Personality. That is also the ultimate in luxuries. We might create personal legacies today but then we are also a throw-away-live-for-today society. Also bear in mind how long both megalithic structures and great cathedrals took to build. Centuries. Cultures under threat of destruction simply do not have that luxury of time. You don't fiddle while Rome burns.

Elegiac might fit the sense of loss that Tolkien expresses very well, but Elegiac is definitely not the term to use to describe the nostalgic feelings that British people as a society feel. Why? Because we aren't just mourning, but remembering the good times. See the quote that Fea put on. He's also remembering the good laughs, the nights supping in the ale hall.

Anyway, arguing over a word is a familiar way to divert a discussion, but you won't wear me down that way. Pedantry is how people in my line of work earn their wages, and I can easily spend a two hour meeting arguing about one word in an entire document.

[Nogrod]

Making generalisations with history is always a bit dangerous...

I visited Newgrange (in Ireland) some ten years ago. It had taken the people there something like two hundred years to build it - more than four thousand years ago. They probably were not thinking that as our fleeting culture is just about to die, so let's do this in a hurry. They must have been optimists in our sense of the word used here.

The counter example.

Adolf Hitler and his visions of the eternal Germany, to be realised with the help of Mr. Speer. The eternal monumets being imagined and in some cases begun by the third Reich... Were they optimists or pessimists? Or where they more vaguely the culture that did not believe to make for any lasting mark, and thence craved for any marks to out-count the days of their makers?

The urge to be personally remembered is in fact more a product of modern secular society, or indeed a vain and self-centred society, witness the current Cult of Personality.

Exactly. We must bear in mind that even the idea of "myself" as a self-centered notion is a new invention... The feeling of "me" today as the center of individuality was for the ancient Greeks and Romans the animality in us. Emotions and feelings happen to us and are not governed by us. They thought that a human was a human only when he (yes, he!) shut down the thrives and desires and was thinking things with the reason (differentia specifica of the humans).

In that world one couldn't think of being the center of all, but needed just to find his place in the order of the universe...

So there was no possibility of being optimistic or pessimistic on a grander scale then. Individual personality is a modern idea...

[Lalaith]

Just an aside on the rebirth/hope issue.
I don't pretend to be an expert on paganism in general but I do know a bit about the Norse mythical cycle. One of the problems in trying to establish just what the Vikings believed in terms of religion is that most of what we know about it today was written down during the Christian period. Snorri Sturluson, who wrote so much of what we rely on, was a 13th century historian, and a Christian (albeit unusually for that time, a secular individual rather than a cleric).

Also, Norse paganism and Christianity co-existed for several hundred years in the Viking world. Viking society had not converted as whole until around 900-1000 AD, while allowing individuals who had turned from the "old belief" to practice their new religion.
Scholars believe that some aspects of the mythological cycle - particularly the death and rebirth of Baldr - may have been injected later, as part of a Christianising influence.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing were true for other "pagan" belief systems. (I don't even know how we are defining the word pagan anyway. "Stuff our ancestors used to believe"? It seems a bit too vague, the old Norse religion has for example not much to do with the nature-based religion many people I know practice today, often called paganism)

As for eternal monuments (v. interesting points, Noggie...) Ozymandias springs to mind...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Also, Norse paganism and Christianity co-existed for several hundred years in the Viking world. Viking society had not converted as whole until around 900-1000 AD, while allowing individuals who had turned from the "old belief" to practice their new religion.
Scholars believe that some aspects of the mythological cycle - particularly the death and rebirth of Baldr - may have been injected later, as part of a Christianising influence.

Good question, I was waiting for that one! It's always worth bearing in mind that things may have been out in later to add some Christianity to the tales. However, that's one idea, and there are two more.

Secondly, that Christian culture built on what existed. You can see this did happen - many churches (if not all of the oldest churches) are built on pagan sites - evidence such as circular churchyards and being built on mounds betrays the original purpose of sites. A good example of this is a chapel built on a large barrow or cursus at Carnac. Glastonbury Tor is another. Quite wisely, early Christians sought to work with what already existed, by linking exisiting belief into the new one. Bit like Tolkien's idea that all myth was Christian, eh? Cultural assimilation? Missionaries even do it today - some of the Evangelical churches in Africa have bound in Animism to their faith (with some notable horrible results too, unfortunately). I'd say this was the most likely theory, as it seems to be the common way with conquerors throughout time - marry the local women, learn a bit of the language, make the natives see that their faith is an inferior version of the new one.

The other idea is that Christianity in fact has many common roots with pagan faiths. There's a theory that Christianity was based on Mithraism, as the two shared so many similarities. Its a theory that's worth looking up as there is so much common detail it would take all day to list it here! And going back to Norse myths, some have said that Odin was christianised in the tale where he hangs on Yggradsil for nine nights, saying that the writers tried to link Odin to Christ's crucifixion. However archaeological evidence from the discovery of Tollund Man shows that a common form of sacrifice was to hang someone (who would be considered very privileged) from a tree in a similar fashion, and tied there by their hair. Maybe 'crucifixion' was seen by Romans in Gaul and beyond and brought to the Middle east? Maybe it was just common around the world at that time?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Adolf Hitler and his visions of the eternal Germany, to be realised with the help of Mr. Speer. The eternal monumets being imagined and in some cases begun by the third Reich... Were they optimists or pessimists? Or where they more vaguely the culture that did not believe to make for any lasting mark, and thence craved for any marks to out-count the days of their makers?

Good example there, of course the Reich was to have lasted a Thousand Years. And Speer conceived Nuremberg as the ultimate city to celebrate it. The Nazis had incredible self belief and looked a long way into the future. Of course it lasted about 12 years in the end.

[The Saucepan Man]

Interesting though it is, the discussion is spiralling away from LotR and Tolkien at present. Please keep your posts on theme.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Not necessarily. As mentioned, Tolkien borrowed ideas, themes, even blatantly obvious situations (Glaurung and Fafnir, anyone?). Why should it be particularly harder to think he might have borrowed a character or a character type? That was my original argument in favor of Christ figures. If a writer can 'steal' a theme, why can't he 'steal' a character type?

Originally Posted by Lalwende

the Odinic wanderer that I think of.

There are some traits of Odin which would never be reflected in Gandalf; I haven't read anything past Voluspa, but it seems to me that Gandalf would never sacrifice an eye, or a human, for the sake of wisdom. He already had it in him, he just needed to rediscover it; moreover, Gandald isn't bound to a bodily form (IIRC, Odin is slain in the final battle and that's it for him, correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't have children, and esspecially wouldn't kill one of his his child Hoth who _unwillingly_ killed Baldr.

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Yes, I know about original sin and such in a Christian context, but this is a situation where the very fabric of Arda has been contaminated by Morgoth. That didn't happen in the bible.

Well, that is a matter of debate; we have the tree of knowledge of good and evil - therefore evil existed at least theoretically. Furthermore, the cursing of Adam ("cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life" Genesis) and the marring of Men are pretty similar, esspecially in their effects on how life is perceived. There is also the fact that the fallen angel offers Christ all the riches of the world. I would also note that Eru's Creation is good at its core:

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed, HoME X

For which reason it is said that whereas there is now great evil in Arda and many things therein are at discord, so that the good of one seemeth to be the hurt of another, nonetheless the founda¬tions of this world are good, and it turns by nature to good, healing itself from within by the power that was set there in its making; and evil in Arda would fail and pass away if it were not renewed from without: that is: that comes from wills and being [sic] that are other than Arda itself.

which is in accordance with the Atrabeth

Originally Posted by Note 10, Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HoME X

'Matter' is not regarded as evil or opposed to 'Spirit'. Matter was wholly good in origin. It remained a 'creature of Eru' and still largely good, and indeed self-healing, when not interfered with: that is, when the latent evil intruded by Melkor was not deliberately roused and used by evil minds.

Originally Posted by C7A

Ah, if only we could ask him!

Well, he did admit in the BBC interview that Eru is God

G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There are some traits of Odin which would never be reflected in Gandalf; I haven't read anything past Voluspa, but it seems to me that Gandalf would never sacrifice an eye, or a human, for the sake of wisdom. He already had it in him, he just needed to rediscover it; moreover, Gandald isn't bound to a bodily form (IIRC, Odin is slain in the final battle and that's it for him, correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't have children, and esspecially wouldn't kill one of his his child Hoth who _unwillingly_ killed Baldr.

Yes, fair enough, but Tolkien calls Gandalf "the Odinic wanderer that I think of", therefore he did indeed have Odin in mind when he wrote of Gandalf. But I can totally see why you would question the evil (or maybe violent, as it wasn't necessarily evil to those who thought of Odin, and some still do) side of Odin, as this isn't there in Gandalf, but it is there in his counterpart Sauron. And the fact that neither have kids (although who knows what Sauron had got up to in Numenor or Mordor?!) doesn't matter, as Tolkien originally conceived (no pun intended ) of Ainur who had sex and kids, so if he had continued down that line we may have seen Sauron's progeny.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, that is a matter of debate; we have the tree of knowledge of good and evil - therefore evil existed at least theoretically.

Or potentially? It reminds me of the Pandora's Box tale, another story in which evil did not exist in the world but had the potential to; in both cases it was humans who allowed it to be set free. In Arda, the people have no blame in that sense, it was there already.

[Boromir88]

I am going to digress way back earlier to Lal's post here:

There is also the thorny topic of fate vs free will to consider, including whether all the actions of the characters are fated (or determined by Wryd, considering the influence on Tolkien, too, of Beowulf), which would necessarily have implications for both characterisation and on the significance of events such as Frodo's acceptance of Gollum.

Indeed it is a thorny topic, and the term 'Providence' is something Tolkien didn't wish to use. I don't think the term ever appears except in some minimal moments in Tolkien's letters. The Oxford English Dictionary defines providence as:

3. The foreknowing and beneficent care and government of God (or of nature etc); divine direction, control or guidance; 4. Hence applied to the Deity as exercising prescient power and direction.

But, what I have think to come to found through the books, is that through Free Will people can change their 'luck', and hence be rewarded by Eru. Indeed Tolkien notes he had been a lucky man:

"I have always been undeservedly lucky at major points."

I think Tolkien would be more in line with Tom Shippey's remarks in The Road to Middle-earth that 'Luck' would be a more suitable word in Tolkien's works than 'Providence' or 'chance':

However, ‘chance’ was not the word which for Tolkien best expressed his feelings about randomness and design. The word that did is probably ‘luck’.

Shippey goes further to say that it is perhaps better to have luck than it is to have providence:

‘change their luck’, and can in a way say ‘No’ to divine Providence

It's the ability of individuals where they can 'change' their luck, and therefor fate can be denied. I'm reminded of the example with Frodo and the destruction of the Ring. Where I think it's quite clearly established through several places that it was Frodo's previous acts of free will, that gained him his salvation:

''Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest hounour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.''~Letter 246.

Here is one of the few times where Providence does appear, and I think there is a providence, or a fate, but it's to a minimum level and can be changed. Frodo was an instrument of Eru, but it was Frodo's free will and pity towards Gollum that gained himself Mercy in the way that his failure (failure to destroy the Ring) was redressed. This is also noted in Letter 181:

’'But at this point the ’salvation’ of the world and Frodo’s own ’salvation’ is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him , and could rob him in the end. To ’pity’ him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He [Gollum] did rob him and injure him in the end- but by a ’grace’ that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing anyone could have done for frodo! By a situation created by his ’forgiveness’ , he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden.''

I agree with Shippey and feel that Luck is a better term for it, than Providence. There is an element of fate, and Eru uses people for it. I don't think it was a coincidence that Bilbo was meant to find the ring (as Gandalf puts it) who happens to be Frodo's heir, who happens to be the only one during this time, as Tolkien tells us with the strength of will to get the ring to the cracks of doom. So in those ways Frodo was 'an instrument of Providence,' but it was his own Pity and Mercy towards Gollum, where Frodo's own 'luck' was changed, and it earned him Eru's Mercy, so Eru intervened and relieved Frodo from the burden of the Ring.

Kind of getting back onto the current discussion. I've found Tolkien talking about the TCBS in Letter #5 to be interesting. And the striking similarities to the Istari:

"the TCBS had been granted some spark - certainly as a body if not singly- that was destined to kindle a new light, or what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world".

When Cirdan gives Narya to Gandalf:

"For this is the Ring of Fire, and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill"

And in Unfinished Tales, The Istari:

"...opposing the fire that devours and wastes with the fire that kindles and succours in wanhope and distress."

[Lalaith]

People have asked about the Norse world view, optimism and hope. Not believing in a conventional afterlife does not necessarily make you a pessimist. Here's a poem from Havamal which is often quoted to demonstrate the essential Viking view of the afterlife:

Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama;
en orðstírr
deyr aldregi,
hveim er sér góðan getur.

Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama.
Eg veit einn,
að aldrei deyr,
dómur um dauðan hvern.

Translation: "Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall die; but the fair fame of him who has earned it never dies."
"Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall die; one thing I know which never dies: the judgment on each one dead."

Now (look Saucie, I'm on topic!) that sounds very Rohirric to me. Kind of thing Eomer might have roared on the field of Pelennor - and he never struck me as a particularly gloomy soul. The other thing I thought about, regarding the emphasis on bravery and reputation, was that Vikings did have a heaven - Valhalla. It was for men (warriors) only, they fought all day and feasted all night. They were chosen from among the bravest of the slain by the Valkyries of Odin, and it was all in preparation for the Last Battle. Theoden "returning to the halls of my fathers", perhaps?
Turin returning to kill Morgoth at the last battle of Middle earth has always felt very Norse, although I know it's not strictly canon. As does the last stand of the Men of Hithlum. So perhaps Tolkien portrayed the Rohirrim, and the Edain of the First Age, in a similar way - a noble but "young" culture, like that of the pre-Christian Vikings.
The other example of despair that springs to mind is Galadriel's Lorien Lament, but that is very different kind of despair to that of say, the men of Hithlum or Eomer in battle, it feels like a more "Renaissance" kind of intellectual despair.

Fea, in answer to your question about the sun: in Norse (and Germanic) culture, unlike Graeco/Roman, the sun is female. She is called Sol, and will be devoured by a wolf at Ragnarok, the final battle. Some people maintain that Baldur was a sun god, and others that Frey (fertility god) was, but I'm not so sure.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Fea, in answer to your question about the sun: in Norse (and Germanic) culture, unlike Graeco/Roman, the sun is female. She is called Sol, and will be devoured by a wolf at Ragnarok, the final battle. Some people maintain that Baldur was a sun god, and others that Frey (fertility god) was, but I'm not so sure.

And Tolkien's Sun was female, and the Moon male, unlike the usual Sun-Male, Moon-female tradition in the West, and in the Middle east as far as I recall?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think Tolkien would be more in line with Tom Shippey's remarks in The Road to Middle-earth that 'Luck' would be a more suitable word in Tolkien's works than 'Providence' or 'chance':

Shippey goes further to say that it is perhaps better to have luck than it is to have providence:

It's the ability of individuals where they can 'change' their luck, and therefor fate can be denied.

However, the old meaning of 'luck', which Tolkien no doubt knew from his Anglo-Saxon readings, was that the king's luck was from the gods. When the king became 'unlucky', it meant that the gods had 'unlucked' him, and the folk would believe themselves in need of a new king; would kill that one and raise up another one who was 'lucked' by the gods. So 'luck' in Tolkien does not necessarily signify something other than doom or fate or providence.

[Lalwendë]

I think we've definitely got both free will and fate/luck in the story. And this is one instance where its definitely up to the reader to interpret how they see it. Especially the most famous example of Gollum falling into the fires with the Ring when Frodo 'fails'; this works in a really satisfying way from both perspectives. I'm sure those who read LotR before the Sil was out (and where we find out about Eru) got as much satisfaction from the ending as we do now?

I'm wary of attributing everything down to 'fate' though - there are many instances where a character is given an outright choice and he or she makes a right or wrong one. Of course it would be easy to put down simple plot lines to 'fate' but in the main that's what they are, twists and turns of plot.

Here's an interesting question. does anyone else get the impression that in Middle-earth the Men are more attuned to Free Will and having to take on board the responsibility of making the right choces while the Elves are much more gloomy and seem to think more things are 'fated'? I get this impression, and it maybe has something to do with the nature of mortality?

[littlemanpoet]

This is one instance of what I mean by Reality shining through LotR. Both doom and choice are there, written into the very weave of the tale. Many authors fail to account for one or the other, but our human experience is confronted by both. Both are real, and our attempts to deny one or the other sends us toward illusion or delusion (very often followed by disillusionment). Tolkien's tale satisfies because he acknowledges both and refuses to say the one trumps the other.

[Boromir88]

So 'luck' in Tolkien does not necessarily signify something other than doom or fate or providence.

I can agree with that...I just think that within LOTR someone has the ability to change their 'luck' or their 'fate' through the choices (free will) that they make. As I think is what happened to Frodo, Frodo's actions towards Gollum won him Mercy from Eru. Though admittingly, as Lal points out, it can be taken a few different ways.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Here's an interesting question. does anyone else get the impression that in Middle-earth the Men are more attuned to Free Will and having to take on board the responsibility of making the right choces while the Elves are much more gloomy and seem to think more things are 'fated'? I get this impression, and it maybe has something to do with the nature of mortality?

Lal,

Interesting comment. There are a couple of ways to view this, I believe. One of the possibilities is to think about Elves and Men in terms of their relationship with history.

One of the things that strikes me about Middle-earth is that most Men of the Third Age actually knew so very little about the origin of the universe or the early history of Man, even when expressed in mythic terms. With the exception of characters like Faramir or Aragorn who were direct descendents of the Numenoreans, most men/hobbits had limited knowledge about the "actual" origins of their world. The names of the Valar did not even register in their heads. One wonders, for example, whether a hobbit like Sam had even uttered the name of Varda before he left the Shire. It's true that hobbits and Rohirrim and, I suspect, other men knew the recent history of their own peoples, which was then couched in terms of family genealogy or deceased ancestors gathered together in a mead hall. But that's a lot different than having a wider understanding of past ages, both the accomplishments and mistakes.

The Elves on the other hand had carefully preserved their history. They were vitally aware of every mistake they had made as well as the role of the Valar and of Morgoth in the crafting of Arda. Such history can be a heavy burden: to see mistake after mistake made, and little indication that the pattern is ever going to be broken. Surely this had something to do with the Elves' negative attitude. The fact that some of them had actually lived for thousands of years and witnessed the various atrocities didn't make this any easier.

When I finish reading parts of the Silm, I am downright depressed. It seems that nothing goes right no matter how the Elves tried; they are trapped in their past mistakes. (LotR is the one exception to this in the Legandarium in that it is at least a partial, temporary victory.)

In some ways men were "blessed" by their relative ignorance. Not knowing how many failures there'd been in the past, they were foolish enough to try again and not give in to fatalism. Certainly, one of the most optomistic of the free peoples--the hobbits--had the least knowledge of the past. This shouldn't come as a surprise. In our own world, we have seen Afro-Americans "worn down" by the memories of slavery and Jews who are still dealing with the horrors of the Holocaust. Things like this affect how people react and think; the Elves are no exception.

[Lalwendë]

Good points - I think that one of the 'gifts' of mortality was not to be burdened by the weight of the past. It also gave Men the opportunity to actually learn to do the right thing. Contrast this with the Elves who know exactly where they are going in the end, they always know their fate. I'll ask the question - what incentive would an Elf actually have to learn to do the right thing? Men in contrast do not know what will happen after death, so if they have that in mind, then they must try to learn what is the right thing to do. there is also the matter that althoughMen may be leaving the earth behind one day and so why should they care what happens, they will live on thorugh their descendants, and want to leave the world safe for them. Elves on the other hand will carry on no matter what. Kind of a blameless existence.

And Men are created to live 'outside' the Music anyway, i.e. outside fate. So part of the very essence of Men is that they must learn what to do, think what to do, act in the right way, as their destiny is very much in their own hands.

It is sad that the Elves feel they have to dminish and leave Middle-earth for Valinor, but I also think it was the right choice to make, to withdraw from the lives of mortals (Men, Hobbits and Dwarves alike) and to leave them the room to grow and learn, and to be Men! Note that even Faramir is suspicious of what goes on in Lorien, so the divide had grown incredibly wide.

Maybe if we had to say who was optimistic and who was pessimistic in Middle-earth, then its the Elves who are the pessimists, not Men, who are not bound by fate and basically, well, to use a cliche, the world is their oyster! Could we say that its the pessimistic Elves who are the 'Christians', as they have had the revelation of their ultimate fate and of God? And the Men are the Pagans without the 'revelation', unaware of what Eru intends for them (unaware of Eru at all in fact, except Aragorn, who himself does not 'know' as an Elf might, he only 'trusts'), yet optimists to the core? So that knowing your fate takes away your power, whereas not knowing (i.e. for Men) makes anything possible.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

But I can totally see why you would question the evil (or maybe violent, as it wasn't necessarily evil to those who thought of Odin, and some still do) side of Odin, as this isn't there in Gandalf, but it is there in his counterpart Sauron.

The "Odinic wanderer" expression is somewhat a tautology (seeing that one of Odin's names was The Wanderer). Sure, we also have the sacrifice of Odin's eye comparable to a certain degree to the making of the One Ring, but the consequences of each act are rather opposite, for the story and the character. And if we do agree that LotR reflects a Norse Light, what kind of Light is that, where men are sacrificed to gods? It looks more like un-light to me

t reminds me of the Pandora's Box tale, another story in which evil did not exist in the world but had the potential to; in both cases it was humans who allowed it to be set free. In Arda, the people have no blame in that sense, it was there already.

I disagree; Imo, evil, as a moral cathegory, existed far before the coming of humans in the greek legendarium; we have Uranus, Chronos and Zeus displaying canibalistic tendencies; many, if not most, of the gods are adulterous, incestuous, and one is bordering cleptomany. As far as Pandora's jar, I would say it contained the _evils_, as in the pains/woes/misfortunes, not the evil as a moral cathegory:

Originally Posted by Work and days, by Hesiod, paragraph 90

For ere this the tribes of men lived on earth remote and free from ills and hard toil and heavy sickness which bring the Fates upon men; for in misery men grow old quickly. But the woman took off the great lid of the jar with her hands and scattered all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men. Only Hope remained there in an unbreakable home within under the rim of the great jar, and did not fly out at the door; for ere that, the lid of the jar stopped her, by the will of Aegis-holding Zeus who gathers the clouds. But the rest, countless plagues, wander amongst men; for earth is full of evils and the sea is full. Of themselves diseases come upon men continually by day and by night, bringing mischief to mortals silently; for wise Zeus took away speech from them. So is there no way to escape the will of Zeus.

I agree with Shippey and feel that Luck is a better term for it, than Providence.

Luck as in favorable, but random, chance? There are various refferences in the works which hint that randomness is somewhat out of the question

Originally Posted by Lal

what incentive would an Elf actually have to learn to do the right thing?

Well, the judgement of Mandos for one thing; if you are bad enough, you may never get a new body. And how many can count on not losing their current one, considering the consumation of their body by their fea (and the marring of Melkor, if there was any around). All in all, the elves are said to be very like the valar, although not as great, so, besides the mentioned "stick", they were naturally good - considering also that none ever served Melkor willingly.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In the Bible, Satan sends evil into the world by tempting Adam and Eve who had previously been Good and lived in Paradise. He is the cause of The Fall - or you could argue that Adam and Eve are. Either way, the world was inherently Good and then Satan brought Evil into it with The Fall. In Tolkien's cosmology however, our 'Satan' is there causing trouble before any people inhabit Arda. There is no period of Good. Melkor adds his own theme to the Music and thus the world is created complete with inherent evil. It suffuses everything, even the land itself, and the Elves! Letter 286 goes into this. So right away, Melkor is a different kettle of fish.

I'd posted in a very similar thread that Middle Earth could not be a pre-Christian or more specifically a pre-Abrahamic world. Posts on this thread have made me think more about the parallels and so I've come up with a new answer. Possibly, Arda could be Earth preNoachian Flood. Previously I stated that Earth did not go 'downhill' or become ungood until Adam and Eve sinned. Up to that point, creation was good.

But what about Lucifer?

In the first book of John (Christian Bible) Satan is said to be sinning from the beginning, and so we can see him to be like Melkor in that both were rebelling against Eru's/YHWH's will before the creation of humankind. So that fits. We could posit that somewhere in the east, before the tribes of men came to the western part of Middle Earth (Beleriand?), that there existed Adam et al. Also, I think that the Sil states that Morgoth went amongst men when the children of the sun first appeared, and maybe to one he appeared as a snake (dragon perhaps?).

The remainder of the Bible, even the New Testament, could then be considered to have taken place not in Middle Earth but elsewhere, and the revelation of Christ had not yet reach the northwestern shores by LotR. For that, though, we would have to assume that Noah's flood was either local or a retelling of the fall of Numenor.

Please note that I mean not to offend or defend, but just saw that, with a little thought, one could align the Sil and the Christian Bible. Also note that one may have to interpret some of the Bible differently, and some demoninations may interpret otherwise.