The Third Theme

[littlemanpoet]

I think it safe to understand that the First Theme of the Ainulindalé was that of the Eldar, the Second that of the Edain. What did the Third Theme evoke?

[Galadriel55]

Hm. I always thought that the first theme was neither Eldar nor Edain - just a theme. Maybe of Ainur. Eru brought in both Children.

At least, that's what I thought before I actually had the question written in front of me.

Now I begin to think that the third theme could be the future of Elves and Men, and possibly the beginning of the Second Song.

It's a posibility that the Ainr would sing "both" songs in one if Melkor didn't cause troubles. But the song ended - and quite abruptly - and everything had to be resolved before it could continue, or before you could bring in more themes...

[Nogrod]

I have always loved the Ainulindalë, but I have never thought of this question quite that close... So I was immediately lured into thinking.

I do not see it as that tightly tied to the "races" or "kinds of beings" in the hierarchy of being. But I'd also hate to read it straightforwardly through Christian theology (aka. creation, fall from paradise, apocalypsis).

I think it's quite easy to see the first theme meaning a first creation, the Ainur joining His mind and starting to create by giving their individual tones into it. But when Melkor started adding his own things as to lead the theme into dissonance (to dis-accord), then Ilúvatar made a counter-move into the theme (part two) which might be "the introducing of death", or "creating of mortals", or what will you have there to counter Melkor's schemes (it says Melkor had the mastery in the end of the second theme and the Ainur went silent). Heh. Sounds like the Christian theology version I just dissed...

So in a way Ainur and Edain, but also creation and conflict in it which is resolved with a new creation.

Then the third theme could be the original division of things to good and bad / evil? You see there is no mention of these terms in the themes but only of discord and accord, dissonance and consonance, disharmony and harmony etc.

Also before the third theme the discord was internal or grew within and was tied with the original theme, but with the third theme there were clearly two separate musics which had "unities of their own". Then the evil melody started trumpeting forwards and drowned the good one - and thus Ilúvatar had to whistle it off (apocalypsis)... so mortals with free will and the evil gaining the upper hand - introduce Christ / apocalypse?

Blah. So I ended up with a Christian interpretation anyway...

Okay, I need to give this another thought. But on another time as I now need to go to sleep.

Thanks lmp for an interesting thread!

[littlemanpoet]

The reason I asked this at all was because I thought of a new possibility, that the Third Theme is about the union of Eldar and Edain in Beren & Luthien, and in Tuor and Idril. Obviously, Earendil, this issue of Tuor and Idril (going by memory here) brought about the mercy of the Valar. The line of Beren and Luthien brought about Dunedain, resulting finally in Aragorn/Elessar and the LotR re-enactment of the union in Elessar and Arwen. Just a guess, of course, but I'm wondering if it has traction?

[leapofberen]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I think it's quite easy to see the first theme meaning a first creation, the Ainur joining His mind and starting to create by giving their individual tones into it. But when Melkor started adding his own things as to lead the theme into dissonance (to dis-accord), then Ilúvatar made a counter-move into the theme (part two) which might be "the introducing of death", or "creating of mortals", or what will you have there to counter Melkor's schemes (it says Melkor had the mastery in the end of the second theme and the Ainur went silent). Heh. Sounds like the Christian theology version I just dissed...

So in a way Ainur and Edain, but also creation and conflict in it which is resolved with a new creation.

Totally. Tolkien was a Christian of course...I think his stories "re-tell" the Christian myth in a very beautiful way...and before I move on, I have to say this as well: In Morgoth's Ring, Finrod Felagund alludes to the Incarnation of Eru as the final redemption of Middle Earth and it's people (would quote it, but don't have the book handy to do so, I believe you can look it up online)...of course, this going along with Tolkien's view that the history of Middle Earth is actually a distant history of our own reality, points again to the Christian myth, that is, God reconciling with Man once and for all via the Incarnate Christ. In a fashion, we see the destruction of the Ring and the rise of good men via Elessar (Aragorn) from the Numenorians as the final defeat of Evil Incarnate (Morgoth, Sauron, Orcs, though we know Morgoth will one day break the Doors of Night, that besides.) But evil now moves from being definitive and "outward" (Morgoth, Sauron, Orcs) to more of an "inward" condition (sin, frailty, imperfection) requiring ultimate redemption and reconcilation as the Elves have all but faded and Elessar, the line of Numenor and the great men of the past are but a myth and have "faded" in their own right.

So the coming of the Christ would signify God (Eru in Tolkien's mythology) progressively making himself more and more "present" to Men in order to unite with them, whereas in the past we could say that the Valar and Eru seem to have successively withdrawn from Middle Earth, along with the Elves, even not revealing themselves directly through the events of the Third Age and on into the Fourth Age...though they still did intervene via the Istari and such. But you know what I mean...

So the Third Theme...did Tolkien speak much of a Third Theme or is it pretty much open to conjecture? I do know the Elves were not spoken of as being involved in the Second Music necessarily, but the Elves believed that Eru would not abandon them. If we were to continue in the thought that Middle Earth is a distant history of our own, then:
1) Possibly the Second Music could have been the coming of Eru as a Man (the Christ). This would have been the culmination, the crescendo of Eru's planned union with Men, or
2) It has not yet happened, and the progressive Christian "theme" in Tolkien's mythology and the recent few thousand years of our own world is leading up to the Second Music with the coming of the Christ still being a definitive point of demarcation in our history anyhow; meaning, it has brought us closer to the person of Eru himself as he has provided redemption from the "sin" or "inward" frailty that seemed to plague the Edain throughout Tokien's writings. But the "crescendo," the Second Music has yet to happen...

Whatever it is, we can deduce that there is something significant and special about Men in Tolkien's writings; though they appear to be the weaker of the two races (Elves being the other) and we would often rather associate ourselves with the Elves in their perfection, they embody something that even intimidated Morgoth upon their initial appearing in the far east of Middle Earth (see Silmarillion). What is it? If I remember right, one thing was he could not master them easily...

If we haven't even hit the Second Theme, I am not sure what the Third Theme is all about...clue me in if it is mentioned somewhere, because I cannot remember.

Ahh...here is a great link to the Eru/Christ connection right here in our own forums...http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=472

[Aiwendil]

Let's actually consult the sources before we get too carried away with speculation. The Ainulindale clearly states that the Children came with the third theme:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale

And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Iluvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves had been busy with the preparation of this dwelling, and yet knew not that it had any purpose beyond its own beauty. For the Children of Iluvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the Third Theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making.

This statement appears first in the Ainulindale C (the first post-LotR version) and was retained in D and in the published Silmarillion.

In the same text, the second theme is referred to here:

But Manwe was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Iluvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second Theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor

The situation as envisioned in the Ainulindale, then, seems quite clear: the second theme represents the efforts of the Valar against Melkor, and the third theme represents both Elves and Men.

However, the situation is somewhat confused in other texts. In LQ2 (the Quenta Silmarillion text from the late 1950s, written several years after the Ainulindale), Men are associated with the second theme:

Originally Posted by LQ2

Little he [i.e. Melkor] knew yet concerning Men, for engrossed with his own thought in the Music he had paid small heed to the Second Theme of Iluvatar

This is the only reference to the themes of the Music in LQ. More is said about the themes in the notes on the 'Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth', however, which also dates from the late 1950s.

Originally Posted by Athrabeth

This freedom was shown in the Music by His introduction, after the arising of the discords of Melkor, of the two new themes, representing the coming of Elves and Men, which were not in His first communication.

Thus the 'newness' of the themes of the Children of Eru, Elves and Men, consisted in the association of fear with, or 'housing' them in, hroar belonging to Ea, in such a way that either were incomplete without the others.

. . . the Themes of the Children were introduced after the arising of the discords of Melkor.

Christopher Tolkien notes the apparent discrepancy between what is said in the Ainulindale and what is said in the Athrabeth and suggests two possible explanations: 1. The references to 'themes' in the Athrabeth are to related motifs that in the Ainulindale were grouped together as the 'Third Theme'; 2. (which he finds more likely) Tolkien had changed his mind about the themes, and now rather than both being associated with the Third Theme, Elves and Men were associated with the Second and Third themes respectively. This still leaves the statement in LQ2 as something of a puzzle, however, for even in this new conception, Men would still be associated with the Third Theme, not the Second. In any case, one thing does remain clear at all stages: the Children of Iluvatar were not present in the First Theme, the one that Iluvatar propounded at the beginning (and indeed it is an essential element of the philosophy expounded in the 'Athrabeth' that the Children were introduced specifically to rectify the discord of Melkor).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I will just quickly chime in now, with some corrective remark (I see Aiwendil already did that, but just shortly to point out the main misconception which was presented here) and some personal opinion on the Music following:

To sum it up, just what Aiwendil had said above, in a few short points, to correct the mistaken assumption made in the first post of this thread:

First theme is just the "setup": the original idea of Arda (untouched by discord yet).

Second one is response to the first discord.

The Children - BOTH Eldar and Edain - come only with the Third theme.

I think that much is clear from Ainulindalë itself. Personally, I take that also as "canon" - and if any other sources were different, then I would take this one's authority first over them. (And as I will show later, I believe there is a good reason for it in comparing to the parallel Tolkien might have used.)

Speculation and personal opinion follows from now on:

My personal belief is that the first theme is, in the philosophical sense, the original, unmarred "idea" of Eä. Now that this is laid out, Melkor can start to corrupt it. Once he does, there is the response - in my opinion, that is the part where Valar take their part, they are the active opposition, and it sort of refers to (or rather: is expressed in the history by) the wars in the beginning of Arda, before the coming of the Children. Third theme comes with the Children - and there, they are the active opposition, and that is the one before the final part.

If you want to use Christian metaphoric, I think the Christian tradition (especially strongly supported by the Roman Catholic church, where Tolkien's faith lay) can supply here very well and very nicely the comparison with the fall of the angels preceding the fall of Man. That is, I believe, something everybody is aware of, but it compares also to the Music: we can say, first theme is the beginning, and then, after the first discord, we descend to the "angelic level", the battle takes place on the "angelic plane", so to say: Valar vs. Melkor. Only with the Third theme, we descend into the realms where the battle takes place between Melkor and the Children.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Aiwendil & Legate for the clarifications. What is then interesting to me is that towards the end of the song, there are two themes in competition, so to speak, the loud and brash theme, and the deep and profound and beautiful one.

Below follows much speculation:

Whether the Elves are part of both the 2nd and 3rd or just the 3rd matters little to me. In my mind it boils down to this:

(1) First Theme: Reality
(2) Melkor's discord: Evil
----> result, discord
(3) Second Theme: Powers introduced to contend with the Evil
---- > in the end Melkor has the mastery
(4) Third Theme: soft and sweet, unquenchable, takes to itself power and profundity.
--- > two musics utterly at variance: loud and brash :versus: deep and wide and beautiful & slow and blended with immeasurable sorrow - - - > most triumphant notes of the loud brash vain theme are taken and woven into the other's solemn pattern.

Whereas the Second theme fights against the discord in a Good versus Evil formula, seemingly on Evil's terms (that of power), the Third theme seeks the good while suffering evil, and evil cannot overcome it. The italicized theme is a particularly Christian notion. It is exhibited throughout LotR in Frodo, for example, the more he suffers, by which he learns greater wisdom and becomes capable of greater compassion.

It is also seen in Beren and Luthien. Out of love she sacrifices everything for Beren. Arwen does the same for Elessar. Frodo does it for the whole Shire, and really for all Middle Earth.

Finrod Felagund does it to save Beren. By contrast, Thingol is an exemplar of the Second Theme in his failure to put love above honor in regard to Beren and Luthien.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Whereas the Second theme fights against the discord in a Good versus Evil formula, seemingly on Evil's terms (that of power), the Third theme seeks the good while suffering evil, and evil cannot overcome it. The italicized theme is a particularly Christian notion. It is exhibited throughout LotR in Frodo, for example, the more he suffers, by which he learns greater wisdom and becomes capable of greater compassion.

I would definitely second this, and I completely agree.

It is the subject of the whole story of the Valar in particular, all this "use of power or not?" aka the questions raised after the attack on Utumno and the waning interference in latter Ages (of course, it is also a topic of the Ring story, but there I think it speaks more concretely about power in the meaning "power as control of something", whereas Valar's, and Elves', is the "power to contest" or "resistance by power", not necessarily wanting to conquer, but just to protect by power - of course, the whole point of the Ring story is about the unwillingness of the successful contester to give up what was lended to him or what he had conquered). For the sake of being "fair", it should be pointed out that the Second theme is not labeled as something wrong - it is merely something that does not provide the final victory. That comes only with the Third theme, and, it should be noted, only with the Children being, as perceived by the Valar, "things other than themselves, strange and free" (emphasis, of course, on the latter - now see in the light of the whole "power to control"-debate).

Originally Posted by elempi

It is also seen in Beren and Luthien. Out of love she sacrifices everything for Beren. Arwen does the same for Elessar. Frodo does it for the whole Shire, and really for all Middle Earth.

Well, since you mentioned this, I think, even though the Elven ladies' sacrifice is considerable, the one of the Men is also there, and maybe not so much lesser, given the scope of their rather short life. Beren sacrifices everything for Lúthien by going to Angband, if that is what it takes. Likewise, Aragorn also sacrificed much for Arwen (I think that was a sort of "circular" thing - while he at the same point sacrificed his possible happiness - or the possible immediate happiness - for the sake of Middle-Earth's fate, which of course however concerned even his and Arwen's possible future). And, of course, Frodo has his friends, especially Sam, who truly sacrifices himself for Frodo, all the way to Mordor!

These (especially with the two former, compared to the fact that their counterparts gave up immortal life) may seem somewhat like lesser sacrifices, but sacrifices they are nonetheless... anyway, the theme of sacrifice is just something quite crucial, and sacrifice is of course only a radical form of thinking of others instead of just for oneself... I think all the main heroes here had this quality.

Originally Posted by elempi

Finrod Felagund does it to save Beren. By contrast, Thingol is an exemplar of the Second Theme in his failure to put love above honor in regard to Beren and Luthien.

Totally. I think that is a quite good point.

But still, I think - and would like to point out once again, for emphasising it - that the Second Theme should not be equated with failure. That would certainly be against the spirit of that narration, so to say, and not true to it. Second Theme is simply an attempt to contest Melkor, and rightful one, because of course, Melkor needs to be contested! This noble thought in itself should not be disqualified. It is simply so that the turn - the surprising turn, showing the unexpectedness of Ilúvatar's plans with Eä, as pointed out there - is in the fact that the final victory comes from totally elsewhere, and that the things which cannot be really broken are those "hardened" by sorrow and enduring of suffering, as we read there.

[littlemanpoet]

You make excellent points, Legate. Perhaps it is going too far to equate the Second Theme with Thingol's failure to choose love over honor; for a failure it is, one he recognizes in the end.

It seems to me, however, that the Second Theme is perhaps analogous to the Law of the bible's Old Testament and the Third theme is thus analogous to the New Commandment of the bible's New Testament: Honor and Law and such can only reach so high; it is Love that conquers a multitude of evils, casts out fear, suffers many wrongs, etc.

So yes, whereas the Second Theme is not evil, but good, yet it is not enough with which to fight Evil. It can be overwhelmed, it can be mastered, as Tolkien puts it. The Third Theme is the greater and cannot be overcome by Evil, because the Third Theme appears to be essentially about, as you say, Legate, putting others before oneself --> sacrifice --> Love.

[leapofberen]

Before it gets too far long, my apologies. Going back to the original question, in my haste I think I confused the Themes of the First Music with the Second Music that (if I remember rightly) Men will play a part in, but it was not specified if the Eldar or even the Valar will participate though the Eldar believe Eru will not abandon them.

I agree with the line of thinking in the posts...my thoughts (conjecturing here) are that Eru seems to have tied himself forever to the Children in a way that he did not tie himself even to the Valar; rather the Valar forever tied themselves to the world for their love of the Children. The Children were something of an enigma even to the Valar, and up through the end of the Third Age I think we see what appears to be their apparent dis-involvement because they are not "seeing" prophetically as clearly as they once did, perhaps because the Themes of the Music are being fulfilled. As the age of Men approaches, it seems they become less and less involved. So like the Elves, who are destined to fade, the Valar essentially "fade" as well, as they and the Elves now reside (mostly) in the uttermost West. So comes the age of Men.

The Beren/Luthien them here is an excellent point in that Beren gave up his life for Luthien and Luthien for him, I suppose, in a way that (following with the Christian theme) does seem to foreshadow the eventual Incarnation alluded to by Finrod Felagund. That is, Eru, having forever tied himself to the Children out of love must go to all ends to eventually save them, even tying himself to mortality through death and resurrection (as Luthien tied herself to Beren, I suppose.) And that tie, specifically to men, seems to be:

1) mysterious and troublesome to even the Valar and the Eldar (at least I get that feeling in reading the Silmarillion.) It would be appropriate that Finrod Felagund would seem to understand the most about the future of Men (the possible incarnation of Eru) as he is the most compassionate and loving towards Men from the very beginning.

2) that mortals, though weak, seem to hold the key to defeating evil...ultimately, the Hobbits best demonstrate the power to overcome evil with good, the weak overcoming the strong. Where the might of the Noldor could not defeat Morgoth, nor even the Valar (fully) as it seems Morgoth "dispersed his power into the very matter of Arda," along come the Hobbits who ultimately defeat the last of Morgoth's incarnate print on Middle Earth. It does seem to foreshadow the Christian theme of God binding himself to Man (via the Incarnation) and defeating evil, not through power, but through the weakness of death (becoming mortal, weak.)

I know much of this is conjecture, but just writing out what I began to see in Tolkien's stories recently...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

...and defeating evil, not through power, but through the weakness of death (becoming mortal, weak.)

I have to disagree. I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

Moreover, there are different types of weaknesses. There is a difference in being physically weak and weak inside.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I have to disagree. I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

I think it is not simply "down-to-earthness", and the word "simplicity" can be misleading as well - it could be interpreted the way that the hobbits were able to overcome Sauron simply because they were stupid enough to misuse the Ring, in such a case, Saruman and all those who scorn Hobbits would have been right about them being simpletons - but I think they weren't; and, in many ways, the important aspect of the hobbits, which made Bilbo and Frodo (and Sam) able to withstand the lure of the Ring, was their humility (you can use the word "down-to-earthness" and "simplicity", but with the added specification or explanation that what it means is not stupidity, but humility - humility which, of course, to those who lust for power might seem like stupidity, as it did to Sauron, and thus proved to be his undoing...). It was the humility in which the hobbits didn't wish more than what they had, in which they didn't want to control, to hoard (with the exception of the Sackville-Bagginses and their like), to spread their own domain in expense of the others... That is what I believe is their true "advantage" over the others.

In other words, it isn't so that the Hobbits would be so stupid not to understand power (as some might interpretate the terms G55 used): they do, and it showed itself to Samwise when he put the Ring on in Mordor. He wasn't so "down-to-earth" that he wouldn't be tempted. The point is that he was tempted, but refused it - because of his humility, because he understood that it wouldn't do any good and because he was able to withstand the illusions of grandeur.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

Originally Posted by Legate

It was the humility in which the hobbits didn't wish more than what they had, in which they didn't want to control, to hoard (with the exception of the Sackville-Bagginses and their like), to spread their own domain in expense of the others...

I think it's a mistake to think that Hobbits as a group (ethnic or what have you) have a natural un-tendency to evil, or have a predisposition to humility. Their relative size doesn't necessarily lend itself to that. There are more exceptions than the Sackville-Bagginses. Tolkien goes out of his way to contrast Sam to a group of other Hobbits early in LotR. Hobbits are typically small-minded in the worst way. Sméagol was a forebear to Hobbits. The mill owner was a particularly unpleasant and unscrupulous character. The name "Proudfeet" speaks for itself. Tolkien purposely characterized Hobbits as typically human with all the foibles one finds among them.

So it was the humility, determination, and big-heartedness of these four quite special Hobbits that helped to bring about the destruction of the evil of Sauron.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The name "Proudfeet" speaks for itself.

Does it? and with what voice?

I don't think it would be fair to assume the Proudfeet were characterised by any very malevolent kind of pride; if anything I can see Tolkien, with his own peculiar surname and fondness for linguistic pedantries and oddities, being quite fond of them...

germane to the Ainulindalé? maybe not. Melkor, He Who Arises in Might, Morgoth, Dark Enemy of the World, also occasionally known as Proudquavers

[leapofberen]

A hobbit's weakness would not lie in their being "evil" or "good." Rather, I was speaking more to their inherent mortality and the world-view within Middle Earth that hobbits were inherently "weak" when compared to Elves, the Noldor of old, some Men, etc. They were mortal, prone to illness and death, not as spiritually aware as the Elves. Much like most in the race of Men. In that sense, I said they are "weak." They were taken for granted, in other words. True, it was also their inherent earthiness and simplicity that makes them so attractive at the same time. Gandalf loved the "halflings" because he too was an exercise in humility, being one of the greatest Maiar, but taking upon himself an inherent humility upon his venturing in Middle Earth as a wizard. He, I think, prophetically recognized their greatness though he did not understand why or how they would play such an important role at the end of the Third Age. Hence the beauty of the whole Story which brings us out of the mythic stories of power, magic and struggle to a more "earthy" reality that we are all familiar with. I think all this goes to show that the mighty throughout the ages could not accomplish what the "weak and foolish" did at the end of the Third Age; though without the help, inspiration and wisdom of the great elves and men of ages past, even the hobbits probably would not have succeeded. And herein lies the wisdom of Eru.

As to questions of good and evil, I think the hobbits could just be as prone to evil and pride as anyone else...perhaps they had just not had the opportunity, as other races had, to exercise it in any kind of terrible way. Bilbo and his Ring. Gollum and his Ring. FRODO and his Ring. They were all ensnared, to some measure, by the Ring. The Ring brought out the worst in everyone, including hobbits. Only a few wise were able to resist it's power, though no one present was strong enough to actually wield it in Middle Earth in the Third Age (minus Sauron.)

[Mithalwen]

Also proud does not always relate to proud, it can mean not flush with a surface - as in proud flesh (scar tissue). Tolkien is reported (and I think in the letters admits to) a childish sense of humour. He may have just meant that their conspicuously big (as indeed they were). Most English surnames are based on relationships, professions, places, or physical attributes. He was rather prone to descriptive names - Ioreth, Arwen, Gandalf even at a stretch even Legolas (can be interpreted as sharp ears ).

As for hobbits, I don't think it is a question of humility or some innate predisposition to be good: Tolkien tells us that they are literally and metaphorically small people. The just aren't open minded or intellectually curious enough to go beyond their familiar world on the whole. When sufficiently stimulated some rise to the challenge of heroism while others are easily tempted to profiteer. I rather think that the wise having been exposed to the best of them see them rather as "noble savages" like Omai the south sea islander who Captain Cook brought to London for a while. If they had met others their opinions might be closer to those expressed by colonials - My father inherited a set of books called "People of all Nations" dating back to the heyday of the British Empire, which basically describes the natives of most (certainly most non anglophone) countries as peasants. Either hard working, plucky and resourceful peasants or feckless, idle criminal peasants dependant on the political relationship with England at the time).

If I were cynical I might say the wise needed people who were totally unaware of the severity of the situation becasue noone who was would be very keen..rather like when my car needed to be towed and the nice AA man assured me that women who had never been towed before were best at it, and I believed him just long enough for us to get going - I then realised it couldn't possible be true and had a very panicky 10 mile journey but at least I didn't end up in Mordor.