Does Eru care?

[TheLostPilgrim]

In The Silmarillion it is said that the entire history of the world is the product of the music of the Ainur, and they helped to shape the world and it's history through the Music they made, whose utmost source was the Theme given to them by Eru; The Ainur are the offspring of Eru's thought; Each Ainur being part or understanding only of that part of the mind of Eru from whence he or she came...So, logically, would it not be that the vanity and pride of Melkor came from a part of Eru's mind? What Melkor understood--vanity, a desire for power, a creative urge at best--would that not have come from some part of Eru's thought?

And also logically following, would not all the horrors (and beauty) of Middle Earth's history be, indirectly, the product of Eru's vision, of His music?

Also, from what I remember, Eru did not seem to intervene much in the affairs or woes of Arda or his Children, but instead, the Valar and Maia seemed to be more responsible for Arda...Eru seems to have sort of taken a distance to the world he created, whereas the Valar (of both kinds) seem to be more involved and hold more a care to it.

But even the Valar--Did they not cease intervening and helping directly in the affairs of the Children of Illuvatar after Aman was attacked? In their last action, they sent the Istari--but only to act as messengers or as guiding figures to the Children; Not to use their might to contend with Sauron and defeat him and set the world to right, and also they placed strict limits upon the Istari's use or display of their power.

It's obvious some of the Maia and Valar did care; Gandalf being perhaps the best, most direct example...But what of the Valar as a whole? Or Eru? What regard do they hold for the fate of Arda and it's peoples?

A last off topic question but: Who would be more responsible for Arda's creation? Eru or the Ainur? Eru laid the Foundation--the Theme--for them to play and by which create and shape the World, but it was their Music--each intricate, individual part which they themselves crafted based on Eru's theme--which directly shaped the world.

[Inziladun]

I think the example of the Istari you give is enough of an indication that the Valar (and by proxy, Ilúvatar,) "cared".

No, the Valar did not choose to directly confront Sauron, and that was a deliberate effort to avoid past mistakes. They thought the defeat of Sauron important enough, though, that they asked their own servants, the Maiar, to become truly embodied peers of the afflicted Children of Ilúvatar and commit themselves to a long-term exile in Middle-earth, enduring its pains, discomforts, and dangers.
In order to do this, the Valar had to ask, and did receive permission from the One. It could be argued that Ilúvatar himself put the idea into their heads, or at least knew that it would occur to them.

The "caring" of the Valar was directly connected to the "caring" of the One, for the Valar were merely the Governors of Arda, not themselves rulers. They were charged with overseeing the world and accomplishing Ilúvatar's will, making them the "hands" to his "brain".

The larger theological issue is a question of why the One allowed evil to exist, and what was the connection to his Music. Good luck with that one. If one accepts Eru as the Creator of Arda, one must also accept his carte blanche to order his creation as he willed, though I think that his ultimate benevolence is in evidence in the books.

[Morsul the Dark]

NOTE: A Lot of this post is from memory I've done my best to make sure it's coherent and not rambling...

Eru does not intervene because everything has its purpose even evil.

Because without evil there is no good.

For example, apples to oranges if you'll allow me, in "The Invention of Lying" the world doesn't seem better off because of a lack of lying(something most consider wrong). Alternatively it's impossible trully to consider one side evil and another good. Consider a Goblin for a moment would you dub them evil for being against the dwarves? Possibly, we are afterall following their tale in The Hobbit. But from the Goblin's view the dwarves are trespassers and consider the wielder of Glamdring a villain.

While it can and usually is argued Melkor's desire for power is evil or at least very wrong, it could also be countered that it's simply ambition. After all we don't consider Manwe as desiring power yet when challenged by Melkor he defends his crown, surely if he had no desire to rule he would have surrendered the crown.

Also we consider Melkor's destroying the trees as eviul yet without it the balance of the world's night and day do not exist. We considered it evil but it was neccessary.

If you remove sin from the equation(as it may be argued a mere perception) you'd have to consider sickness and drought and winter, perhaps even Death itself as evil. But without these neccesities overpopulation and mass famine would occur which perhaps is even worse.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

everything has its purpose even evil.

Manwe, upon hearing the final choice of Feanor to rebel (and do deeds to live in song), put it this way.
"Thus, even as Eru said to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into being, and evil yet be good to have been." To which Mandos added "And yet remain evil."

Which is a difficult concept for (at least) Western thought since we tend to want either:

• Evil deeds to DE-justify any results <or>
• A good end to (in some manner) justify the steps taken to get there.

But Tolkien suggests (and, I think validly) that Evil can produce good results while still remaining evil and, therefor, UN-justified.

He also proposes that Eru is great such that even EVIL deeds will always result in eventual and greater good results - because that's the way Eru is managing it.


I think the key idea to consider in approaching this conundrum is that we do not see the final end results, and so cannot accurately judge whether the "evil" that we see is worth it to have gone through.


Tolkien described the history of Middle Earth as Eru's "Drama". Think in terms of Shakespeare, or Homer, or Mark Twain writing a story or play.

• The memorable ones, the ones worth watching or reading - especially over and over - ALWAYS include what we would call "evil" in some form.
• And, if you lived in the story only in the midst of the evil, you might be tempted to think the author had gone off his rocker to allow such to continue.
• So it is with Tolkien's drama. Evil is present in the mix, by the design of the author - whether you think of that as Tolkien (at one level) or Eru (at another, interior, level) - until, as Ulmo put it "until the Full Making, which Ye call The End."

[TheLostPilgrim]

Tolkien was truly a genius. It's actually sad, in a way, that he is most known for The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Those works, while beautiful, are shallow compared to The Silmarillion and his other writings. They pigeonhole him as simply a writer of fantasy works, which aren't taken seriously by some, or are dismissed as childish whimsy simply because they are fantasy works. He has an amazing, inspiring, beautiful cosmology and philosophy within those lesser known works, something truly inspired and beautiul. He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.

If Tolkien had lived and had written The Silmarillion and his other works in ancient times, we'd probably consider them holy scripture today. That's how beautiful it is, and how much of a brilliant, insightful, gifted man he was.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Puddleglum

He also proposes that Eru is great such that even EVIL deeds will always result in eventual and greater good results - because that's the way Eru is managing it.


I think the key idea to consider in approaching this conundrum is that we do not see the final end results, and so cannot accurately judge whether the "evil" that we see is worth it to have gone through.

Indeed, and that idea is well expressed by the Elves of Eressëa in speaking with Tar-Ciryatan and Tar-Atanamir of Númenor.

'Hope rather that in the end even the least of your desires shall have fruit. The love of Arda was set in your hearts by Ilúvatar, and he does not plant to no purpose. Nonetheless, many ages of Men unborn may pass ere that purpose is made known; and to you it will be revealed and not to the Valar'.

Silmarillion Akallabêth

If Eru does not "plant to no purpose", neither does he capriciously allow the "crop" to be wantonly destroyed for no reason.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Those works, while beautiful, are shallow compared to The Silmarillion and his other writings. … He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.

Tolkien disagreed with you.

See Morgoth’s Ring (HoME X), page 370 (emphasis mine):

This descends from the oldest forms of the mythology – when it was intended to be no more than another primitive mythology, though more coherent and less ‘savage’. It was consequently a ‘Flat Earth′ cosmogony (much easier to manage anyway): the Matter of Númenor had not been devised.

It is now clear to me that in any case the Mythology must actually be a ‘Mannish’ affair. (Men are really only interested in Men and in Men’s ideas and visions.) The High Eldar living and being tutored by the demiurgic beings must have known, the ‘truth’ (according to their measure of understanding). What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions (especially personalized and centred upon actors, such as Fëanor) handed on by Men in Númenor and later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far back – from the first association of the Dúnedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand – blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.

Tolkien’s story of Elvish kings and nobles is not supposed to be true even within his imaginary world. Fëanor presumably really existed in this imaginary world, but much that is told of him in these Manish tales were deeds of other folk that were later “personalized and centered” on Fëanor.

Tolkien certainly knew that in reality Fëanor was invented by him.

Tolkien tried to rework his Silmarillion material to fit with scientific findings, which Tolkien himself really believed. However, in trying this, he found that he was destroying most of the basis of the Silmarillion story. So he ended up accepting it as yet another false Mannish mythology. Occasionally in his later writing Tolkien refers to what must have supposedly really happened.

If Tolkien had lived and had written The Silmarillion and his other works in ancient times, we'd probably consider them holy scripture today. That's how beautiful it is, and how much of a brilliant, insightful, gifted man he was.

Who are this we you mention? Do you mean the exclusive we, which means yourself personally and some others but not everyone you are posting to. Or do you mean the inclusive we which means yourself and everyone you are posting to? European languages avoid making it easy to make such an obvious distinction in simple speech. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity .

I personally resent being told by anyone what I would believe, especially when it is something I very much do I not believe. Speak for yourself only and for others who you have reason to believe agree with you, and speak clearly.

As to people who believe in religions, there are thousands of differing contradictory religious beliefs in the world. It is possible that somewhere there are some people who believe in Manwë and Varda as non-fictional entities, just as occasionally one discovers that some people believe that Sherlock Holmes is real. I don’t find either belief at all uplifting. I very much doubt that Tolkien would.

Tolkien often makes it clear that he knew quite well that he was inventing, though at times he hoped that his inventions would prove pleasing to God. Tolkien certainly believed his fictional creations were in some way true, in the same way that almost every writer believes that his or her fictional creations are true in some way when they are writing them.

But the same writers also know that their creations are fictional.
Tolkien himself when writing about his fiction often appears to take it less seriously than some obsessive fans.

Tolkien was no different from most writers. Sometimes he was very into playing the game and sometimes he was not. But he knew at some level that it was a game.

From an interview with Henry Resnik, published in Niekas 18, page 38 (http://efanzines.com/Niekas/Niekas-18.pdf ):

T:  Yes I do. I shouldn't call it a fad; I wouldn't call it underground. I'd call it a game.
R: A game?
T:  Yes, because there is a whole lot of stuff that amuses people -- alphabets. history, etc.
R: Then I take it you approve of the game?
T:  I don't mind it, as long as it doesn't become obsessive. It doesn't obsess me.
R: Have you noticed any similar widespread game-playing in England?
T:  No, I don't think things catch on like that here quite so much.
R: I wonder if you have any suggestions about why it has caught on so widely in America; could it be anything other than the paperback edition, which came along logically?
T:  Why I've even had letters from children who have saved up, you know, who have gone to some work to get the hardback edition. I think it is, if you really want to know my opinion, a partly reactionary influence. I think it's part of the fun after so much more dreary stuff, isn't it?
R: What sort of dreary stuff are you referring to?
T:  I should say the Lord of the Flies, wouldn't you?
R: Many people I've spoken with here told me they enjoy the sheer fun of being in Middle-Earth.
T:  It's meant to please; it doesn't horrify.

Christopher Tolkien, who should know, writes in The Children of Húrin, page 7:

It is undeniable that there are a great many readers of The Lord of the Rings (as previously published in varying forms in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle-earth) are altogether unknown, unless by their repute as strange and inaccessible in mode and manner.

It was Christopher Tolkien’s hope that by publishing The Children of Húrin in full for the first time, with little commentary, he might present some of this “inaccessible” material more accessibly.

Other fantasy writers have created what one might call universes in more than one book before Tolkien: William Morris, George MacDonald, James Branch Cabell, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, Mervyn Peake, E. E. Eddison, and probably others.

I do not think it does the works of Tolkien or any of these writers any favours to compare them with numerous books that disagree with one another: the Qurʼan, the Book of Mormon, the Mahabharata, the Gathas of Zarathusta, any of the Christian Bibles, Jewish scriptures, Buddhist scriptures, the Norse Eddas and so on.

[Morthoron]

Who peed on your lembas, Jallanite? Here you have a poster, TheLostPilgrim, who I will assume is young (if that is not the case, please excuse me), and who has just read The Silmarillion for the first time within the last year (and I believe I remember Pilgrim saying so). The poster is excited, as excited as I was when I first read The Silmarillion, a far different book than The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. When Pilgrim said:

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Those works, while beautiful, are shallow compared to The Silmarillion and his other writings. … He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.

You, Jallanite, tried to find a Tolkien quote to disprove a noble sentiment of a reader in the first blush of love for an author and his great work. What a way to quash enthusiasm (and conversation for that matter)! But Tolkien certainly did not disagree with the poster's sentiment, and the quote you provided has literally nothing to do with what the poster was saying. In a long letter circa late 1951 (Letter 131, to Milton Waldman of the Collins Publishing House). Tolkien stated:

They [the stories of The Sil] arose in my mind as 'given' things, and as they came, separately, so too the links grew. An absorbing, though continually interrupted labor (especially since, even apart from the necessities of life, the mind would wing to the other pole and spend itself on the linguistics): yet always I had the sense of recording what was already 'there', somewhere: not of 'inventing'.

This, to me, sounds like someone believing, on some level, what was written. The greatest danger in quoting Tolkien is finding how often he disagreed with himself.

For instance, in the same letter to Waldman, Tolkien makes no reference to the cosmological mythos as a "mannish affair"; on the contrary, he states the early myths are literally devoid of mannish thought and intention:

As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view - and the last tale blends them.

and later in the same letter:

As I say, the legendary Silmarillion is peculiar, and differs from all similar things that I know in not being anthropocentric. Its centre of view and interest is not Men but 'Elves'. Men came inevitably: after all the author is a man, and if he has an audience they will be Men and Men must come into our tales, and not merely transfigured or partially represented as Elves, Dwarfs [sic for Tolkien], Hobbits, etc. But they remain peripheral - late comers, and however growingly important, not principals.

This way of thinking is at odds with the quote from Morgoth's Ring, and, as is often the case, Tolkien seems to rebut his own beliefs. Whether the belief quoted in Morgoth's Ring is the final say, who knows? Tolkien changed opinions on his cosmos like other men change underwear. But the first section of The Silmarillion is certainly written in an Eldarcentric and not anthropocentric tone and point of view, which is at odds with a retelling with the usual conceits, flaws and historiographical integration of later mannish political and sociological creeds and concerns.

When TheLostPilgrim said:

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

If Tolkien had lived and had written The Silmarillion and his other works in ancient times, we'd probably consider them holy scripture today. That's how beautiful it is, and how much of a brilliant, insightful, gifted man he was.

You again decided to attack, presumably in regards to the use of the "Royal We" . When Pilgrim refers to "we" he is speaking of mankind, a greater part of which seeks the supernatural as a means to systematize and make sense out of the world.

Taken in context with that Pilgrim actually said, if Tolkien's work was written during the time of the writing of the Mosaic Laws in the Babylonian exilic period, why wouldn't his cosmology be taken as scripture now? It certainly not as boring as the Bible or the Quran. The breathtaking description of Creation in the Ainulindalë is more stirring than Yahweh plopping down cows on the Fifth Day.

The stories in The Silmarillion are far-fetched, certainly, but then so is most scripture from the Bible, Quran or the Vedas. In its mode of storytelling, The Silmarillion is a unique synthesis of biblical, Icelandic, Norse and Finnish legends with a bit of the Greek Pantheon sprinkled on top, and I don't see Snorri Sturluson or the writer of Beowulf being at odds with what was presented. And as far as a synthesis, it is less dependent on source material than the huge amount Mohammed lifted from the Torah when he cobbled together the Quran (amounting to plagiarism in the current litigious climate).

When you made the comment (with the finality of a patriarch):

Originally Posted by jallanite

I do not think it does the works of Tolkien or any of these writers any favours to compare them with numerous books that disagree with one another: the Qurʼan, the Book of Mormon, the Mahabharata, the Gathas of Zarathusta, any of the Christian Bibles, Jewish scriptures, Buddhist scriptures, the Norse Eddas and so on.

Who are you to demand such prohibitions? One fairy tale is as good as the next, or better depending on the writer. Posters here can discuss what they damn well please. A collegiate comparative religion course is replete with varying viewpoints. To make a comparative analysis of Tolkien's creation as opposed to the biblical version is a decent way to waste time posting on a forum such as this.

But I do love Tolkien's ironic quote:

I don't mind it, as long as it doesn't become obsessive. It doesn't obsess me.

If Tolkien were honest with himself, he would have to admit he was perhaps the most obsessive writer that ever lived. And he expects his fans to be different?

So, TheLostPilgrim, revel in The Silmarillion. Enjoy the reading. Just remember, a wet blanket will never keep you warm.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

He has an amazing, inspiring, beautiful cosmology and philosophy within those lesser known works, something truly inspired and beautiul. He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.

.

The big question is what you mean by believe. For myself, what I love about Tolkien and possibly why I am not much interested in other fantasy, is the detail and plausibility about it, but it is necessary to remember that Tolkien was deliberately creating a mythology (for England). Also that he was throughout his life a devoted and devout Catholic and that he commented that some of his fans were involved in his works in a way that he wasn't. I think he loved his world but he knew it was a creation - or subcreation at a fundamental level. However I suppose there could be an argument for "a Velveteen Rabbit" style of reality about it (the kind of reality existing in the relationship between a child and a beloved toy). I will try to post more but am reliant again on library computers and my time for now is up!.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

The big question is what you mean by believe. For myself, what I love about Tolkien and possibly why I am not much interested in other fantasy, is the detail and plausibility about it, but it is necessary to remember that Tolkien was deliberately creating a mythology (for England). Also that he was throughout his life a devoted and devout Catholic and that he commented that some of his fans were involved in his works in a way that he wasn't. I think he loved his world but he knew it was a creation - or subcreation at a fundamental level.

Tolkien's motives in creating the mythos were discussed by him in Letters # 211.

May I say that all this is 'mythical', and not any kind of new religion or vision. As far as I know it is merely an imaginative invention, to express, in the only way I can, some of my (dim) apprehensions of the world.

So Tolkien "believed" in the world he had made only in the sense that it was a reflection of his own thoughts and beliefs. The fact that many of my own ideas seem to fall in line with his is an important factor personally in my affinity for his work.

[Galin]

Whether the belief quoted in Morgoth's Ring is the final say, who knows? Tolkien changed opinions on his cosmos like other men change underwear. But the first section of The Silmarillion is certainly written in an Eldarcentric and not anthropocentric tone and point of view, which is at odds with a retelling with the usual conceits, flaws and historiographical integration of later mannish political and sociological creeds and concerns.

As far as this much is concerned, I do believe Tolkien's final say -- granting that he never published his Silmarillion of course, but let's say 'final say' as in a fair number of late comments from different sources -- was that the Silmarilion was to be imagined as a largely Mannish affair, including a textual migration through Numenor.

In theory. I'm not sure Tolkien necessarily took up all the relevant texts and went through them line by line with this recasting in mind, but I do think such a recasting was his general answer to the problem that he believed existed. In other words, I think he tried a new Silmarillion, illustrated in part in Myths Transformed, but abandoned this in general, realizing that he could retain much of what he had already written if he 'simply' tinkered with the transmission and authorship of the tales rather, despite the older Elfwine model.

I know that somewhere I have listed a fair number (not necessarily all) of the relevant citations that speak to a largely mannish Silmarillion, but who knows where I posted them if I don't. Some of them appear in this thread anyway.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4390

Granted, as you say, it's possible that Tolkien might have come around again. He had published that Bilbo had produced his Translations from the Elvish, but I think it's easy enough to imagine that the Elvish language is meant; and JRRT (later) published a reference to the 'Numenorean factor' in connection with The Hoard from The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (noting: '... No. 14 also depends on the lore of Rivendell, Elvish and Númenorean, concerning the heroic days at the end of the First Age; it seems to contain echoes of the Númenorean tale of Turin and Mim the Dwarf.').

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

In The Silmarillion it is said that the entire history of the world is the product of the music of the Ainur, and they helped to shape the world and it's history through the Music they made, whose utmost source was the Theme given to them by Eru; The Ainur are the offspring of Eru's thought; Each Ainur being part or understanding only of that part of the mind of Eru from whence he or she came...So, logically, would it not be that the vanity and pride of Melkor came from a part of Eru's mind? What Melkor understood--vanity, a desire for power, a creative urge at best--would that not have come from some part of Eru's thought?

No, Eru understands Evil, but in Tolkien's universe he is in no way the source of it, in anything other than 'his' status as first cause. The Ainur have free will, as all creations in the Tolkien world. For example whilst there is much talk of 'high dooms' being upon people, it is also clear they could choose to step aside from that path. The 'flame imperishable' imbues creatures with true creativity.

It's important to note as well that Melkor does not begin 'Evil' nor are his first steps on that path neccessarily 'evil.'

Of Melkor:

He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilъvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness.

It was from this impatience, pride and arch-ambition, that all of his evil came. Similiar traits in Aule, came out differently, all as a matter of fortune and personality.

And also logically following, would not all the horrors (and beauty) of Middle Earth's history be, indirectly, the product of Eru's vision, of His music? ...

I will answer this with the familiar lines:

Then Ilъvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilъvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

Essentially Ero ensures that all things will end in uttermost good, and that all evils are only a different path that matters can take before arriving at that conclusion.

It's obvious some of the Maia and Valar did care; Gandalf being perhaps the best, most direct example...But what of the Valar as a whole? Or Eru? What regard do they hold for the fate of Arda and it's peoples?

The Valar are responsible for the removal of Morgoth Bauglir from Arda. That alone would leave everyone in middle earth in their debt. Plus they sent the Istari, having learned from their mistakes in the past, when it came to provinding aid of too lofty a standard to the Numernorians. The Valar understand the Elves, but not so much man, who is ultimately an enigma to them. They still do their best though.

A last off topic question but: Who would be more responsible for Arda's creation? Eru or the Ainur? Eru laid the Foundation--the Theme--for them to play and by which create and shape the World, but it was their Music--each intricate, individual part which they themselves crafted based on Eru's theme--which directly shaped the world.

The 'shape' of the world appears to be mainly a product of the Valar 'group mind,' but the flame imperishable that renders beings truly 'alive' is a gift only Eru can bestow, and the 'Children' (even the Dwarves by adoption) are ultimately his creation.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

… but it is necessary to remember that Tolkien was deliberately creating a mythology (for England).

In his letter to Milton Waldman, Tolkien writes:

But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story, – the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country.

That is not the same thing as “a mythology (for England)”. The phrase “a mythology for England” is repeated again and again by commentators on Tolkien as though it were an expression used by him, but it is never used by Tolkien. It is an invention by commentators, and distorts what Tolkien did say.

Tolkien is obviously referring here to his Book of Lost Tales in which the Lonely Isle was identified with Britain, but Tolkien soon rejected that identification. Quite rightly so. That Britain was the Lonely Isle drawn back to Middle-earth during the days of the Saxon Hengest is historically absurd, as though Roman Britain never existed, or pre-Roman Britain mentioned in Classical Greek texts. Tolkien quite rightly thought better of it. And nowhere in The Book of Lost Tales are the events outside of the Lonely Island made to take place in England.

A “mythology for England” surely should take place mostly in England. But the Eriol material was soon abandoned and the Ælfwine material that was to replace it was mostly never written. The stories of Beren, Túrin, Tuor, and Eärendil were never placed in England, save vaguely where in a few mentions Britain (part of which later became England) is identified as an island among the remains of sunken Beleriand.

The Hobbit takes place in previously unidentified territory. There is not sufficient detail given therein to identify the Hobbit homeland with England. Only in The Lord of the Rings is The Shire supposedly approximately in the area of later England, in days before the English Channel came to be. There indeed the Shire and Buckland and Bree are very English indeed, Edwardian English. But not the rest of Tolkien’s world.

In letter 294 Tolkien complains about the use of the word Nordic in connection to his writing but this rant would almost do as well for the word English:

Not Nordic, please! A word I personally dislike; it is associated, though of French origin, with racialist theories. Geographically Northern is usually better. But examination will show that even this is inapplicable (geographically or spiritually) to ‘Middle-earth’. This is an old word, not invented by me, as reference to a dictionary such as the Shorter Oxford will show. It meant the habitable lands of our world, set amid the surrounding Ocean. The action of the story takes place in the North-west of ‘Middle-earth’, equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean. But this is not a purely ‘Nordic’ area in any sense. If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy.

Auden has asserted that for me ‘the North is a sacred direction’. That is not true. The North-west of Europe, where I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man’s home should. I love its atmosphere, and know more of its histories and languages than I do of other parts; but it is not ‘sacred’, nor does it exhaust my affections. I have, for instance, a particular love for the Latin language, and among its descendants for Spanish. That it is untrue for my story, a mere reading of the synopses should show. The North was the seat of the fortresses of the Devil. The progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a ‘Nordic’.

In Tolkien’s finished conception the Shire is described by him as “more or less a Warwickshire village of about the period of the Diamond Jubilee″. And the language of the Rohirrim is Old English. Esgaroth and Dale are Norse. The rest is more-or-less general medieval European. Neither The Silmarillion as published nor The Hobbit nor The Lord of the Rings as a whole is “a mythology for England”.

[Mithalwen]

My main point which you have perhaps chosen to ignoree is that Tolkien knew that his world was created. I don't agree with your assertion that a mythology for Ngland must be set there. We are a nation of Empire builders and Tolkien was colonial born even if at heart a Warwickshre lad. Perhaps because I have roots several centuries deep in Warwickshire soil it's Englishness seems self evident.

[Galin]

It's interesting that, as late as the Etymologies ('late' when compared to The Book of Lost Tales anyway)

'Q Ingolonde Land of the Gnomes (Beleriand, but before applied to parts of Valinor). N Angolonn or Geleidhien.

And in the Silmarillion of the mid to later 1930s, the Land of Leithian survives the breaking of Beleriand. The character of Elfwine lived even longer (externally), granted he became a figure of transmission more than an active player, but he was an Englishman and was supposed to render all these legends into Old English, and (I would argue) would still make connections between the Valar and the Norse gods.

Anyway, in 1956 Tolkien wrote a draft letter, which included:

'Having set myself a task, the arrogance of which I fully recognized and trembled at: being precisely to restore to the English an epic tradition and present them with a mythology of their own: it is a wonderful thing to be told that I have succeeded, at least with those who have still the undarkened heart and mind.'

'It has been a considerable labour, beginning really as soon as I was able to begin anything, but effectively beginning when I was an undergraduate and began to explore my own linguistic aesthetic in language composition. It was just as the 1914 War burst on me that I made the discovery that 'legends' depend on the language to which they belong; but a living language depends equally on the 'legends' which it conveys by tradition. (...)'

So while 'a mythology for England' has turned out to be a misquote, the Waldman letter isn't the only source behind the general notion.

I happen to like the Eriol story myself, the question of the Romans aside. It seems a bold move to play England as not yet in the geographical position of England; but as noted Tolkien certainly abandoned this.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

My main point which you have perhaps chosen to ignoree is that Tolkien knew that his world was created.

I ignored your main point because I agree with it totally and completely. I ought to have mentioned this agreement.

I picked up only on a statement commonly made by Tolkien commentators as though it were by Tolkien when it is not actually by Tolkien. I find that annoying, but understandable, when this statement is wrongly attributed to Tolkien so often, because people blindly accept what they are told. I was disappointed as I would have thought you would have known better. All the more reason to indicate a slovenly error when someone as generally as intelligent as you is making it.

Some claim that it doesn’t matter that Tolkien didn’t say it, because he certainly would have agreed with it. I disagree. Truth matters. And I don’t believe that he would have agreed with it.

Here is an entire thread on the matter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/message/17214 .

I don't agree with your assertion that a mythology for Ngland must be set there.

I did not quite say that a mythology for England must be set there. I suggested:

A “mythology for England” surely should take place mostly in England.

Tolkien’s tales of the first three ages of Middle-earth are, in their finished versions, set in a fictional era before England (or Britain) even existed. Tolkien’s early idea was to connect his legendarium with historic England through the identification of the Lonely Isle with Britain (including England) and by identifying his Eriol with the father of Hengest, Horsa, and Heorrenda (a younger brother of Hengest and Horsa invented by Tolkien).

Tolkien rejected those ideas.

Instead Tolkien connected his legendarium analogically with England in The Lord of the Rings by making the Shire parallel to the English countryside of his youth and giving to the Rohirrim the Old English language and Germanic heroic ideals also found in Old English writings.

What most people would call the mythology of Tolkien’s legendarium (Manwë, Varda, Ulmo and all that) is not particularly English. The Elvish history is not especially English and Tolkien was later quite insistent that his Elves were his own invention, not owing much to the Elves of folklore. The history of Númenor is largely the Platonic story of Atlantis. Arnor and Gondor is largely a calc of the western and eastern Roman empires. Aragorn is more Dietrich von Bern than identical to any English figure. I think he also owes something to the fictional Natty Bumppo (Hawkeye) of the American author James Fenimore Cooper.

We are a nation of Empire builders and Tolkien was colonial born even if at heart a Warwickshre lad. Perhaps because I have roots several centuries deep in Warwickshire soil it's Englishness seems self evident.

Empire builders? Colonial? Tolkien in letter 53:

For I love England (not Great Britain and certainly not the British Commonwealth (grr!)), and if I was of military age, I should, I fancy, be grousing away in a fighting service, and willing to go on to the bitter end – always hoping that things may turn out better for England than they look like doing.

From letter 77:

I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians. Delenda est Carthago. We hear rather a lot of that nowadays. I was actually taught at school that that was a fine saying; and I ‘reacted’ (as they say, in this case with less than the usual misapplication) at once.

From letter 100:

Though in this case, as I know nothing about British or American imperialism in the Far East that does not fill me with regret and disgust, I am afraid I am not even supported by a glimmer of patriotism in this remaining war.

Tolkien clearly and carefully distinguished his personal feelings for England from his personal feelings for Imperial Britain.

The Englishness of the Shire is of course evident to me. It is surely evident to almost all readers. You don’t need to be born in Warwickshire to feel that. Indeed I know at least one person who was not able to read The Lord of the Rings because the early chapters were too English for her.

If you wish to disagree with me, disagree with what I am saying, not with opinions I don’t hold. I am unaware that I have posted anything that would suggest ignorance of the analogical Englishness of the Shire. You rightly blamed me for ignoring most of what you were saying. But you are doing the same, inventing the ignorance that you impute to me.

Tolkien did not say he had ever wished to create a mythology for England. Disagree? Then point out where he said it. He said something like it in the Waldman letter. But he did not say it, and I believe he did not intend to create a fictional mythology that would be believed by Englishmen in place of what he saw as the true religion. Nor did he intend a poetic mythology to be referred to by poets as classical mythology was by custom.

Originally Posted by Galin

I happen to like the Eriol story myself, the question of the Romans aside. It seems a bold move to play England as not yet in the geographical position of England; but as noted Tolkien certainly abandoned this.

Yes, it was a bold move, but one that seems very nationalistic and even racist.

[Galin]

Yes, it was a bold move, but one that seems very nationalistic and even racist.

One reason I like the Eriol tale is because it lends a 'faery' presence to specific places like Warwick -- and more generally (same sense of an ancient faery presence) in that we have an Elvish Isle before it actually becomes 'Britain' in a geographical sense.

I also like the 'impossibility' of the idea of dragging the entire Isle to a new geographical position, including how Ireland became separated -- which goes well enough in hand, I guess, with my liking of Tolkien's 'less scientific' cosmology.

There are other things I find charming or interesting in the Eriol tale, things that seem to have eventually dropped out or fallen away, like the drinking of limpe for example, or the Path of Dreams.

That much noted, I'm not interested in any of the 'was Tolkien a racist?' threads out there, including any discussion of what seems racist to someone.

[Lotrelf]

I was thinking the same. When I read: "The Ainur are the offspring of Eru's thought." I felt does that make Eru a flawed "character"? He is the creator of Arda. Melkor being the the offspring of his thoughts, means He also belonged to Eru. Or Eru created him purposefully, perhaps. The purpose of creation of The Dark Lord meant, that to exist good, there should be evil. Otherwise all the words we use to express goodness will have no meaning.
Eru cared for Arda, and so did Valar. They did not have to directly come and do the favor to the Children of Iluvatar.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Melkor being the the offspring of his thoughts, means He also belonged to Eru. Or Eru created him purposefully, perhaps. The purpose of creation of The Dark Lord meant, that to exist good, there should be evil. Otherwise all the words we use to express goodness will have no meaning.

Ah yes. This sticky topic. For what it's worth, I think Ilúvatar's admonition in response to Melkor's alteration of the Music speaks much.

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

The Silmarillion Ainulindalë

Evil was no aberration, but a known quantity to the One, made for his own purpose, dark though it may often be to his creations.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Evil was no aberration, but a known quantity to the One, made for his own purpose, dark though it may often be to his creations.

Yes! Btw, can you answer a question? What was the difference between the evil nature of Melkor and Souron?

[Pervinca Took]

Tolkien said that Sauron "was only less evil than his master in that [at first/for many years? - can't remember the exact wording] he served another and not himself." They were equally evil, but Melkor was a much more powerful being - the most powerful of the Ainur - whereas Sauron was of the Maiar, a less powerful angelic being. Gandalf, too, was a Maia.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Tolkien said that Sauron "was only less evil than his master in that [at first/for many years? - can't remember the exact wording] he served another and not himself." They were equally evil, but Melkor was a much more powerful being - the most powerful of the Ainur - whereas Sauron was of the Maiar, a less powerful angelic being. Gandalf, too, was a Maia.

Agreed. To put it another way, Sauron was less evil because he was corrupted by an outside influence. Melkor was self-corrupted: the Prime Evil of Tolkien's Arda, and the visible source of all that blighted it.

[Lotrelf]

Yes, Tolkien says something like 'Souron was less evil than Melkor as long as he was serving someone else.' Did Souron's being a Maia affect his evil nature too? That is, he was less powerful (or evil) because he was a Maia.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Yes, Tolkien says something like 'Souron was less evil than Melkor as long as he was serving someone else.' Did Souron's being a Maia affect his evil nature too? That is, he was less powerful (or evil) because he was a Maia.

Being a lower-degree spirit compared to Melkor, Sauron had less power to effect evil, but I do not think it had any effect on the nature of his fall. Or maybe, due to his having apparently a fairly high "rank" in relation to his position in the angelic hierarchy, he may have been more susceptible to Melkor's influence than say, a spirit of less innate power.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

What was the difference between the evil nature of Melkor and Souron?

Mostly the laugh. Morgoth's was a rich, rolling, menacing "Mwahh-wah ho ha ha!" Whereas Sauron's was more of a shrill, gibbering "Heh-heh-kehehehehaa!" Think Jabba the Hut versus Salacious B. Crumb.

[Zigûr]

We must remember, as has been observed, that the chief difference was that all Evil was ultimately derived from Melkor, whereas Sauron was only a symptom of that evil, and perpetuated and profited from that evil.

That being said, by the end of the First Age the actual person 'Morgoth' has become separate from (and in a sense enslaved to) the metaphysical concept of Evil, which was his own nature divided and split from his will and control. In that sense Morgoth was scarcely in a position different to Sauron. There was still some difference, but not as much as there had been originally.

"In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible." -Letter 183