CotW Silm - Ainulindale
Troels Forchhammer
This post is a chapter introduction in the Tolkien newsgroups' 'Chapter
of the Week' (CotW) project. For more information visit the CotW
homepage at <http://parasha.maoltuile.org/>.
'Ainulindalë' -- The music of the Ainur.
The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the /Music of
the Ainur/. God and the Valar (or powers: Englished as gods)
are revealed. These latter are as we should say angelic
powers, whose function is to exercise delegated authority
in their spheres (of rule and government, /not/ creation,
making or re-making). They are 'divine', that is, were
originally 'outside' and existed 'before' the making of the
world. Their power and wisdom is derived from their
Knowledge of the cosmogonical drama, which they perceived
first as a drama (that is as in a fashion we perceive a
story composed by some-one else), and later as a 'reality'.
[J.R.R. Tolkien in Letter #131, To Milton Waldman (probably written
late in 1951)]
This, /Ainulindalë/, then, is the cosmogenetic myth of Middle-earth,
and it has a very interesting textual history [1] that goes back even
to The Book of Lost Tales, written before the end of the War in 1918.
A list of references to volumes of the /History of Middle-earth/
series with abbreviations can be found in the bottom of this post.
Unmarked quotations are from the text of this chapter from the
published Silmarillion (second edition).
This text is one of the texts that have changed the least from the
earliest versions to the published Silmarillion, showing the continuity
in the development of Tolkien's legendarium.
Christopher Tolkien, in BoLT1, wrote
In later years the Creation myth was revised and
rewritten over and over again; but it is notable that in
this case only and in contrast to the development of the
rest of the mythology there is a direct tradition,
manuscript to manuscript, from the earliest draft to the
final version: each text is directly based on the one
preceding. Moreover, and most remarkably, the earliest
version, writtten when my father was 27 or 28 and embedded
still in the Cottage of Lost Play, was so evolved in its
conception that it underwent little change of an essential
kind. There were indeed very many changes, which can be
followed stage by stage through the successive texts, and
much new matter came in; but the fall of the original
sentences can continually be recognised in the last version
of the /Ainulindalë/, written more than thirty years later,
and even many phrases survived.
[BoLT1, 'The Music of the Ainur' (Commentary on ...)]
Summary:
First Eru Ilúvatar [2] created the Ainur [3] and they were happy in the
Timeless Halls.
Then, 'it came to pass that Ilúvatar' called a grand assembly of the
Ainur and sang/played a wonderful theme to them. This theme was,
however, more than just another pretty tune, and He instructed the
Ainur to make 'in harmony together a Great Music' of it.[4]
The Ainur begin their music, and all is well for a while (never again,
until after the end and at a new beginning), until Melkor got creative,
and begain to make discord.[5][6][8] Melkor's discord spread, and
things began to get out of hand -- a bit further than that, perhaps ('a
raging storm ... made war ... endless wrath ... not be assuaged.')[9]
Now, Eru can't be happy about this, but He still smiled when He rose
(in A He 'smiled sadly'), and He expounded a second theme, which Melkor
proceeded to treat as He did the first, until 'again there was a war of
sound more violent than before ...'
Eru then arose for the second time (He had been sitting when He
expounded the first theme) with a stern face (in BoLT He was weeping),
to expound the third theme. The same happens, and He rises again 'and
his face was terrible to behold. Then He raised up both his hands, and
in one chord, [...], the Music ceased.' [10]
In the following silence Eru spoke to the Ainur, wanting to remind them
just who He was ('that He may know, and all the Ainur, that I am
Ilúvatar') by showing them a vision of their song. Before doing that,
however, He makes the 'he that attempteth this(*) shall prove but mine
instrument' speech.[11][12]
(*) I.e. 'alter the Music in [Eru's] despite'
Eru proceeds to show the Ainur a vision of the world / Song, and as He
does that, He speaks to them. 'And many other things Ilúvatar spoke to
the Ainur at that time, and because of their memory of his words, and
the knowledge that each has of the music that He himself made, the
Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things
are unseen by them.'[13]
Already during the Vision 'the Ainur saw that it contained things
which they had not thought' so they must be quickly aware that Eru had
ideas with this that went beyond what He had revealed in the Music.
'And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Ilúvatar,
and the habitation that was prepared for them;'
The Children of Ilúvatar, or Eruhíni, become of prime importance as a
motivating force in the mythology:
But when the Ainur had beheld this habitation in a vision
and had seen the Children of Ilúvatar arise therein, then
many of the most mighty among them bent all their thought
and their desire towards that place.
Nearly everything that follows can be traced back to this -- Melkor
wanted to dominate the Eruhíni, and the other Valar wanted to help and
care for them.
Now, the Ainur noted many of the wonders about the habitation of the
Eruhíni, light (including colours), air and, as we might have guessed,
particularly water, in which, says the Eldar, 'there lives yet the echo
of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance else that is in
this Earth'[14]
Water is also here used for an object lesson. Ulmo had turned his
thought to water [15] as Manwë had to air, and Eru now points out to
Ulmo how Melkor's 'war upon thy [Ulmo's] province' has not only made it
much more beautiful, but also drawn him nearer to his good friend,
Manwë. The primary target of this lesson, however, must be Melkor (and
those who would follow him in Eru's despite): a practical demonstration
of what Eru meant by 'he that attempteth this shall prove but mine
instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself
hath not imagined.'[16]
We then get to the last part of this tale. We have covered the
'design-phase' (the actual Music with its three themes and final
chord) and the 'review-phase' (the vision with its comments and
object-lessons), and now we get to the actual implementation, where Eru
speaks the word, '/Eä!/', which means 'Let it Be!' (it is interpreted
in the text as 'Let these things Be!'), which imperative also became
the proper name of the Creation (the universe).
The remainder of the Ainulindalë is then concerned with the entrance of
some of the Ainur into Eä.[17] The Valar enter into the Creation at the
beginning of time [18] and they discover that what Eru had created was
the potential, and that they had to achieve that which had been
foresung and foreshadowed in Song and Vision.
So began their great labours in wastes unmeasured and
unexplored, and in ages uncounted and forgotten, until in
the Deeps of Time and in the midst of the vast halls of Eä
there came to be that hour and that place where was made
the habitation of the Children of Ilúvatar.
The chief workers in this part of the creation process were Manwë, Ulmo
and Aulë, but also Melkor was 'there from first' intefering and serving
his own purposes, and he wanted to take it to be his kingdom, though it
was made to be the habitation of the Eruhíni. So therefore the others
drove Melkor out of Arda (but not out of Eä), 'he did not put the
desire of the Kingdom of Arda from his heart.'
The Valar took 'shape and hue'[19] gathered some companions [17], and
together they strove to finish the shaping of Arda, but Melkor came
back, and then there were the first battle of the Valar against Melkor
[20], but slowly the world took shape.
Comments and questions
Why is this text so special within the legendarium? Why does this very
central text undergo so little change to the basic structure and
central elements?
What is the 'Flame Imperishable'? Eru had kindled it in the Ainur,
Melkor sought it in vain because he wanted to create things of his own,
Eru sent it out in the void to create Eä and in some of the writings in
/Myths Transformed/ (MR) Eru gave/lend some of it to Varda, but Aulë
didn't have it when he created the Dwarves. It seems related to
creative power, but how?
In C*, the round world version, the main differences with the published
version (in this part of the tale) is in a couple of references to the
Sun being a part of the original set-up.
In A and B, after the Valar has left from the Timeless Halls, Eru
declared his gifts to the Children of Ilúvatar:
'Behold I love the world, and it is a hall of play for
Eldar and Men who are my beloved. But when the Eldar come
they will be the fairest and the most lovely of all things
by far; and deeper in the knowledge of beauty, and happier
than Men. But to Men I will give a new gift, and a
greater.' Therefore he devised that Men should have a free
virtue whereby within the limits of the powers and
substances and chances of the world they might fashion and
design their life beyond even the original Music of the
Ainur that is as fate to all things else.
Numbered notes, comments, questions, etc.
[1] I have located the following versions in HoMe:
A(draft) -- Draft version of the version given in BoLT
A -- The version given in BoLT. Differences to the draft are
given (1918 - 1920)
B -- 'Flat World Version', supposedly the version given in LR
(I don't have that one) (the thirties)
C* -- MR, 'Round World Version' (c. 1946?)
C -- MR, a new flat world version based on B, but
incorporating some ideas from C* (c. 1948-49?)
D -- MR, a further development of C (c. 1949-1950?)
In MR, CT judges C* to have been in existence in 1948, but not C,
while he also thinks that both C and D were completed before 1951.
That is about as close as he gets, as far as I can see.
The version tree, then, should look something like this:
------ > C ---> D
/ .
A(draft) ---> A ---> B .
\ .
--> C*
[2] In A(draft), Eru is usually called 'Ilu' but also sometmes
'Ilúvatar', but 'Ilúvatar' in A. In C*, C and D he is apparently
still Ilúvatar, but on a list titled 'Alterations in last revision
1951.' appear 'Eru = Ilúvatar', which probably prompted the use in
the published version, 'Eru who in Arda is called Ilúvatar'.
[3] In BoLT we have 'he sang into being the Ainur first', putting an
even stronger emphasis on the Creative power of Song in the
mythology.
[4] Ilúvatar's instruction to the Ainur, especially the last sentence
of it, is one of the places where the continuity of this text can be
clearly seen.
The Silmarillion as published has:
Then Ilúvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I have
declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony
together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with
the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in
adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and
devices, if he will. But I will sit and hearken, and be
glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into
song.'
The same passage in BoLT (version A) reads:
Then said Ilúvatar: '[...] It is my desire now that ye
make a great and glorious music and a singing of this
threme; and (seeing that I have taught you much and set
brightly the Secret Fire within you) that ye exercise your
minds and powers in adorning the theme to you own thoughts
and devising. But I will sit and hearken and be glad that
through you I have made much beauty to come to Song.'
The last sentence is clearly one of the places where the 'fall of
the original sentences can be recognised'. The first twelve words
are identical, and the last third of the sentence is still
recognisable. The change from 'much' to 'great' beauty is
unimportant, I think, and I am not sure that the change from 'to
come to Song' and to 'been wakened into song' is significant,
although the latter wording seems to suggest something a bit more
more than just music -- 'awakened into song', to me, suggests
something which is more real than just song ...
The big difference is, however, in the removal of the earlier
wording of, 'through you /I have made/' (my emphasis). In the early
version we see Ilúvatar asserting himself as the Primary Cause at
this point.
[5] Now, Melkor is not just some second-rank Ainu, 'To Melkor among
the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge,
and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren.' That's first
class power, that. This is in good agreement with the traditions
which equates Satan with Lucifer, the fallen angel who was the most
prominent angel prior to his fall (the greater gifts leading also to
greater temptations, perhaps?)
Would someone care to comment more on the Fallen Angel theme?
Possibly there is also a relation to letter #131, where Tolkien
wrote: 'Anyway all this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall,
Mortality, and the Machine.'
[6] Let's have a look at Melkor's faults at this point, shall we?
1) 'it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own
imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar,'
2) 'he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part
assigned to himself.'
3) 'being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike
those of his brethren.'
4) '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 Ilúvatar took
no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness.
Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar.'
1 is the result of the other stuff, but is important because this is
where Melkor for the first time openly defies Eru, even if he may
not realise this himself at that point.
2 is of course just a matter of pride and a desire for power -- very
traditional motives for Evil in Tolkien's writings, and here,
perhaps, we see where they enter the world.
3 is more complex, though. Is it bad to stay apart? Is it evil to
'conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren'?
I'm not sure we should conclude anything such, but at the same
time I do think this is presented as one of Melkor's early faults.
Not in itself evil or sinful, perhaps, but leading him there.
4, now ... I think this is very interesting, because Melkor here
displays two faults which I think are fatal. He desired to Create,
and he failed to realise that this power is with Eru alone.[7]
We then hear that: 'Some of these thoughts he now wove into his
music, and straightway discord arose about him, [...]' and this is
the point were we can see that evil has entered Eru's Creation, but
when did it enter? When Melkor went alone into the void? Or when he
began to sing in discord with Eru's theme?
[7] As an interesting aside at this point, I am reminded of the texts
in 'Myths Transformed' in MR -- at one point Tolkien was working
with the idea that Eru gave some Flame Imperishable to Varda, which
is interesting in this context, because it would seem to be
equivalent to lending her the power to Create, to 'call into Being
things of her own'
[8] Why was what Melkor did /not/ obedient to Eru's command to 'show
forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own
thoughts and devices'?
[9] Any comments about the use of sea-and-weather metaphors to describe
the clash of two musical themes before time, sea, water, wind or
anything?
[10] So, all in all Eru Ilúvatar makes four musical statements during
the music.
I - The First Theme: 'unfolding to them things greater and more
wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its
beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur'
II - The Second Theme: 'like and yet unlike to the former theme, and
it gathered power and had new beauty.'
III - The Third Theme: 'it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere
rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could
not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity.'
And 'deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an
immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came'. This
was also capable of taking the most 'triumphant notes' from
Melkor's discord and weave it into 'its own solemn pattern.'
IV - The Chord: 'deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament,
piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar'
Now, what, if any, is the significance of these four musical
statements? Can they, and should they, be equated with some periods
of the life of Eä (or Arda)?
[11] Related to [10] above, Eru's statement that 'nor can any alter the
music in my despite' and the later revelation that Men are not bound
by the Music, this seems to imply that the Music in some way
represents the 'destiny' or 'fate' of the universe -- or perhaps it
would be better to say that it symbolises the 'original intent' with
the universe, by both Good (Eru's themes and the contribution of the
faithful Ainur) and Evil (Melkor's discord).
[12] Eru's berating as in [11] above worked, too:
Then the Ainur were afraid, and they did not yet
comprehend the words that were said to them; and Melkor was
filled with shame, of which came secret anger.
Just a pity about Melkor's 'secret anger', which appears to have
cemented Melkor's rebellion -- making it irreversible.
[13] So, the sources of the foreknowledge of the Ainur are threefold.
The music, and in particular their own contributions, the vision and
Eru's words to them during the vision. It is, however, also limited,
because there are things, events, in every age that doesn't proceed
from any of the above.
We are told that 'in every age there come forth things that are new
and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.' Any
good suggestions as to specific things? Or about the general
principles for this foreknowledge (both story-internally and story-
externally).
What does this limited foreknowledge of the history of Arda / Eä
mean for Tolkien's stories?
[14] What is it with Tolkien and water, anyway? We have 'the terrible
recurrent dream (beginning with memory) of the Great Wave, towering
up, and coming in ineluctably over the trees and green fields' of
which he tells in letter #163 (which he gave to Faramir and which
his son, Michael, inherited), and we have the fascination with the
Sea by the Eldar (not only as the 'road' to the Blessed Realm),
which is expressed by Legolas in LotR.
[15] A couple of quotations:
And it is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet
the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any
substance else that is in this Earth;
'Now to water had that Ainu whom the Elves call Ulmo
turned his thought, and of all most deeply was he
instructed by Ilúvatar in music.'
Doesn't this imply that Ulmo understood the Music better than any of
the other?
[16] I guess this motif is well known also from Christian thought? I
won't ask for a theological or moral debate along these lines, but
just note that it seems to me that this, /to Tolkien/, did justify
that Eru Ilúvatar allows Melkor's evil, but not Melkor's exercise of
that evil. Do others share that impression of Tolkien's opinion about
this?
[17] There is, I think, some confusion at this point about which
groups entered when and how etc.
The published text reads:
Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still
with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but others,
and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the
leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it. But this condition
Ilúvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that
their power should thenceforward be contained and bounded
in the World, to be within it for ever, until it is
complete, so that they are its life and it is theirs. And
therefore they are named the Valar, the Powers of the
World.
[...]
And the Valar drew unto them many companions, some less,
some well nigh as great as themselves, and they laboured
together [...]
Version A (MoMe1, BoLT1) has
Now this was the end, that some abode still with Ilúvatar
beyond the world - and these were mostly those who had been
engrossed in their playing with thoughts of Ilúvatar's plan
and design, and cared only to set it forth without aught of
their own devising to adorn it; but some others, and among
them many of the most beautiful and wisest of the Ainur,
craved leave of Ilúvatar to dwell within the world.
And later
With them came many of those lesser Vali who loved them
and had played nigh them and attuned their music to theirs,
and these are the Mánir and the Súruli, the sylphss of the
airs and of the winds.
(The last paragraph is from BoLT1-III 'The Coming of the Valar ...')
and C, D and C* (HoMe10, MR)
§21 Thus it came to pass that of the Holy Ones some abode
still with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but
others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair,
took the leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it. But this
condition Ilúvatar made, or it is the necessity of their
love, that their power should henceforth be contained and
bounded in the World, and be within it for ever, so that
they are its life and it is theirs. And therefore, Ælfwine,
we name them the Valar, the Powers of the World.
[...]
§26 And behold! the Valar drew unto them many companions,
some less, some well-nigh as great as themselves, and they
laboured in the ordering of the Earth, [...]
As far as I can see from the summary in MR, the version in B is
alike to the A version in this.
The question here is whether those that were originally in Arda and
fought against Melkor are identical to those who are later listed as
the Valar (except Tulkas who came later, but still he helped the
Valar in their first battles with Melkor).
If that is the case, should we then think that the Maiar were busy
elsewhere in Eä until they were drawn unto the Valar? Or did the
Maiar not enter into Eä at all until the Valar called?
But isn't it also possible that the use, here, of 'Valar' is a
remnant of a time when all the Ainur were called Valar, or when all
the Ainur that entered Eä were so callled? The former seems to be
indicated both in text A and in the passage from letter #131 quoted
at the top.
[18] I am sorry, but the physicist within me cannot just leave this
question alone ;-)
The Ainur enter Eä at the beginning of time, and their abode with
Eru is referred to as 'the Timeless Halls'. It is, however, clear
from the text that 'time' in some sense must exist in the Timeless
Halls -- there is a sequentialisation of events, and of course the
whole concept of music only makes sense within some sort of time.
I am aware that I am overanalysing and extrapolating wildly here,
but I have to note (just for the fun of it) that there must be some
other time-like dimension in the Timeless Halls for this tale to
make sense -- suggesting imaginary time is a tempting solution ;-)
[19] Something ought, I think, to be said here about the bodies of the
Ainur. The word 'hue' in the published version was 'form' up until
version C of the text, and of course, in BoLT the Valar have
children, which is directly contradicted later in Ósanwe-kenta
The great Valar do not do these things: they begot not,
neither do they eat and drink, save at the high /asari/, in
token of their lordship and indwelling of Arda, and for the
blessing of the sustenance of the Children.
[Vinyar Tenqwar no. 39, /Ósanwe-kenta/ note 5]
There we also learn that the exercise of evil in a body can bind
the Ainu to that body. Otherwise these bodies are, as is explained in
the text, to be likened to the clothes of the Children -- not
integral to their Being, but a way for them to express that Being,
one way to interact with Arda, and in particular with the Eruhíni.
[20] Eh? What had happened earlier when 'was strife between Melkor and
the other Valar; and for that time Melkor withdrew and departed to
other regions'? That was when he tried to declare Arda to be his
Kingdom.
Referenced books:
HoMe The 'History of Middle-earth' series, volumes 1 through 13
BoLT Book of Lost Tales, HoMe 1 & 2 (BoLT1 & BoLT2)
LR The Lost Road and Other Writings, HoMe 5
MR Morgoth's Ring, HoMe 10
Letters, /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/, Humphrey Carpenter (Ed.)
Vinyar Tengwar, the journal of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship
<http://www.elvish.org/VT>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Men, said the Devil,
are good to their brothers:
they don't want to mend
their own ways, but each other's.
- Piet Hein, /Mankind/
Taemon
> Nearly everything that follows can be traced back to this -- Melkor
> wanted to dominate the Eruhíni, and the other Valar wanted to help
> and
> care for them.
I'd say it was because Melkor wanted his own voice?
T.
Troels Forchhammer
<Tae...@zonnet.nl> enriched us with:
I agree that that was his original motive when he began to search the
Void for the Imperishable Flame and when he started to add to the
Music matters of his own devicing that were in discord with Eru's
theme, but at this point in the story he seems to have already
progressed to a wish for domination:
But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and
Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to
endow them; and he wished himself to have subject and
servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over
other wills.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
- /Small Gods/ (Terry Pratchett)
ste...@nomail.com
> In message <news:3s7h71F...@individual.net> "Taemon"
> <Tae...@zonnet.nl> enriched us with:
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>>> Nearly everything that follows can be traced back to this --
>>> Melkor wanted to dominate the Eruhuni, and the other Valar
>>> wanted to help and care for them.
>>
>> I'd say it was because Melkor wanted his own voice?
> I agree that that was his original motive when he began to search the
> Void for the Imperishable Flame and when he started to add to the
> Music matters of his own devicing that were in discord with Eru's
> theme, but at this point in the story he seems to have already
> progressed to a wish for domination:
> But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and
> Men, envying the gifts with which Iluvatar promised to
> endow them; and he wished himself to have subject and
> servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over
> other wills.
Even without the desire for domination, Melkor wanted
to do things independent of God. According to Tolkien's
theology and the theology of his Universe that is
the beginning of evil. Whether this agrees with
your own ideas of evil is another matter altogether.
Maybe all those recent off topic posts about religion, evil, etc.
were just a warmup for discussing the theological implications
of the Ainulindale and Melkor's rebellion. :)
Stephen
Taemon
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>> In message <news:3s7h71F...@individual.net> "Taemon"
>> <Tae...@zonnet.nl> enriched us with:
>>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>> Nearly everything that follows can be traced back to this --
>>>> Melkor wanted to dominate the Eruhuni, and the other Valar
>>>> wanted to help and care for them.
>>> I'd say it was because Melkor wanted his own voice?
<snip>
> Maybe all those recent off topic posts about religion, evil, etc.
> were just a warmup for discussing the theological implications
> of the Ainulindale and Melkor's rebellion. :)
I fear that may well be. I think it's best if I stay out of it :-)
T.
Mästerkatten
> ste...@nomail.com wrote:
>> Maybe all those recent off topic posts about religion, evil, etc.
>> were just a warmup for discussing the theological implications
>> of the Ainulindale and Melkor's rebellion. :)
>
> I fear that may well be. I think it's best if I stay out of it :-)
Come on now. Give in to the temptation.
--
Mästerkatten
Taemon
Oh, you wicked one, you!
T.
Troels Forchhammer
ste...@nomail.com enriched us with:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> In message <news:3s7h71F...@individual.net> "Taemon"
>> <Tae...@zonnet.nl> enriched us with:
>>>
>>
>> I agree that that was his original motive when he began to search
>> the Void for the Imperishable Flame and when he started to add to
>> the Music matters of his own devicing that were in discord with
>> Eru's theme, but at this point in the story he seems to have
>> already progressed to a wish for domination:
<snip quotation>
> Even without the desire for domination, Melkor wanted
> to do things independent of God.
Certainly.
> According to Tolkien's theology and the theology of
> his Universe that is the beginning of evil.
I am not entirely convinced that 'independent' is enough for that. Or
perhaps I'd say it is the beginning in the sense that it is not yet
evil, but carries the potential of evil (according to Tolkien). Aulė's
creation of the Dwarves was independent of Eru, but wan't evil as such
(it was, however, wrong), and the gift to Men of freedom from the
Music, isn't that precisely that independence from God?
I would say that evil enters the moment you wish to do things that are
not only independent of Eru, but which he would have you not do.
> Whether this agrees with your own ideas of evil is another
> matter altogether.
Yes.
I know it can be difficult not to project personal morals on one's
reading, but if we at least pretend to be discussing Tolkien's
intention, then we might keep it more civil ;-)
I do think that Tolkien's moral position had a very real effect on his
world in the way providence and grace worked, and these are very real
things in Middle-earth.
> Maybe all those recent off topic posts about religion, evil, etc.
> were just a warmup for discussing the theological implications
> of the Ainulindale and Melkor's rebellion. :)
Well, if I had initiated those threads ... ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
ste...@nomail.com
> In message <news:djm4ff$jjf$2...@news.msu.edu>
> ste...@nomail.com enriched us with:
>>
>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Troels Forchhammer
>> <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <news:3s7h71F...@individual.net> "Taemon"
>>> <Tae...@zonnet.nl> enriched us with:
>>>>
>>>> I'd say it was because Melkor wanted his own voice?
>>>
>>> I agree that that was his original motive when he began to search
>>> the Void for the Imperishable Flame and when he started to add to
>>> the Music matters of his own devicing that were in discord with
>>> Eru's theme, but at this point in the story he seems to have
>>> already progressed to a wish for domination:
> <snip quotation>
>> Even without the desire for domination, Melkor wanted
>> to do things independent of God.
> Certainly.
>> According to Tolkien's theology and the theology of
>> his Universe that is the beginning of evil.
> I am not entirely convinced that 'independent' is enough for that. Or
> perhaps I'd say it is the beginning in the sense that it is not yet
> evil, but carries the potential of evil (according to Tolkien). Aule's
> creation of the Dwarves was independent of Eru, but wan't evil as such
> (it was, however, wrong), and the gift to Men of freedom from the
> Music, isn't that precisely that independence from God?
I should have used a word other than 'independent', although
I am not sure what word would be a good substitute. By
going off into the void Melkor was seeking for things
other than Illuvatar, and wanted to create things without any
help from Illuvatar. That is the sense of 'independent'
I was aiming for, of being totally separate from God.
Aule on the other hand chose to enter creation, and to
work to achieve Illuvatar's will. Yes he did overstep
himself when he created the Dwarves, but his motivation
was never to do something totally separate.
> I would say that evil enters the moment you wish to do things that are
> not only independent of Eru, but which he would have you not do.
>> Whether this agrees with your own ideas of evil is another
>> matter altogether.
> Yes.
> I know it can be difficult not to project personal morals on one's
> reading, but if we at least pretend to be discussing Tolkien's
> intention, then we might keep it more civil ;-)
We shall see. :)
Stephen
Conrad Dunkerson
> [1] I have located the following versions in HoMe:
>
> A(draft) -- Draft version of the version given in BoLT
> A -- The version given in BoLT. Differences to the draft are
> given (1918 - 1920)
> B -- 'Flat World Version', supposedly the version given in LR
> (I don't have that one) (the thirties)
> C* -- MR, 'Round World Version' (c. 1946?)
> C -- MR, a new flat world version based on B, but
> incorporating some ideas from C* (c. 1948-49?)
> D -- MR, a further development of C (c. 1949-1950?)
>
> In MR, CT judges C* to have been in existence in 1948, but not C,
> while he also thinks that both C and D were completed before 1951.
> That is about as close as he gets, as far as I can see.
>
> The version tree, then, should look something like this:
>
> ------ > C ---> D
> / .
> A(draft) ---> A ---> B .
> \ .
> --> C*
I have been researching textual history off and on for a while now, and
thus have some comments on this.
There are actually a couple more branches on the tree;
/-----------> C --> D --> Silm
0d --> 0 --> A --> B .
\--> X --> C*
0d & 0 are what you label A(draft) and A above. What CT defined as 'A'
(in LR) was actually a rough manuscript created some time around 1919,
from which the fair copy 'B' was then created.
The version I call 'X' here was a half page fragment rough manuscript
dating from appoximately 1946, which was then typed up some time before
1948 as C*.
C was actually written over the manuscript of B, making it somewhat less
'fair' and requiring the creation of D to clean it up.
CT provides detailed texts for '0', 'B', 'C', 'C*', and 'D'. Some
differences for the '0d' and 'A' versions are listed relative to '0' and
'B'. The only information available about 'X' is a brief description of
its existence and nature in MR.
I have also included an entry for the published Silmarillion though this
is somewhat subjective. Comparison of the published form to the various
drafts seems clearly to follow 'D' most closely... though not exactly.
CT notes (MR pg 40) that he used 'circles OF time' from C* even though C
and D had only 'circles'.
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
> Summary:
>
> First Eru Ilúvatar [2] created the Ainur [3] and they were happy in the
> Timeless Halls.
Can I just say that Tolkien writes some great opening sentences?
"There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar; and he made
first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, ..." When I read that sentence I knew
that something awe-inspiring was going to happen. Compare with "Of
old there was Sauron the Maia" on the one hand, and "In a hole in the
ground there lived a hobbit" on the other.
> What is the 'Flame Imperishable'? Eru had kindled it in the Ainur,
> Melkor sought it in vain because he wanted to create things of his own,
> Eru sent it out in the void to create Eä and in some of the writings in
> /Myths Transformed/ (MR) Eru gave/lend some of it to Varda, but Aulë
> didn't have it when he created the Dwarves. It seems related to
> creative power, but how?
I think the Flame Imperishable is a metaphor for real, independent
existence: what the world had after Eru said Ea! and not before; what
the Dwarves had after Eru accepted them but not out of Aule's own
power.
> [3] In BoLT we have 'he sang into being the Ainur first', putting an
> even stronger emphasis on the Creative power of Song in the
> mythology.
C.S. Lewis' Narnia books used a similar method of universe creation
through music. In /The Magician's Nephew/ the children watch Aslan
pacing on a barren wasteland singing the stars and sun and everything
else into existence.
I wonder, is this a point that Tolkien and Lewis discussed, or did
they come to it independently.
> We then hear that: 'Some of these thoughts he now wove into his
> music, and straightway discord arose about him, [...]' and this is
> the point were we can see that evil has entered Eru's Creation, but
> when did it enter? When Melkor went alone into the void? Or when he
> began to sing in discord with Eru's theme?
I think it was building, but it was irrevocable when he sang in
discord to the Second Theme. When he created discord in the Fist
Theme, he might not have realized what was going on; he might have
thought that he was adding something new. But when the Second Theme
was propounded, he couldn't think he was embellishing; he had to know
at that point that he was in rebellion.
I make the analogy with Aule and the Dwarves. Aule acted against the
will of Eru in creating the Dwarves, but as soon as he became aware
that he had overstepped his bounds he submitted himself and his
creation to Eru. So that was the point where there would be a choice
for obedience or rebellion.
Now, I'm not saying Melkor wasn't evil before the Second Theme, just
that at that point it was clear and unambiguous. For all we know,
Melkor had decided while out in the Void that he would challenge the
other Ainur, and Eru through them.
> [8] Why was what Melkor did /not/ obedient to Eru's command to 'show
> forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own
> thoughts and devices'?
He didn't adorn Eru's theme; he created his own, in opposition to it
and trying to drown it out.
Or by "why" do you mean "why did Melkor do such a thing?" I think it
was the same sin as Feanor's and Turin's, only vastly greater in
scope: pride. He wanted to be above all the other Ainur, and
eventually above Eru himself.
> [9] Any comments about the use of sea-and-weather metaphors to describe
> the clash of two musical themes before time, sea, water, wind or
> anything?
I never noticed that before, but it doesn't bother me. Remember that
/The Silmarillion/ was written by Elves, and sea and weather
metaphors would come naturally to them.
> [10] So, all in all Eru Ilúvatar makes four musical statements during
> the music.
...
> Now, what, if any, is the significance of these four musical
> statements? Can they, and should they, be equated with some periods
> of the life of Eä (or Arda)?
The Third Theme was Elves and Men, I know, and I assume the great
Chord was the End. But I've never been able to label the first two
Themes in a way that feels completely right to me.
(I'm not sure the final Chord was Eru's. I always thought that he
directed the Ainur to stop, and they did so in the one tremendous
Chord.)
> [11] Related to [10] above, Eru's statement that 'nor can any alter the
> music in my despite' and the later revelation that Men are not bound
> by the Music, this seems to imply that the Music in some way
> represents the 'destiny' or 'fate' of the universe -- or perhaps it
> would be better to say that it symbolises the 'original intent' with
> the universe, by both Good (Eru's themes and the contribution of the
> faithful Ainur) and Evil (Melkor's discord).
I think the Music definitely is fate or destiny. Getting ahead of
ourselves, in Chapter 1 we read "Therefore Eru] willed that the
hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest
therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the
powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which
is as fate to all things else; ..."
> [12] Eru's berating as in [11] above worked, too:
> Then the Ainur were afraid, and they did not yet
> comprehend the words that were said to them; and Melkor was
> filled with shame, of which came secret anger.
> Just a pity about Melkor's 'secret anger', which appears to have
> cemented Melkor's rebellion -- making it irreversible.
Compare the moment of Gollum's near-repentance at Cirith Ungol. Sam
breaks in on him at the wrong time, and shames him; and the moment is
lost.
> [15] A couple of quotations:
> 'Now to water had that Ainu whom the Elves call Ulmo
> turned his thought, and of all most deeply was he
> instructed by Ilúvatar in music.'
> Doesn't this imply that Ulmo understood the Music better than any of
> the other?
Maybe. Ulmo received the greatest instruction, but perhaps Manwe or
others had greater native understanding.
It's definitely clear that Ulmo has a special relationship with the
Elves and Men of Middle-earth. He seems to be the moving force for
several main events in their war against Morgoth.
> [16] I guess this motif is well known also from Christian thought? I
> won't ask for a theological or moral debate along these lines, but
> just note that it seems to me that this, /to Tolkien/, did justify
> that Eru Ilúvatar allows Melkor's evil, but not Melkor's exercise of
> that evil. Do others share that impression of Tolkien's opinion about
> this?
This was a recent discussion about real-world Christianity, as you
note; and a few months ago we had the analogous discussion about Eru
and the existence of evil in Ea. I think the conclusion was that if
we want to read the story we have to accept the premise, whether it
makes sense or not.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Chris Kern
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> posted the following:
>I have also included an entry for the published Silmarillion though this
>is somewhat subjective. Comparison of the published form to the various
>drafts seems clearly to follow 'D' most closely... though not exactly.
>CT notes (MR pg 40) that he used 'circles OF time' from C* even though C
>and D had only 'circles'.
He also omits a substantial portion of the Ainulindale, moving it to
Chapter 1 of QS.
-Chris
Chris Kern
A major point that has been missed here is CT's editorial work on this
chapter -- removing a rather substantial section (about 1/3 of the
whole text) from the Ainulindale and placing it as Chapter 1 of the
Quenta Silmarillion ("Of the Beginning of Days"). As far as I can
tell, there is no authority in JRRT's writing or notes for this
action, and he does not mention it in HoME except for one place in one
of the earlier volumes where he comments that some of the Ainulindale
material is in Chapter 1 of the QS.
So why did CT do this? I can only imagine it was to provide a better
stylistic beginning for the QS. As it stood, the QS would open with
"Now in the beginning of the Kingdom of Arda Melkor contested with his
brother Manwe and the Valar for overlordship, and all that they
wrought he hindered or marred, if he might." This seems abrupt, and
rightly so -- it's because Chapter 1 of the Silm had been removed as
the Valaquenta.
But perhaps this issue is better discussed when we get to Chapter 1,
which is a fusion of the Ainulindale, Chapter 2 of QS, and the Annals
of Aman.
-Chris
Christopher Kreuzer
> 25 Oct 2005 18:00:07 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
>
>> Summary:
>>
>> First Eru Ilúvatar [2] created the Ainur [3] and they were happy in
>> the Timeless Halls.
>
> Can I just say that Tolkien writes some great opening sentences?
Agreed!
> "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar; and he made
> first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, ..." When I read that sentence I knew
> that something awe-inspiring was going to happen. Compare with "Of
> old there was Sauron the Maia" on the one hand, and "In a hole in the
> ground there lived a hobbit" on the other.
I also think he writes great closing sentences as well. I'll leave the
closing sentences in /The Silmarillion/ until we reach them, but in /The
Hobbit/, and in /The Lord of the Rings/ and in this part of /The
Silmarillion/ (ie. in the Ainulindale), we have:
"'...but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!'
'Thank goodness!' said Bilbo laughing, and handed him the tobacco-jar."
(The Hobbit)
"'Well, I'm back,' he said." (The Lord of the Rings)
"'Here ends this tale, as it has come to us from the South; and with the
passing of Evenstar no more is said in this book of the days of old.'"
(Appendix AIv)
"...on the far fields of the South the thunder of the cavalry of the
Mark was heard, and the White Horse upon Green flew in many winds until
Eomer grew old." (Appendix AII)
"...it is said that Gimli went also [...] More cannot be said of this
matter." (Appendix AIII)
"And when that ship passed an end was come in the Middle-earth of the
Fellowship of the Ring." (Appendix B)
"Their dominion passed long ago, and they dwell now beyond the circles
of the world, and do not return." (Appendix F)
"And thus was the habitation of the Children of Iluvatar established at
the last in the Deeps of Time and amidst the innumerable stars."
(Ainulindale)
[Though note Chris Kern's comments that Christopher Tolkien's editorial
hand is seen here, so this may not be the true end of the Ainulindale
text, though it does sound a good place to stop.]
The other parts of /The Silmarillion/ have great closing passages as
well, but though skipping back and forth in the book is OK to a certain
extent, I think talking about the closing passages at the beginning is
going too far! So as I said above, I for one am going to wait until we
get to those passages.
<snip>
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Hmm. No 'Silmarillion' quotes in my .sig generator.
Will have to remedy that!
Troels Forchhammer
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> enriched us
with:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> The version tree, then, should look something like this:
<snip>
> I have been researching textual history off and on for a while
> now, and thus have some comments on this.
Thank you!
Not having LR there was more of a handicap than I had imagined, so my
apologies for the inaccuracies and thank you for the corrections.
I'm a bit surprised that the version in BoLT isn't a part of the ABC
numberng scheme -- any suggestion of why that might be?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/
Conrad Dunkerson
> A major point that has been missed here is CT's editorial work on this
> chapter -- removing a rather substantial section (about 1/3 of the
> whole text) from the Ainulindale and placing it as Chapter 1 of the
> Quenta Silmarillion ("Of the Beginning of Days"). As far as I can
> tell, there is no authority in JRRT's writing or notes for this
> action, and he does not mention it in HoME except for one place in one
> of the earlier volumes where he comments that some of the Ainulindale
> material is in Chapter 1 of the QS.
>
> So why did CT do this? I can only imagine it was to provide a better
> stylistic beginning for the QS.
I believe it was related to his rejection of the whole
Aelfwine/Rumil/Pengolod framework. At the point where CT split the
'Ainulindale' text there is a brief discourse between Aelfwine and
Pengolod in 'C' and 'D' wherein Pengolod describes everything BEFORE
that point as Rumil's historical account of the Ainulindale... the text
which comes AFTER the split was portrayed as Pengolod himself explaining
matters further. This was simplified to, "It is told among the Wise..."
in the published account.
So, the 'Ainulindale' in Silm is based on Rumil's account thereof from
'D'. Pengolod's commentary, which had been included in the same
chapter, was then moved to QS in connection with his other explanations
(skipping Valaquenta).
Basically, CT followed the 'historical' origin of the texts in
presenting them... but then removed all traces of the mythical history
which might have helped explain that decision.
conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net
> Not having LR there was more of a handicap than I had imagined, so my
> apologies for the inaccuracies and thank you for the corrections.
Yeah, I saw in your summary that you didn't have Lost Road available
and figured that was the cause of the minor confusion.
> I'm a bit surprised that the version in BoLT isn't a part of the ABC
> numberng scheme -- any suggestion of why that might be?
It seems to be a matter of the evolution of CT's style of commentary.
If you compare UT and the early HoME volumes with the later books it is
very clear that his descriptions and analyses of the various source
documents became much more precise over time. He wasn't doing the
whole 'A' / 'B' / 'C' labelling for multiple drafts yet in the BoLT
volumes. He would generally mention that there were other drafts and
often cite differences between them, but at that point he was assigning
labels to texts as a whole rather than each draft of the text.
As to why he didn't go back and assign labels to the earlier drafts
once he began using this system... presumably because it wasn't
strictly needed for the analyses he was working on currently and might
have required him to go back and re-evaluate the older texts in some
cases.
That said, a system of identification for ALL the known drafts of each
section of the Silmarillion could be extremely useful to future
discussions and analysis of textual history. That's what I have been
working on (in an Excel spreadsheet), along with dates of the various
texts and locations to where the dates / predecessors of each text are
discussed for reference. I'm hoping each upcoming chapter summary will
have analyses similar to yours so we can discuss the evolution of the
source texts.
Chris Kern
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>25 Oct 2005 18:00:07 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
><Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
>> What is the 'Flame Imperishable'? Eru had kindled it in the Ainur,
>> Melkor sought it in vain because he wanted to create things of his own,
>> Eru sent it out in the void to create Eä and in some of the writings in
>> /Myths Transformed/ (MR) Eru gave/lend some of it to Varda, but Aulë
>> didn't have it when he created the Dwarves. It seems related to
>> creative power, but how?
>
>I think the Flame Imperishable is a metaphor for real, independent
>existence: what the world had after Eru said Ea! and not before; what
>the Dwarves had after Eru accepted them but not out of Aule's own
>power.
Doesn't the idea of the Flame Imperishable predate the entrance of
"Ea! Let it be!" (which is post-LotR IIRC). I've always seen the
Flame as sort of a "God-quality" which is necessary for Creation and
the like.
>> [8] Why was what Melkor did /not/ obedient to Eru's command to 'show
>> forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own
>> thoughts and devices'?
>
>He didn't adorn Eru's theme; he created his own, in opposition to it
>and trying to drown it out.
>
>Or by "why" do you mean "why did Melkor do such a thing?" I think it
>was the same sin as Feanor's and Turin's, only vastly greater in
>scope: pride. He wanted to be above all the other Ainur, and
>eventually above Eru himself.
It's sometimes said that every sin comes from Pride, and pride
certainly seems to be the driving factor of Melkor's rebellion -- he
believed that he could outdo his creator.
>> [12] Eru's berating as in [11] above worked, too:
>> Then the Ainur were afraid, and they did not yet
>> comprehend the words that were said to them; and Melkor was
>> filled with shame, of which came secret anger.
>> Just a pity about Melkor's 'secret anger', which appears to have
>> cemented Melkor's rebellion -- making it irreversible.
>
>Compare the moment of Gollum's near-repentance at Cirith Ungol. Sam
>breaks in on him at the wrong time, and shames him; and the moment is
>lost.
Tolkien also says in several places that every creature has their
chance at repentance -- this could be one, although in the late MR
texts he puts Melkor's chance at repentance at the point when the
Valar attack Utumno.
>> [16] I guess this motif is well known also from Christian thought? I
>> won't ask for a theological or moral debate along these lines, but
>> just note that it seems to me that this, /to Tolkien/, did justify
>> that Eru Ilúvatar allows Melkor's evil, but not Melkor's exercise of
>> that evil. Do others share that impression of Tolkien's opinion about
>> this?
>
>This was a recent discussion about real-world Christianity, as you
>note; and a few months ago we had the analogous discussion about Eru
>and the existence of evil in Ea. I think the conclusion was that if
>we want to read the story we have to accept the premise, whether it
>makes sense or not.
Tolkien may have taken the theological point that everything God does,
even things that seem evil to us, will result in something greater in
the end which we cannot foresee. I don't know of any passages in his
writings or letters to prove this, though.
-Chris
Stan Brown
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Can I just say that Tolkien writes some great opening sentences?
>
> Agreed!
>
> > "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar; and he made
> > first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, ..." When I read that sentence I knew
> > that something awe-inspiring was going to happen.
>
I agree in general, but agreement is boring :-) so I've snipped all
but two of your examples: one I'll disagree with and the other I'll
add a comment to.
> "'Well, I'm back,' he said." (The Lord of the Rings)
This is the one I disagree with. It's always seemed a huge letdown to
me, maybe because I'm disappointed that the story is over. I know
Tolkien's telling us that life goes on, and Frodo's sacrifice to
preserve the life of the Shire was not in vain, but still after the
grandeur of the glimpse of Tol Eressėa, this just feels like a bucket
of cold water in the face.
I have great love for Rob Inglis' reading of LotR, but even he can't
do much with this line -- just stretches it out and has a little
rising note in his voice at the end.
> "And thus was the habitation of the Children of Iluvatar established at
> the last in the Deeps of Time and amidst the innumerable stars."
> (Ainulindale)
>
> [Though note Chris Kern's comments that Christopher Tolkien's editorial
> hand is seen here, so this may not be the true end of the Ainulindale
> text, though it does sound a good place to stop.]
It does indeed. Just a BTW: Dante ended each part of /The Divine
Comedy/ with the word "stars".
I was unaware that CRT had truncated Ainulindalė, but to me it seems
to work well as it is. "Of the Beginning of Days" has a certain
amount of duplication with Anulindale as it is; if all that were in
Ainulindalė I think it would be awfully tedious.
For me, the whole Rumil-Pengolod framework was never appealing. I
_much_ prefer the style and ramework of the published Silm, and I
found the two Books of Lost Tales disappointing for that reason among
others. (One of my other reasons was unavoidable: the extensive
footnotes and commentaries and multiple versions, rather than a
single line of story and lore. If CRT was going to publish the
material at all, I don't see another way he could have done it; but
still /Silm/ as published appeals to me much more.)
Stan Brown
@gmail.com>:
> >existence: what the world had after Eru said Ea! and not before; what
> >the Dwarves had after Eru accepted them but not out of Aule's own
> >power.
>
> Doesn't the idea of the Flame Imperishable predate the entrance of
> "Ea! Let it be!" (which is post-LotR IIRC). I've always seen the
> Flame as sort of a "God-quality" which is necessary for Creation and
> the like.
I don't know at what real-world date the term "Flame Imperishable"
first appeared, but I don't think the _idea_ was post-LotR. Gandalf
identified himself to the Balrog as "a servant of the Secret Fire",
and if that's not the Flame imperishable then what is it?
Within the story timeline, the F.I. certainly precedes the Eä: when
starting the Great Music, Eru remarks that he has "kindled [the
Ainur] with the Flame Imperishable". I take that to mean that they
have real existence and can think and act independently, rather than
being mere expressions of his will.
Chris Kern
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:00:04 -0400 from Chris Kern <chriskern99
>@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:12:53 -0400, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>> >I think the Flame Imperishable is a metaphor for real, independent
>> >existence: what the world had after Eru said Ea! and not before; what
>> >the Dwarves had after Eru accepted them but not out of Aule's own
>> >power.
>>
>> Doesn't the idea of the Flame Imperishable predate the entrance of
>> "Ea! Let it be!" (which is post-LotR IIRC). I've always seen the
>> Flame as sort of a "God-quality" which is necessary for Creation and
>> the like.
>
>I don't know at what real-world date the term "Flame Imperishable"
>first appeared, but I don't think the _idea_ was post-LotR. Gandalf
>identified himself to the Balrog as "a servant of the Secret Fire",
>and if that's not the Flame imperishable then what is it?
I meant to say that the idea of the initial creation being only a
vision which was then given Being when Eru said "Ea!" -- that idea
postdates LotR and the idea of the Flame Imperishable. Remember that
in the early versions through what's given in LR, there is no "vision"
that is removed.
-Chris
Christopher Kreuzer
wrote:
<snip>
> [...] a system of identification for ALL the known drafts of each
> section of the Silmarillion could be extremely useful to future
> discussions and analysis of textual history.
It would be very useful indeed.
> That's what I have been
> working on (in an Excel spreadsheet), along with dates of the various
> texts and locations to where the dates / predecessors of each text are
> discussed for reference. I'm hoping each upcoming chapter summary
> will have analyses similar to yours so we can discuss the evolution
> of the source texts.
Well, I doubt all or even many of the summaries will have HoME
references. There is absolutely no obligation to refer to HoME, and my
chapter summaries almost certainly won't refer to HoME.
Hopefully (or should that be "almost certainly") people who are more
versed in the intricacies of HoME <subtle hint!> will add in opinions,
summaries and references if they want to discuss the textual history of
the Silmarillion, while others will be happier discussing the storylines
and characters found in /The Silmarillion/.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Maybe all those recent off topic posts about religion, evil, etc.
> were just a warmup for discussing the theological implications
> of the Ainulindale and Melkor's rebellion. :)
I find that very ironic. I re-read the Ainulindale today, and started to
make some notes. I gave up making notes after reading two pages and
finding that I had made several hundred words of notes, mostly
concerning theological matters.
Maybe this is a good point to inject this thought into the discussion:
Ainulindale: Theology or Mythology?
How much of the Ainulindale should be taken as mythology, and how much
is theology? Or is it pointless to draw any distinction here?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalė'
>
> This post is a chapter introduction in the Tolkien newsgroups'
> 'Chapter of the Week' (CotW) project. For more information visit the
> CotW homepage at <http://parasha.maoltuile.org/>.
>
>
<snip>
I searched high and low, but couldn't find anything here about
subcreation! Is the subcreation that Tolkien talks about in /On
Fairy-stories/ relevant to the sort of creation we see in the
Ainulindale? The Creator is obviously Eru, but can all the other acts of
creation be called subcreation? Or does subcreation only apply to
writing stories?
Christopher Kreuzer
Does he omit a chunk from the middle or the end? In other words, does
the end of the Ainulindale you are referring to appear in the
Ainulindale in the published Silmarillion?
ste...@nomail.com
> <snip>
> Ainulindale: Theology or Mythology?
> Christopher
What do you mean by "taken as mythology" or "taken as theology"?
Are you talking story internally, or story externally?
Story externally it is not a "real" mythology as it does not
belong to a real people. It is just a story made up by Tolkien.
Nor is it real theology for the same reason, however it
does contain theological truths, at least according to
Tolkien's definitions.
Story internally the Ainulindale is supposed to be true.
Of course Tolkien never did decide exactly how these
tales were supposed to have been passed on and in later
years was considering the idea that the legends were
somehow confused and blended with "mannish myth", but I do
not think that was ever meant to apply to the Ainulindale,
but who really knows. My take on it has always been
that the Ainulindale is the true creation story as
told by the Valar to the Elves.
Story externally the Ainulindale is very consistent
with Tolkien's own theology. Yes there are some big
differences, but they are mostly cosmetic, and the key ideas
such as Illuvatar is the source of all creation, turning
away from Illuvatar is the source of evil, and that all
things will eventually serve his purpose, etc. almost
serve as a little theology primer.
Stephen
Stan Brown
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Ainulindale: Theology or Mythology?
>
> How much of the Ainulindale should be taken as mythology, and how much
> is theology? Or is it pointless to draw any distinction here?
I think it is science. I want it taught in schools as another theory,
just like "creation science". It's AT LEAST as self consistent, and
the language is better.
:-)
Chris Kern
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
No; the cut section is all from the end. As far as I can tell, the
final version Tolkien wrote ended with "Yet of old the Valar said unto
us that Men shall join in the Second Music of the Ainur, whereas
Iluvatar has not revealed what he purposes for the Elves after the
World's End, and Melkor has not discovered it" -- this is of course
the end of Chapter 1 of the QS in the published Silmarillion.
I never noticed this before, but apparently on the C* text Tolkien
questioned whether the part at the end (thought not as large a chunk
as CT moved) should be moved to the Silmarillion. But since D
postdates C*, he apparently didn't move anything.
-Chris
Chris Kern
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:03:56 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
><spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> "'Well, I'm back,' he said." (The Lord of the Rings)
>
>This is the one I disagree with. It's always seemed a huge letdown to
>me, maybe because I'm disappointed that the story is over. I know
>Tolkien's telling us that life goes on, and Frodo's sacrifice to
>preserve the life of the Shire was not in vain, but still after the
>grandeur of the glimpse of Tol Eressėa, this just feels like a bucket
>of cold water in the face.
I agree. I was disappointed in it when I read it as a child, and I
still am. I find the Epilogue a much better closing for the story,
and I'm unhappy that Tolkien was convinced to leave it out. For those
who don't have HoME IX, if Tolkien had left in the epilogue, the final
passage of LotR would be "[Rosie and Sam] went in, and Sam shut the
door. But even as he did so, he heard suddenly, deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth." I
find that to be a far more powerful conclusion than "I'm back".
>It does indeed. Just a BTW: Dante ended each part of /The Divine
>Comedy/ with the word "stars".
>
>I was unaware that CRT had truncated Ainulindalė, but to me it seems
>to work well as it is. "Of the Beginning of Days" has a certain
>amount of duplication with Anulindale as it is; if all that were in
>Ainulindalė I think it would be awfully tedious.
Although OtBoD is not all Ainulindale stuff; it also has some material
from the Annals of Aman.
-Chris
Huan the hound
<Xns96FACB77...@130.133.1.4>:
> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
[snip]
> [6] Let's have a look at Melkor's faults at this point, shall we?
> 1) 'it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own
> imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar,'
> 2) 'he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part
> assigned to himself.'
> 3) 'being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike
> those of his brethren.'
> 4) '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 Ilúvatar took
> no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness.
> Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar.'
Limiting my response to these four...
>
> 1 is the result of the other stuff, but is important because this is
> where Melkor for the first time openly defies Eru, even if he may
> not realise this himself at that point.
Yes, 1 is a result of 2 and wishing to separate himself from Eru.
> 2 is of course just a matter of pride and a desire for power -- very
> traditional motives for Evil in Tolkien's writings, and here,
> perhaps, we see where they enter the world.
Right, this is the main problem with Melkor.
> 3 is more complex, though. Is it bad to stay apart? Is it evil to
> 'conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren'?
> I'm not sure we should conclude anything such, but at the same
> time I do think this is presented as one of Melkor's early faults.
> Not in itself evil or sinful, perhaps, but leading him there.
In this case it seems to go back to 2 again, pride and power. Also
separation from Eru.
> 4, now ... I think this is very interesting, because Melkor here
> displays two faults which I think are fatal. He desired to Create,
> and he failed to realise that this power is with Eru alone.[7]
>
Again reflecting 2.
--
Huan, the hound of Valinor
er...@swva.net
> 25 Oct 2005 18:00:07 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> > Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
>
>
(snip)
>
> > [8] Why was what Melkor did /not/ obedient to Eru's command to 'show
> > forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own
> > thoughts and devices'?
>
> He didn't adorn Eru's theme; he created his own, in opposition to it
> and trying to drown it out.
>
Yep; it's like in Baroque music (as opposed to later classical music),
where the composer writes the piece, but leaves room for the musicians
to embellish it according to their own abilities, with the whole thing
being done right if the music sounds good as a result. In contrast,
Melkor tried to hijack the whole affair by changing the underlying
tune. Or a folk music analogy would be one in which one of the
musicians was not just improvising on the tune everyone else was
playing, but decided to play a different tune and force others to match
him; in the process the musicians sitting nearer to him get mixed up
and start playing what he's playing.
(snip)
Eric Root
Chris Kern
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> posted the following:
>Basically, CT followed the 'historical' origin of the texts in
>presenting them... but then removed all traces of the mythical history
>which might have helped explain that decision.
I share CT's concern with the lack of any sort of framing for the
Silm, although I think he went the wrong way about it with Tolkien's
lengthy letter. He should have just spent about a page of the
foreword explaining the Aelfwine/Pengolod thing and how this was
Tolkien's framework for a long time, but then was (probably) discarded
in favor of either a Bilbo transmission theory, or a "confused mannish
myths" theory.
-Chris
Christopher Kreuzer
> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
>
> 'Chapter of the Week' (CotW) project. For more information visit the
> CotW homepage at <http://parasha.maoltuile.org/>.
<snip>
Thanks, Troels! Lots of material to respond to here!
I'll be taking it slowly, bit by bit.
> [10] So, all in all Eru Ilúvatar makes four musical statements during
> the music.
> I - The First Theme: 'unfolding to them things greater and more
> wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its
> beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur'
> II - The Second Theme: 'like and yet unlike to the former theme,
> and it gathered power and had new beauty.'
> III - The Third Theme: 'it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere
> rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could
> not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity.'
> And 'deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an
> immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came'. This
> was also capable of taking the most 'triumphant notes' from
> Melkor's discord and weave it into 'its own solemn pattern.'
> IV - The Chord: 'deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament,
> piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar'
>
> Now, what, if any, is the significance of these four musical
> statements? Can they, and should they, be equated with some periods
> of the life of Eä (or Arda)?
I'm slightly confused about what you mean by the First Theme. You quote
the bit where Iluvatar:
"...declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater
and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its
beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur..."
I don't see this as the First Theme proper, but more a 'preview' of the
First Theme by Iluvatar. And this 'preview' happens before the actual
music, which takes place when Iluvatar says:
"Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in
harmony together a Great Music."
So I would describe it as:
0 - The Preview: 'unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful
than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the
splendour of its end amazed the Ainur'
and:
I - The First Theme: '...the voices of the Ainur [...] began to fashion
the theme of Iluvatar to a great music...'
So what relation does this 'preview' theme have with the later-described
'three themes' and the 'review-phase' afterwards? The "Behold your
Music!" bit?
It seems important to note that Iluvatar was for a long while satisfied
with the music, as what we call the First Theme was played out. But that
the discord of Melkor arose during this first phase, and the First Theme
foundered in "a raging storm".
And we later hear that Manwe was the chief instrument of the Second
Theme, and contended against Melkor, so this might correspond to the
later bit where he says to Melkor: "This kingdom thou shalt not take for
thine own, wrongfully, for many others have laboured here do less than
thou."
So maybe it is possible to say that the First Theme represents the
initial labours of the Valar, their "labours in wastes unmeasured and
unexplored, and in ages uncounted and forgotten" culminating in the
creation of Arda in "the midst of the vast halls of Ea". And the discord
at the end of the First Theme corresponds to the "strife between Melkor
and the other Valar" (quoted below as 'A') arising from his coveting of
Arda, and that the beginning of the Second Theme corresponds to Manwe's
words to Melkor (quoted above) telling him not to take Arda for his own.
But I nearly always get confused about this, for the Ainulindale
describes _two_ periods of strife between Melkor and the other Valar.
A - "Melkor too was there from the first, and he meddled in all that was
done, turning it if he might to his own desires and purposes; and he
kindled great fires. When therefore Earth was yet young and full of
flame Melkor coveted it [...] there was strife between Melkor and the
other Valar; and for that time Melkor withdrew and departed to other
regions and did there what he would; but he did not put the desire of
the Kingdom of Arda from his heart."
B - "Then Melkor saw what was done, and that the Valar walked on Earth
as powers visible, clad in the raiment of the World, and were lovely and
glorious to see [...] And he descended upon Arda in power and majesty
greater than any other of the Valar, as a mountain that wades in the sea
[...] Thus began the first battle of the Valar with Melkor for the
dominion of Arda."
It seems that A is merely Melkor coveting Arda (maybe, as I suggest
above, this is the initial discord in the Music), but that Melkor
withdraws without battle being declared. But B is the real battle, which
also seems to be the same as the "First War" described in 'Of the
Beginning of Days' as taking place "before Arda was full-shaped", though
to add to the confusion a THIRD period of chaos ensues in that chapter
when Melkor overthrows the Lamps of the Valar.
So for what it is worth, I would place event B as the discord during the
Second Theme, that was "more violent than before". But it could also
include all the wars and strife between Melkor and the Valar until the
coming of the Children of Illuvatar, as we are told that they "came with
the Third Theme".
But I am also tempted to conclude that trying to match periods and
Themes of the Music with real events in the history of Ea doesn't
completely work, and that maybe the attempt to do so is doomed to
failure.
That is part of what swayed me to the idea that the Music is not so much
of a foretelling or prediction of the history of Ea as later passages
imply. The words foreshowing and foreshadowing used by Tolkien seem to
imply much less of a direct correspondence than the word foretelling
would. Or indeed the idea that the Music was 'translated' or turned into
Ea (which is suggested by the act of creation and phrases like "Iluvatar
made visible the song of the Ainur" and "Iluvatar gave to their vision
being" [both quote from the Valaquenta]).
Matching periods of the History to the Music can work in a general
sense, but I think the idea of the Music being a rehearsal also works
rather well. Things turned out in the history of the creation of Ea, and
the history of Ea, pretty much as they did in the singing of the Music,
and this was mainly because the same Ainur (probably) took part, and
they had the Music and the Vision in the back of their minds as they
laboured to create Ea.
So maybe the initial creation of the world was Eru translating the
beginning of the Music into something that he gave being (Ea), but that
the rest of the creation, or rather moulding, of Ea was the Ainur
carrying on the Music?
Chris Hoelscher
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96FB3700...@130.133.1.4...
and the gift to Men of freedom from the
> Music, isn't that precisely that independence from God?
\>
no - I thought freedom from the Music (Fate) is freedom from the Ainur, not
from Eru
chris Hoelscher
Morgoth's Curse
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>That said, a system of identification for ALL the known drafts of each
>section of the Silmarillion could be extremely useful to future
>discussions and analysis of textual history. That's what I have been
>working on (in an Excel spreadsheet), along with dates of the various
>texts and locations to where the dates / predecessors of each text are
>discussed for reference. I'm hoping each upcoming chapter summary will
>have analyses similar to yours so we can discuss the evolution of the
>source texts.
Can we trust that you will, as the generous, benevolent God that you
are, freely share the results of your research with all Tolkien fans
when you are finished? :-)
Morgoth's Curse
Christopher Kreuzer
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:12:53 -0400, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>>> I think the Flame Imperishable is a metaphor for real, independent
>>> existence: what the world had after Eru said Ea! and not before;
>>> what the Dwarves had after Eru accepted them but not out of Aule's
>>> own power.
>>
>> Doesn't the idea of the Flame Imperishable predate the entrance of
>> "Ea! Let it be!" (which is post-LotR IIRC). I've always seen the
>> Flame as sort of a "God-quality" which is necessary for Creation and
>> the like.
I agree that the Flame Imperishable is an essense needed for creation.
One of those theological thoughts I had when reading the first two pages
of Ainulindale, was whether this sort of creation can be compared to
having children?
We know that the Ainur are described as the "offspring of Illuvatar's
thought", and that the Children of Iluvatar are, well, his children. In
a sense, possibly the closest it is possible to come to 'creation' is to
have a child (biologically or by adoption or mentoring), the sense of
teaching someone and caring for them and being responsible for them.
I was going to say that the Ainur are depicted (at least in the versions
of the mythlogy that got published) as not having children. But then I
realised that the Ainur (at least those that got involved) are like
surrogate parents for the Children of Iluvatar. But it seems to be an
important difference that the Ainur do not have biological children
(well, the Ainur aren't really biological, but you know what I mean),
but the Children can have children (though even there, the Elves and Men
differ because of their lifespans). I am reminded of the Overlords
depicted in Arthur C. Clarke's /Childhood's End/, where the Overlords
have god-like powers, but are ultimately sterile, acting only as
midwives to races that pass on to greater things. This could be compared
to Men passing on beyond the world in Tolkien's theology, but the Ainur
and Elves remaining bound to the world. Ainur, Elves and Men have
different relationships with Eru.
How does Catholicism treat 'having children' theologically? I vaguely
remember that in nearly all religion, the giving of souls is the
province of God. Someone mentioned something about souls in relation to
the 'reincarnation' (though that is the wrong term) of Elves.
And I also find myself agreeing with Stan's idea about the Flame
Imperishable having something to do with independence. But in reality,
how independent can you be in a theology of this sort? Ultimately, you
can't really be independent from God, can you?
Stan Brown
<donn...@gmail.com>:
>
> I wonder if it is of any significance that the Children of Iluvatar were
> drawn from the third theme, and "were not in the theme which Iluvatar
> propounded at the beginning." They are introduced in reaction to the
> theme of Melkor, out of the interplay of Good and Evil. They are not
> the primary end of Iluvatar's creation. The Children were created to
> answer the question of Evil.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a classic logical fallacy.
Just because Eru introduced the Third Theme _after_ Melkor made a
pig's breakfast of the first two, does not mean he introduced it
_because_ Melkor made a pig's breakfast of the first two. It might
very well have been his plan all along.
Taemon
> Just because Eru introduced the Third Theme _after_ Melkor made a
> pig's breakfast of the first two, does not mean he introduced it
> _because_ Melkor made a pig's breakfast of the first two. It might
> very well have been his plan all along.
Do you mean it was his plan that Melkor would make a pig's breakfast
(_nice_ expression) of the first two Themes? It seems more likely to
me he had planned to introduce them in the first, later. I really like
Andrew's point. I never realised that before.
T.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Hopefully (or should that be "almost certainly") people who are more
> versed in the intricacies of HoME <subtle hint!> will add in opinions,
> summaries and references if they want to discuss the textual history of
> the Silmarillion, while others will be happier discussing the storylines
> and characters found in /The Silmarillion/.
Makes sense. I've been planning to put the list I come up with on the
web when it's done, but I'll try to reply to the CotW summaries as they
come up. Luckily, as far as textual history goes, I'm several chapters
ahead right now.
Graham Lockwood
{snip}
> I searched high and low, but couldn't find anything here about
> subcreation! Is the subcreation that Tolkien talks about in /On
> Fairy-stories/ relevant to the sort of creation we see in the
> Ainulindale? The Creator is obviously Eru, but can all the other acts of
> creation be called subcreation? Or does subcreation only apply to
> writing stories?
God creates Tolkien. Tolkien subcreates Ea?
Seriously, though, *story internally*, I would argue that Eru created all
these spirits. He then propounded to them a theme and let them subcreate
within that theme. Of course, I'm not entirely sure HOW Eru propounded his
themes. He just held up his hands and the theme started. Osanwe-Kenta I
guess. Or maybe some higher level version of it useable to him since he's Eru
and all.
---
Graham
darkside
> Seriously, though, *story internally*, I would argue that Eru created all
> these spirits. He then propounded to them a theme and let them subcreate
> within that theme.
Is this entirely correct, though? My understanding of Ainulindale was that the
Ainur *envisioned* the world in the musical themes they sang, and that Eru then
created the world and gave it to them, rather like a gift. I don't have a copy
of the Silmarillion handy to check on that, though.
Of course, it is possible that I'm misunderstanding the context of the word
"subcreate," since I haven't read 'On Fairy Stories' in quite a long time. If
so, feel free to correct or ignore me. ;-)
--
darkside
email: darksidex at charter dot net
website: http://silenceisdefeat.org/~darkside
Graham Lockwood
(in article <878xwco...@no.spam.see.sig>):
> Graham Lockwood <g-...@yeehawgroups.com> writes:
>
>> Seriously, though, *story internally*, I would argue that Eru created all
>> these spirits. He then propounded to them a theme and let them subcreate
>> within that theme.
>
> Is this entirely correct, though? My understanding of Ainulindale was that
> the
> Ainur *envisioned* the world in the musical themes they sang, and that Eru
> then
> created the world and gave it to them, rather like a gift. I don't have a
> copy
> of the Silmarillion handy to check on that, though.
{snip}
I would say that he created it at the beginning of Time but they then had to
fashion it (mountains, oceans, trees, etc.)
---
Graham
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Seriously, though, *story internally*, I would argue that Eru created all
> these spirits. He then propounded to them a theme and let them subcreate
> within that theme. Of course, I'm not entirely sure HOW Eru propounded his
> themes. He just held up his hands and the theme started. Osanwe-Kenta I
> guess. Or maybe some higher level version of it useable to him since he's Eru
> and all.
Eru whistled or hummed a few bars and the Ainu picked up the beat and
ran with it.
Bob Kolker
darkside
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:57:56 -0500, darkside wrote
> (in article <878xwco...@no.spam.see.sig>):
>
> I would say that he created it at the beginning of Time but they then had to
> fashion it (mountains, oceans, trees, etc.)
Fair enough. I shouldn't pick nits... sorry!
Peter Andersen
>: I think it is science. I want it taught in schools as another theory,
>: just like "creation science".
Careful there, this may yet happen. And indeed it will, if it's concordant
with Eru's intentions. Unless of course men are truely free, and noone's
there to stop 'them'.
Meanwhile, should you for some reason (or lack thereof) wish to get married
(legally binding) in the old norse tradition, you get to do so in Denmark.
http://www.fornsidr.dk/index_uk.html
I am not a subscriber, though.
--
____________________
Peter Andersen
Larry Swain
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
>
>
>
>> Already during the Vision 'the Ainur saw that it contained things
>> which they had not thought' so they must be quickly aware that Eru had
>> ideas with this that went beyond what He had revealed in the Music.
>> 'And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Ilúvatar,
>> and the habitation that was prepared for them;'
>
> I wonder if it is of any significance that the Children of Iluvatar were
> drawn from the third theme, and "were not in the theme which Iluvatar
> propounded at the beginning." They are introduced in reaction to the
> theme of Melkor, out of the interplay of Good and Evil. They are not
> the primary end of Iluvatar's creation. The Children were created to
> answer the question of Evil.
>
> humanity as chiefly important in God's plan?
Nope. Its Augustinian. The Augustinian view of creation, the hexameral
tradition (the first 6 days) is that there was God, God created the
angels. Satan rebelled, taking 1/3 of the angels with him, Satan and
followers cast out of heaven, God creates heaven and earth and creates
humanity to make up the number of those angels who rebelled and were
cast out. I. E. the "children of God" were created to answer the
question of Evil.
> Iluvatar's first reaction to Melkor's discord is a theme "like and
> unlike to the former theme, and it gathered power and had new beauty."
> But Melkor could contend with that that by increasing the power of his
> own theme--a violent battle from which Iluvatar backs down. Iluvatar
> then introduces the theme from which the Children are born--"soft and
> sweet," "slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow." Melkor again
> tries to beat this theme down with the application of power and
> violence. But Iluvatar's theme is not contending in like, so it can
> take the violence, soften it, relax it, and ultimately work it into
> something beautiful. Power does not win out against power--it takes
> sacrifice, a willingness to give up what you once held dear, to abandon
> you own self-interest for the greater good. A common idea in LOTR?
Good point.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>
> >
>
>>> This could be a contrast with Tolkien's Christian view that tends to
>>> see humanity as chiefly important in God's plan?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope. Its Augustinian. The Augustinian view of creation, the
>> hexameral tradition (the first 6 days) is that there was God, God
>> created the angels. Satan rebelled, taking 1/3 of the angels with
>> him, Satan and followers cast out of heaven, God creates heaven and
>> earth and creates humanity to make up the number of those angels who
>> rebelled and were cast out. I. E. the "children of God" were created
>> to answer the question of Evil.
>
>
> for the fallen angels, although I guess I have heard the idea before. I
> wonder what the typical thought on the matter was in Tolkien's time? I
> suppose the Ainulindale account may be closer to Tolkien's beliefs than
> I thought at first. It is more alien, at least, to the typical American
> Protestant view, which acknowledges a fall of Satan/angels before the
> fall of humanity, but doesn't really put any specifics to it, and sees
> the creation of humanity as something apart from that and a plan
> originating wholly from God.
I think you're right here, it is a different view than American
Protestantism, mostly because the vast majority of the latter has lost
touch with the intellectual tradition of the Christian past in ways that
European Protestantism hasn't. Another similar take on it is Milton's
Paradise Lost which takes the same information but relates it
differently. BTW, also in Augustine is reference to the angels helping
establish creation.
Related, I've wondered if the "music" in both Tolkien and Lewis is their
development of the "music of the spheres"--the music the spheres make
has its origin in creation and the creative act (along with for Tolkien
the "choirs of angels...")
JimboCat
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:djm4ff$jjf$2...@news.msu.edu>
>ste...@nomail.com enriched us with:
>>
>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Troels Forchhammer
>> <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <news:3s7h71F...@individual.net> "Taemon"
>>> <Tae...@zonnet.nl> enriched us with:
>>>>
>>>> I'd say it was because Melkor wanted his own voice?
>>>
>>> I agree that that was his original motive when he began to search
>>> the Void for the Imperishable Flame and when he started to add to
>>> the Music matters of his own devicing that were in discord with
>>> Eru's theme, but at this point in the story he seems to have
>>> already progressed to a wish for domination:
>
><snip quotation>
>
>> Even without the desire for domination, Melkor wanted
>> to do things independent of God.
>
>Certainly.
>
>> According to Tolkien's theology and the theology of
>> his Universe that is the beginning of evil.
>
>I am not entirely convinced that 'independent' is enough for that. Or
>perhaps I'd say it is the beginning in the sense that it is not yet
>evil, but carries the potential of evil (according to Tolkien). Aulë's
>creation of the Dwarves was independent of Eru, but wan't evil as such
>(it was, however, wrong), and the gift to Men of freedom from the
>Music, isn't that precisely that independence from God?
>
>I would say that evil enters the moment you wish to do things that are
>not only independent of Eru, but which he would have you not do.
And how are you supposed to know (in Middle Earth, of course) what he
would have you do? Is it nothing more than the recurrent "Now my heart
speaks clearly...", just a "feeling" about what is right and what is
wrong?
Aragorn was certainly sensitive to such subtle clues, but Lotho clearly
was not. In the Silm, Tuor had to be practically bashed over the head
by Ulmo before he listened at all.
"This is a test, it is only a test. Had this been a *real* life, you
would have been provided with clear instructions and a user's manual."
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
Home improvement is futile. Our superior nervous systems reveal
that your colour schemes all clash. You will be co-ordinated.
-- Niall McAuley
Troels Forchhammer
darkside <dark...@no.spam.see.sig> enriched us with:
> Graham Lockwood <g-...@yeehawgroups.com> writes:
>>
>> Seriously, though, *story internally*, I would argue that Eru
>> created all these spirits. He then propounded to them a theme and
>> let them subcreate within that theme.
Before entering the other debate, I'll just add that I agree that the
work of the Ainur, both in adorning Eru's themes and, IMO, in
fashioning Eä, is sub-creative in nature. Actual creation is in the
creation of the Ainur by Eru, and in the creation of Eä.
> Is this entirely correct, though? My understanding of Ainulindale
> was that the Ainur *envisioned* the world in the musical themes
> they sang, and that Eru then created the world and gave it to
> them, rather like a gift. I don't have a copy of the Silmarillion
> handy to check on that, though.
I'm not sure exactly how it worked. The first descriptions are very
musical -- we hear of singing and of instruments, and the 'discord' of
Melkor under the second theme is described as causing 'a war of sound'.
Even more telling is, perhaps, the passage where Eru begins the vision:
But when they were come into the Void, Ilúvatar said to
them: 'Behold your Music!' And he showed to them a vision,
giving to them sight where before was only hearing; arid
they saw a new World made visible before them, and it was
globed amid the Void, and it was sustained therein, but
was not of it.
As I read this, it would mean that the Ainur, prior to this (which
would mean also during the music), had never known other ways of
experiencing than through hearing (how Melkor had then 'gone often
alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame' is probably
better left unexplored <G>).
My impression as I read the Ainulindalë was that the Ainur, during the
actual making of the music, perceived it only as music, as sound, but
due to their special nature, they were capable of understanding the
transformation from just music to sight and to reality. Ulmo did not, I
would think, know of or imagine water when he made the music, but when
he saw water, he realised that this was what he had been singing
('musicing'?) about.
> Of course, it is possible that I'm misunderstanding the context of
> the word "subcreate," since I haven't read 'On Fairy Stories' in
> quite a long time. If so, feel free to correct or ignore me. ;-)
I think /Letters/ would be a good place to start ;-)
With Mortality, especially as it affects art and the
creative (or as I should say, sub-creative) desire which
seems to have no biological function, and to be apart from
the satisfactions of plain ordinary biological life, with
which, in our world, it is indeed usually at strife. This
desire is at once wedded to a passionate love of the real
primary world, and hence filled with the sense of
mortality, and yet unsatisfied by it. It has various
opportunities of 'Fall'. It may become possessive, clinging
to the things made as 'its own', the sub-creator wishes to
be the Lord and God of his private creation. He will rebel
against the laws of the Creator - especially against
mortality. Both of these (alone or together) will lead to
the desire for Power, for making the will more quickly
effective, - and so to the Machine (or Magic). By the last
[Letter #131, To Milton Waldman (probably written late in 1951)]
Elsewhere Tolkien also refers to the actual writing and inventing of
his world and his stories as sub-creative, and it seems to me that he
sees the existence of sub-creation (and Creation) within his own sub-
creation as parallelling that -- the music is art to the Ainur, just as
the Silmarils are to Fëanor (the making of jewels is emphasised for the
Elves as sub-creative), and I think that he would see the shaping of
the world by the Ainur as sub-creative as well.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
To make a name for learning
when other roads are barred,
take something very easy
and make it very hard.
- Piet Hein, /Wide Road/
Graham Lockwood
{snip}
> As I read this, it would mean that the Ainur, prior to this (which
> would mean also during the music), had never known other ways of
> experiencing than through hearing (how Melkor had then 'gone often
> alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame' is probably
> better left unexplored <G>).
I somewhat agree with this. However, I would venture to say that concepts
such as "hearing" or "vision" don't exist as we can conceive of them in the
Timeless Halls. After all, they're timeless and how can you have vision or
hearing (or music) or anything we're capable of comprehending without the
passage of time? This confusion is compounded by the fact that the story is
told as if it were a narrative of events taking place within a passage of
time. IIRC, in one of the earlier stories in BoLT, Eru sends down some
spirits to help the Ainur by partitioning existence into Time. Tolkien
apparently discarded that story but you still have a simliar problem.
And FWIW, every time I read the Ainulindale, I have a picture in my head of a
bunch of people playing instruments and singing on board a space ship. Then,
when Eru says, "Behold, your music," he gestures to a window and they look
outside and see the Earth floating in space. Horribly inaccurate, I know, but
that's what I think of and I can't help it. It may be that humans are largely
incapable of envisioning or truly comprehending any kind of story truly
outside of Time.
---
Graham
Count Menelvagor
Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
> Larry Swain wrote:
> > Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
> >
> >>humanity as chiefly important in God's plan?
> >
> >
> > Nope. Its Augustinian. The Augustinian view of creation, the hexameral
> > tradition (the first 6 days) is that there was God, God created the
> > angels. Satan rebelled, taking 1/3 of the angels with him, Satan and
> > followers cast out of heaven, God creates heaven and earth and creates
> > humanity to make up the number of those angels who rebelled and were
> > cast out. I. E. the "children of God" were created to answer the
> > question of Evil.
>
> for the fallen angels, although I guess I have heard the idea before. I
> wonder what the typical thought on the matter was in Tolkien's time? I
> suppose the Ainulindale account may be closer to Tolkien's beliefs than
> I thought at first. It is more alien, at least, to the typical American
> Protestant view, which acknowledges a fall of Satan/angels before the
> fall of humanity, but doesn't really put any specifics to it, and sees
> the creation of humanity as something apart from that and a plan
> originating wholly from God.
i don't think it's so specific in catholicism either; not everything in
st. augustine is necessarily catholic doctrine.
Larry Swain
version of the hexameral tradition, if any, is currently "official
doctrine", but Augustine's is certainly the most popular and
influential. A number of medieval writers on whiom Tolkien worked
assumed the tradition and some such as Aelfric use it explicitly.
Troels Forchhammer
Kern <chris...@gmail.com> enriched us with:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:12:53 -0400, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>>
>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>>>
>>> Ainur, Melkor sought it in vain because he wanted to create
>>> things of his own, Eru sent it out in the void to create Eä and
>>> in some of the writings in /Myths Transformed/ (MR) Eru
>>> gave/lend some of it to Varda, but Aulë didn't have it when he
>>> created the Dwarves. It seems related to creative power, but
>>> how?
>> I think the Flame Imperishable is a metaphor for real, independent
>> existence: what the world had after Eru said Ea! and not before;
>> what the Dwarves had after Eru accepted them but not out of Aule's
>> own power.
>
> Doesn't the idea of the Flame Imperishable predate the entrance of
> "Ea! Let it be!" (which is post-LotR IIRC).
Yes, in BoLT the Creation is simultaneous with the singing, and
Ilúvatar has the 'Secret Fire'.
Now when they reached the midmost void they beheld a
sight of surpassing beauty and wonder where before had been
emptiness; but Ilúvatar said: 'Behold your choiring and
your music! Even as ye played so of my will your music took
shape, and lo! even now the world unfolds and its history
begins as did my theme in your hands. [...]'
[BoLT1 'Music of the Ainur']
> I've always seen the Flame as sort of a "God-quality" which is
> necessary for Creation and the like.
Yes, I agree. I just hoped that someone could get more specific ;-)
possibly know if there is a corresponding named quality in a real-world
religion.
>>> [8] Why was what Melkor did /not/ obedient to Eru's command to
>>> 'show forth your powers in adorning this theme,
>>> each with his own thoughts and devices'?
>>
>> He didn't adorn Eru's theme; he created his own, in opposition to
>> it and trying to drown it out.
It's not that I disagree, but let me expand upon it.
In the Silmarillion his actions are initially described like this:
[...]. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts
of his own unlike those of his brethren.
Some of these thoughts he now wove into his music, and
straightway discord arose about him, [...].
Now, this says that he was weaving his own thoughts into the music:
precisely what Eru had instructed him to do. The discord seems to stem
from the fact that Melkor's thoughts were 'unlike those of his
brethren', but the difference is not specified. We know already that
Ulmo turned his 'thought' to water, Manwë to air, Aulë to the earth and
Yavanna to the living things, so their 'thoughts' must also have been
different; like and yet unlike, perhaps.
I see the discord as a symptom -- it shows that Melkor wasn't in accord
with Eru's wish. Given that Eru had instructed him to adorn the theme
'with his own thoughts and devices', I think that Melkor's actions were
actually obedient to Eru's instructions, but that his 'thoughts and
devices' were incompatible with the thoughts and devices of Eru's
theme.
>> Or by "why" do you mean "why did Melkor do such a thing?" I think
>> it was the same sin as Feanor's and Turin's, only vastly greater
>> in scope: pride. He wanted to be above all the other Ainur, and
>> eventually above Eru himself.
I'm not sure of my reading of that particular passage ('But as the
theme progressed, [...] and he was impatient of its emptiness.'), but
it seems to me that Melkor proceeded from 'I really wish Eru would go
on with it, so I could have more to enjoy' through 'I might do it
myself' to 'I could do better than Eru'.
There is also an interesting passage in the /Valaquenta/ about Varda
and Melkor:
[...] for Melkor she knew from before the making of the
Music and rejected him, and he hated her, and feared her
more than all others whom Eru made.
So Melkor's evil must predate the Music, and yet he was given the same
instruction as all the others, to adorn Eru's theme 'with his own
thoughts and devices' -- surely Eru must have known what direction
Melkor's thoughts were taking?
> It's sometimes said that every sin comes from Pride, and pride
> certainly seems to be the driving factor of Melkor's rebellion --
> he believed that he could outdo his creator.
Yes.
>>> [12] Eru's berating as in [11] above worked, too:
>>> Then the Ainur were afraid, and they did not yet
>>> comprehend the words that were said to them; and
>>> Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret
>>> anger.
>>> Just a pity about Melkor's 'secret anger', which appears to
>>> have cemented Melkor's rebellion -- making it irreversible.
>>
>> Compare the moment of Gollum's near-repentance at Cirith Ungol.
>> Sam breaks in on him at the wrong time, and shames him; and the
>> moment is lost.
I did have that in mind, yes ;-)
There are some differences, of course; mainly that there is no external
reason for Melkor's failure to repent here -- it is internal (he does
feel shame, but it is turned to anger instead of repentance). And of
course it wouldn't do to have evil enter the world as the result of an
accident, would it ;-)
> Tolkien also says in several places that every creature has their
> chance at repentance -- this could be one,
Who is to say that he got only one chance?
> although in the late MR texts he puts Melkor's chance at repentance
> at the point when the Valar attack Utumno.
That's where it is, thank you! I was trying to find that passage for
the introduction, but couldn't, and being in a hurry to finish, I had
to give it up ;-)
(Melkor is now weaker than Manwë, whom he was stronger than at the
beginning):
Either Manwë must tell him so or he must himself suddenly
realize (or both) that this has happened: he is
'dispersed'. But the lust to have creatures under him,
dominated, has become habitual and necessary to Melkor, so
that even if the process was reversible (possibly was by
absolute and unfeigned self-abasement and repentance only)
he cannot bring himself to do it.[*] As with all other
characters there must be a trembling moment when it is in
the balance: he nearly repents - and does not, and becomes
much wickeder, and more foolish.
Possibly (and he thinks it possible) he could now at that
moment be humiliated against his own will and 'chained' -
if and before his dispersed forces reassemble. So - as soon
as he has mentally rejected repentance - he (just like
Sauron afterwards on this model) makes a mockery of
self-abasement and repentance. From which actually he gets
a kind of perverted pleasure as in desecrating something
holy - [for the mere contemplating of the possibility of
genuine repentance, if that did not come specially then as
a direct grace from Eru, was at least one last flicker of
his true primeval nature.] He feigns remorse and
repentance.
[Morgoth's Ring V 'Myths Transformed' Text VI]
This clearly describes the capture of Melkor (leading to the chaining)
as such a 'trembling moment' where Melkor's redemption is in the
balance. If the situation with Gollum is a guide to what happened here,
then I don't think that the shame->anger at Eru's reproof just after
the Music came to quite the same 'trembling moment' -- it wasn't as
well-balanced. However, the situation after the Music was necessary --
there had to be one real chance of Arda Unmarred even if it was a very
small one.
Another part of this that I was looking for, though I didn't recall
that they belong together, was the footnote:
[*] [footnote to the text] One of the reasons for his self-
weakening is that he has given to his 'creatures', Orcs,
Balrogs, etc. power of recuperation and multiplication.
So that they will gather again without further specific
orders. Part of his native creative power has gone out
into making an independent evil growth out of his control.
This touches on the whole matter of 'Morgoth's Ring', of creative power
etc. etc. We don't know the status of the thoughts in this text -- the
whole 'Myths Transformed' part is very fluid and Tolkien is
occasionally arguing against himself in the same text, but I
nevertheless find that many of the ideas are interesting in the context
of these discussions as they do touch on the ultimate origin of Eä, of
Arda and of those who fashioned it.
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Men, said the Devil,
are good to their brothers:
they don't want to mend
their own ways, but each other's.
- Piet Hein, /Mankind/
Troels Forchhammer
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
>> Chris Kern <chriskern99 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:12:53 -0400, Stan Brown
>>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>>>>
>>>> I think the Flame Imperishable is a metaphor for real,
>>>> independent existence: what the world had after Eru said Ea!
>>>> and not before; what the Dwarves had after Eru accepted them
>>>> but not out of Aule's own power.
That which makes the creation separate and independant from it's
creator?
That would make good sense, in particular in view of of the story about
Aulë and the dwarves. If only we could be absolutely sure that Eru
meant that he had 'kindled [them] with the Flame Imperishable' when he
said, 'Even as I gave being to the thoughts of the Ainur at the
beginning of the World, so now I have taken up thy desire and given to
it a place therein; [...]'.
Whatever it is, it is not just independence in the intellectual sense,
since the Flame Imperishable is also in Eä itself.
>>> Doesn't the idea of the Flame Imperishable predate the entrance
>>> of "Ea! Let it be!" (which is post-LotR IIRC). I've always
>>> seen the Flame as sort of a "God-quality" which is necessary for
>>> Creation and the like.
>
> I agree that the Flame Imperishable is an essense needed for
> creation.
Actually I think we are at the difference between Creation and sub-
creation -- the former requires the Flame Imperishable (or the 'Secret
Fire' as it is termed in BoLT), the other is to give shape to things
(matter, thoughts or whatever) that has already been Created.
Unfortunately that doesn't really come much closer to understanding
these differences in more detail, nor to describe precisely what the
Imperishable Flame really is.
<rearranged>
> And I also find myself agreeing with Stan's idea about the Flame
> Imperishable having something to do with independence.
Yes. I think the closest I can get is that is that which gives
independent existence -- having the Flame Imperishable makes the object
/be/, makes it exist in its own right, or makes it unnecessary for Eru
to sustain its existence, recreating it every moment (well, we're out
on the outskirts of metaphysics anyway <G>).
Did the Fathers of the Dwarves did have the Flame Imperishable even
before Eru accepted them -- they /existed/ (their matter being part of
Arda, which was already Created using the Flame Imperishable), and what
they lacked was the Fëa -- or are Hroa and Fëa two different aspects of
the Imperishable Flame? Only the latter of them is the part that must
be added to achieve not only independent material existence, but also
spiritual independence.
> But in reality, how independent can you be in a theology of this
> sort? Ultimately, you can't really be independent from God, can
> you?
I am sure that there is more than one school of thought on that
question ;-)
The answer might be that God /wills/ your independence -- that you are
independent from God only because God chooses it.
> One of those theological thoughts I had when reading the first two
> pages of Ainulindale, was whether this sort of creation can be
> compared to having children?
[...]
I know that having sired four children of my own may disqualify me
here, but I , too, find Tolkien's wordings suggestive of this parallel
;-)
> In a sense, possibly the closest it is possible to come to
> 'creation' is to have a child (biologically or by adoption or
> mentoring), the sense of teaching someone and caring for them
> and being responsible for them.
I haven't thought it through very carefully, but I think I might liken
the actual conception/birth as the 'creation' part, and the raising
etc. as more a matter of 'shaping'.
> I was going to say that the Ainur are depicted (at least in the
> versions of the mythlogy that got published) as not having
> children.
If we're looking for Tolkien's views, it might be relevant that he did,
in the early versions (BoLT, surely, and I don't know how far beyond
that), intend the Valar to have children, but never to be able to
Create independently.
Of course there is a matter of degree -- regardless of what the Valar
might do, all the creatures of Arda are able to reproduce, so the
parellel can only work that far.
> But then I realised that the Ainur (at least those that got
> involved) are like surrogate parents for the Children of
> Iluvatar.
And, in many respects, for Eä and Arda as well, I would say. They are
the caretakes of the Universe, shaping it according to (their
understanding of) the will of its Creator.
> But it seems to be an important difference that the Ainur do not
> have biological children
Hem, hem -- Lúthien ;-)
An exception, certainly, but one which, at least, proves a principle.
It is not lacking ability, but lacking desire that prevents the Ainur
from begetting. Once again that wonderful note 5 to Ósanwe-kenta has
some information:
'We do not know the /axani/ (laws, rules, as primarily
proceeding from Eru) that were laid down upon the Valar
with particular reference to their state, but it seems
clear that there were no /axan/ against these things.
Nonetheless it appears to be an /axan/, or maybe necessary
consequence, that if they are done, then the spirit must
dwell in the body that it used, and be under the same
necessities as the Incarnate. The only case that is known
in the histories of the Eldar is that of Melian who became
the spouse of King Elu-thingol. This certainly was not evil
or against the will of Eru, and though it led to sorrw,
both Elves and Men were enriched.'
[Letter #153, To Peter Hastings (draft) (September 1954)]
> (well, the Ainur aren't really biological, but you know what I mean),
Yes. It seems to me that the bodies, the self-array, of the Ainur has
all the biological abilities, but unlike real biological creatures,
they do not need to use these abilities -- they are used only by choice
(unless the 'self-arraying' approaches incarnation and the Ainu becomes
bound to the body, in which case I'm not sure what happens).
<snip>
> How does Catholicism treat 'having children' theologically? I
> vaguely remember that in nearly all religion, the giving of souls
> is the province of God. Someone mentioned something about souls in
> relation to the 'reincarnation' (though that is the wrong term) of
> Elves.
There is something, in 'Myths Transformed', IIRC, where Tolkien
speculates whether Eru would give souls to Orcs. I'll try to find it.
<searching>
I think I was looking for this:
In any case is it likely or possible that even the least
of the Maiar would become Orcs? Yes: both outside Arda and
in it, before the fall of Utumno. Melkor had corrupted many
spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs.
The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful
and perilous) Orcs; but by practising when embodied
procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more
earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even
demon-form), until released by death (killing), and they
would dwindle in force. When released they would, of
course, like Sauron, be 'damned': i.e. reduced to
impotence, infinitely recessive: still hating but unable
more and more to make it effective physically (or would not
a very dwindled dead Orc-state be a poltergeist?).
But again - would Eru provide fëar for such creatures?
For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs.
[MR, 'Myths Transformed', text VIII]
And there's a reference to letter #153 again, where Tolkien wrote
([...] Because by accepting or tolerating their making -
necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would
become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately
good.) But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits'
seems a different question; and since in my myth at any
rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits,
things of an equal order if not an equal power to the
Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at
least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark
Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling
and corrupting them, not making them.
Why would 'reincarnation' be a wrong term for what happens to the
Elves, by the way? The word would mean something like 'be put into
flesh again' which seems very appropriate (we might insert an 'uni' in
there -- reinunicarnation -- re-em-same-bodiment <GG>).
Tolkien, in letter #153, used 're-incarnation' to describe the process
for the Elves, though possibly in response to Peter Hastings' use of
the word (we don't have the letter Tolkien replied to, but the summary
in /letters/ says he was 'concernd with the reincarnation of the Elves,
hich Tolkien had mentioned to him in a conversation.' So we can't know
who first used the term, only that Tolkien accepted it, but also used
other terms such as rebirth and re-embodiment).
Sorry to be this long-winded about this, I just speculated if the word
had some unfortunate connotations in English that I haven't realised
(and which might have been the basis for Mr Hastings' objections as
well?)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Problems worthy
of attack
prove their worth
by hitting back.
- Piet Hein, /Problems/
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> Did the Fathers of the Dwarves did have the Flame Imperishable even
> before Eru accepted them -- they /existed/ (their matter being part of
> Arda, which was already Created using the Flame Imperishable), and what
> they lacked was the Fëa -- or are Hroa and Fëa two different aspects of
> the Imperishable Flame? Only the latter of them is the part that must
> be added to achieve not only independent material existence, but also
> spiritual independence.
I think they did _not_ have the F.I. till Eru gave it to them.
It's a harder question whether they had feär from Aulë before Eru
accepted them as his "adopted children". Aulë was "instructing" them,
which seems to imply some sort of intelligence. But on the other
hand, when Aulë repented and moved to destroy them, Eru called
attention to their cringing as evidence that they were now true
beings because he had accepted them. So they had feär after Eru
accepted them, but they didn't have "regular feär" beforehand.
Did the Orcs have feär? They seemed almost like the pre-Eru Dwarves,
when at Sauron's fall they became mindless and disorganized. That
seems almost as though they were not independent beings, just
extensions of his will, as Aulë's Dwarves were originally. On the
other hand, Shadrach and Meshach^W^W^W Shagrat and Gorbag did seem to
have independent ideas about setting up on their own, and they were
only "middle management" in Sauron's empire of slaves.
So if the Orcs didn't have feär, then the pre-Eru Dwarves certainly
didn't; if the Orcs did, then the pre-Eru Dwarves are still an open
question. It seems Aulë's Dwarves were completely subservient to him,
even more than the Orcs to Sauron.
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
> 10 Nov 2005 11:31:18 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>> Did the Fathers of the Dwarves did have the Flame Imperishable
>> even before Eru accepted them -- they /existed/ (their matter
>> being part of Arda, which was already Created using the Flame
>> Imperishable), and what they lacked was the Fëa -- or are Hroa
>> and Fëa two different aspects of the Imperishable Flame? Only the
>> latter of them is the part that must be added to achieve not only
>> independent material existence, but also spiritual independence.
>
> I think they did _not_ have the F.I. till Eru gave it to them.
I might, a bit whimsically, say that that much is obvious -- the
question is how, where and when he gave it to them ;-)
> It's a harder question whether they had feär from Aulë before Eru
> accepted them as his "adopted children".
I am not sure the two issues are that easily separable, but then
again, I am not sure about anything in this.
The question seems to me to boil down to the relation between the
Flame Imperishable and the Fëa.
If my reading, as I am becoming more inclined to call it, is correct,
then the former (the Flame Imperishable) is related to Creating, the
Being, or independent existence, of the Created, while the Fëa is
related to independent Will. This would imply that the Fathers of the
Dwarves possibly (probably?) already possessed the Flame Imperishable
through being of Arda, but that Eru's acceptance of them provided
them with Fëar.
First about the Flame Imperishable. It is mentioned in three passages
in the Ainulindalë:
1) In the instruction to the Ainur, 'And since I have kindled you
with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in
adorning this theme,'
2) Melkor's pre-Music searches; '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 Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was
impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is
with Ilúvatar.'
3) And the Creation of Eä: 'Therefore I say: Eä! Let these things Be!
And I will send forth into the Void the Flame Imperishable, and it
shall be at the heart of the World, and the World shall Be;'
Of these I would say that 1) appears to support the idea that the
F.I. is related to independent mental capacity, but the two others
are related to the action of Creation.
3) is also important because it establishes that only Eru can use the
Flame Imperishable, just as we know that only Eru can provide souls.
[Morgoth's Ring 4,II Commentary to 'Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth']
But the F.I. is also mentioned elsewhere. For instance in the
Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth.
Finrod, however, sees now that, as things were, no
created thing or being in Arda, or in all Eä, was powerful
enough to counteract or heal Evil: that is to subdue Melkor
(in his present person, reduced though that was) /and/ the
Evil that he had dissipated and sent out from himself into
the very structure of the world.
Only Eru himself could do this. Therefore, since it was
unthinkable that Eru would abandon the world to the
ultimate triumph and domination of Melkor (which could mean
its ruin and reduction to chaos), Eru Himself must at some
time come to oppose Melkor. But Eru could not enter /wholly/
into the world and its history, which is, however great,
only a finite Drama. He must as Author always remain
'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His
design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in
every detail and moment. Finrod therefore thinks that He
will, when He comes, have to be both 'outside' and inside;
and so he glimpses the possibility of complexity or of
distinctions in the nature of Eru, which nonetheless leaves
Him 'The One'. (Author's Note 11, p. 345)
Note 11.
This is actually already glimpsed in the /Ainulindalë/,
in which reference is made to the 'Flame Imperishable'.
This appears to mean the Creative activity of Eru (in some
sense distinct from or within Him), by which things could
be given a 'real' and independent (though derivative and
created) existence. The Flame Imperishable is sent out from
Eru, to dwell in the heart of the world, and the world then
Is, on the same plane as the Ainur, and they can enter into
it. But this is not, of course, the same as the re-entry of
Eru to defeat Melkor. It refers rather to the mystery of
'authorship', by which the author, while remaining
'outside' and independent of his work, also 'indwells' in
it, on its derivative plane, below that of his own being,
as the source and guarantee of its being.
[Morgoth's Ring 4,II Commentary to 'Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth']
I think, as I understand this, that it says the same as I -- that the
Flame Imperishable gives the thing reality.
Regarding the Fëar, you raise the question of the Orcs, which also
occupied Tolkien. In Text VIII of Myths Transformed (MR), there is
the following:
(1) As the case of Aulë and the Dwarves shows, only Eru
could make creatures with independent wills, and with
reasoning powers. But Orcs seem to have both: they can
try to cheat Morgoth / Sauron, rebel against him, or
criticize him.
and later:
But again - would Eru provide fëar for such creatures?
For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs.[6]
The note reads,
[6] At this point there is a note that begins 'Criticism of
(1) (2) (3) above' (i.e. the opening points of this text,
p. 409) and then refers obscurely to the last battle and
fall of Barad-dûr etc.' in The Lord of the Rings. In view
of what follows my father was presumably thinking of this
passage in the chapter 'Mount Doom':
From all his policies and webs of fear and
treachery,
[...]
his armies halted, and his captains suddenly
steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired.
For they were forgotten.
The note continues:
They had little or no will when not actually 'attended
to' by the mind of Sauron. Does their cheating and
rebellion pass that possible to such animals as dogs etc.?
A litter further on in the main text.
In summary: I think it must be assumed that 'talking'
is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a
'rational soul' or /fëa/. The Orcs were beasts of huma-
nized shape [...]
In Christopher's notes there are also references to letter #153 where
it says (about Orcs again):
[...]. But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits'
seems a different question; and since in my myth at any
rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits,
things of an equal order if not an equal power to the
Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at
least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the
Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in
remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That
God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than
the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by
tyrants that goes on today. There might be other
'makings' all the same which were more like puppets
filled (only at a distance) with their maker's mind and
will, or ant-like operating under direction of a queen-
centre.
[Letter #153, To Peter Hastings (draft) (September 1954)]
Looking at the various musings regarding the Orcs, I think it is
quite clear that Tolkien strongly related the independent,
intelligent mind to the possession of a fëa. If the Orcs were pre-
programmed automatons, then they did not need a fëa, and the same
would apply for creatures ('other "makings"') that were merely
physically separate extensions of their maker's mind (the puppets).
(He seemed to come to the conclusion that Orcs did have Fëar, and
resolved the issue with the quotation from the end of LotR in another
way, by referring to some kind of absorption of a relatively small
number of the orcs, a thing that would also be possible for other
races.)
I am confident that when the Fathers of the Dwarves shrank from
Aulë's hammer, then it was because they had received their /feär/ at
that precise point -- it was this that gave them 'a life of their
own' and made them 'speak with their own voices'.
I don't recall any text stating that each of the Children of Ilúvatar
has a portion of the Flame Imperishable, and though there might very
well be a relation between the fëa and the F.I, I am not sure what it
would be (possibly fëar are Created using the Flame Imperishable?)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Does time exist?
I gravely doubt it.
But gosh, what should we do
without it?
- Piet Hein, /Time/
Troels Forchhammer
<news:0001HW.BF8E9B94...@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>
Graham Lockwood <g-...@yeehawgroups.com> enriched us with:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:26:13 -0600, Troels Forchhammer wrote
> {snip}
>> As I read this, it would mean that the Ainur, prior to this
>> (which would mean also during the music), had never known other
>> ways of experiencing than through hearing (how Melkor had then
>> 'gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable
>> Flame' is probably better left unexplored <G>).
> {snip}
>
> I somewhat agree with this. However, I would venture to say that
> concepts such as "hearing" or "vision" don't exist as we can
> conceive of them in the Timeless Halls.
I hope you read the introduction -- in particular note 18 ;-)
Essentially all it takes is to accept 'time' in the text to refer
very specifically to time. That way 'timeless' is fine as long as you
allow the halls to exist in some other dimension that allows for the
sequentialisation of events and gives direction to causality :-D
All it requires, really, is for that time-like dimension to be
orthogonal to our time, and you're home. Imagine seeing all the
frames of a film overlaid at one time on the screen, and then allow
the Ainur the mental capacity to unravel that sight (though perhaps
slowly, and of a three-dimensional image). Or possibly what we see as
time is, for those in the Timeless Halls, merely another spatial
dimension . . .
Yes, this is my training speaking -- at some point I'm unable to
suspend the physicist, but fortunately he is good at coming up wiht
inventions that allow me to retain my literary belief ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Does time exist?
Troels Forchhammer
>> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
>>
<snip>
>> [10] So, all in all Eru Ilúvatar makes four musical statements
>> during the music.
>> I - The First Theme: 'unfolding to them things greater and
>> more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory
>> of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed
>> the Ainur'¨
[...]
> I'm slightly confused about what you mean by the First Theme. You
> quote the bit where Iluvatar:
>
> "...declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things
> greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory
> of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur..."
>
> I don't see this as the First Theme proper,
You don't see the 'theme that I /have declared/' (my emphasis) as the
First Theme proper? That is what the theme is. Eru declares the
themes to the Ainur, and they, then, make some music based on these
three themes. The themes themselves, however, are the pieces that Eru
alone declare to the Ainur.
I hope somebody more versed in musical theory than I will fill in,
but the 'theme' (when such is used) in music is often a very short
and simple thing (like the four-note sequence from Beethoven's fifth,
the Morse 'V': three short, staccato notes and a long).
You might say that Eru 'plays' three themes for the Ainur, and they
are, then, expected to take up these themes and produce from them
three movements that take their origin in the three themes. It might
be useful to think of the whole music like this:
1st Theme (solo by Eru)
1st Movement (by the Ainur; containing the discordant theme by
Melkor)
2nd Theme (by Eru while the Ainur are still playing the first
movement)
2nd Movement (by the Ainur; still with Melkor's discord)
3rd Theme (by Eru, the Ainur playing the second movement)
3rd Movement (by the Ainur -- two opposing tunes)
Finale: the Great Chord by Eru.
In the introduction I didn't pay too much attention to the difference
between themes and movements, but properly used, I think the themes
are that which Eru 'plays' (or is 'sing' the best word?), whereas the
Ainur's contribution is to improvise, but based on Eru's themes (a
divine jam-session <G>).
(I'll try to get back on the rest of your points)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
A bit beyond perception's reach
I sometimes believe I see
that Life is two locked boxes, each
containing the other's key.
- Piet Hein, /The Paradox of Life/
(Philosophical grook)
Christopher Kreuzer
> In message <news:Ega8f.139024$G8.2...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalë'
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> [10] So, all in all Eru Ilúvatar makes four musical statements
>>> during the music.
>>> I - The First Theme: 'unfolding to them things greater and
>>> more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory
>>> of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed
>>> the Ainur'¨
> [...]
>
>> I'm slightly confused about what you mean by the First Theme. You
>> quote the bit where Iluvatar:
>>
>> "...declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things
>> greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory
>> of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur..."
>>
>> I don't see this as the First Theme proper,
>
> You don't see the 'theme that I /have declared/' (my emphasis) as the
> First Theme proper? That is what the theme is. Eru declares the
> themes to the Ainur, and they, then, make some music based on these
> three themes. The themes themselves, however, are the pieces that Eru
> alone declare to the Ainur.
I see what you mean about the 'musical theme' interpretation of the
Themes of Iluvatar, but I think there are problems with this
interpretation.
> I hope somebody more versed in musical theory than I will fill in,
> but the 'theme' (when such is used) in music is often a very short
> and simple thing (like the four-note sequence from Beethoven's fifth,
> the Morse 'V': three short, staccato notes and a long).
>
> You might say that Eru 'plays' three themes for the Ainur, and they
> are, then, expected to take up these themes and produce from them
> three movements that take their origin in the three themes.
But the wording used in parts of the Ainulindale seems to suggest more
than this. It seems to suggest that a theme here is more like a whole
piece of music, or something similar. Also, we mustn't forget that there
is a time before the Music of the Ainur (maybe this includes the time
where Melkor was rejected by Varda?):
"[Iluvatar] spoke to them, propounding to them themes of music; and they
sang before him, and he was glad. But for a long while they sang only
each alone, or but few together..."
This use of the word 'theme' could agree with what you say.
But then we have this:
"[Iluvatar] declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things
greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of
its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur..."
This seems like quite a lot happening for just a "very short and simple
thing" you refer to as a musical theme. This seems more like a grand and
overall plan. But I agree that you are right to make the distinction
(below) between a theme (whether short and simple, or a mighty theme),
and the music composed to adorn that theme.
> It might be useful to think of the whole music like this:
>
> 1st Theme (solo by Eru)
> 1st Movement (by the Ainur; containing the discordant theme by
> Melkor)
> 2nd Theme (by Eru while the Ainur are still playing the first
> movement)
> 2nd Movement (by the Ainur; still with Melkor's discord)
> 3rd Theme (by Eru, the Ainur playing the second movement)
> 3rd Movement (by the Ainur -- two opposing tunes)
Incidentially, do we agree that the two opposing musics, which emerge
following the introduction of the Third Theme, are Good and Evil (or
something of that kind)? The music that is "deep and wide and beautiful"
is the correct playing of the Third Theme, and that the music that is
"loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated" is Melkor and his minions still
getting it wrong?
> Finale: the Great Chord by Eru.
So, given your distinction between 'theme' and 'movement', above, what
does "But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to
interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the
theme of Iluvatar..." mean? Does Tolkien mean, as the _Music_ (or to use
your terminology - the movement) progressed? [This is the only example I
can find where I seriously think Tolkien should have written 'music
progressed' instead of 'theme progressed'.]
And what does it mean to say that something (here, the Children) "came
with the third theme"?
> In the introduction I didn't pay too much attention to the difference
> between themes and movements, but properly used, I think the themes
> are that which Eru 'plays' (or is 'sing' the best word?), whereas the
> Ainur's contribution is to improvise, but based on Eru's themes (a
> divine jam-session <G>).
So the themes are like a set of parameters (eg. play in F-sharp major)
within which the Ainur improvise? Iluvatar plays a few bars as an
example, and then the Ainur pick it up and carry on in the same fashion?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Chapter of the Week, The Silmarillion -- 'Ainulindalė'
<snip>
Just a 'brief' comment about this passage:
"Never since have the Ainur made any music like to this music, though it
has been said that a greater still shall be made before Iluvatar by the
choirs of the Ainur and the Children of Iluvatar after the end of days.
Then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take Being in
the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his
intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each..."
(Ainulindale)
This bit about how everyone will "understand fully" reminds me of how
Tolkien says (in a Letter) that Frodo goes to Aman to come to a better
understanding of his place "in littleness and in greatness". The quote
is from the drafts of a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar , dated September
1963 (Letter 246):
"[Frodo] went both to a purgatory and to a reward, for a while: a period
of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his
position in littleness and greatness, spent still in Time amid the
natural beauty of 'Arda Unmarred', the Earth unspoiled by evil."
Is this similar to the understanding that comes "after the End of Days"?
The whole thrust of the passage I quoted from Ainulindale, seems to me
to say that ultimately in this 'fallen world' we don't get things fully
right, and that things will be 'corrected' and 'improved' after the End
of Days. Would I be right in thinking that this is a very Catholic view
of the world?
I also got to thinking that this theological viewpoint, which
essentially says that God knows best, is something that can seem
condescending and can be anaethema to people who extend their fierce
independence of thought (from not wanting to submit to the thoughts or
wills of others) to refusing to accept this "God is right" axiom. This
is ultimately futile opposition in Tolkien's Middle-earth theology, but
can we see traces of this independence of thought in the rebellion of
Melkor?
Where is the dividing line between independence, pride, and failing to
acknowledge God as supreme being? Seeking to dominate others is an
obvious no-no. But what about excessive striving for independence from
others? Melkor going alone into the Void?
And if the themes will be "played aright after the end of days", what is
the point of playing them this time round? Surely there is a greater
incentive to get things right this time round, if it is probably the
only time round? Is the point maybe that the journey and the
understanding is as important, and indeed sometimes more important, than
the end result?
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
> I see what you mean about the 'musical theme' interpretation of
> the Themes of Iluvatar, but I think there are problems with this
> interpretation.
Let me try to forgo the specific words and focus on what happened.
As I see it, we have three instances where first Eru makes a shortish
musical statement (but obviously not simple ones), and then sit back
in silence while the Ainur (those who hasn't joined Melkor's choir)
takes up that musical statement and, using Eru's statement as the
basis, improvise and embellish Eru's statement.
Tolkien seems to have used 'theme' mostly, IMO, to refer Eru's
statements, though not only the initial stating by Eru, but also the
use of his statements in the music made by the Ainur -- the way the
word would also be used in a musical context.
<snip>
> This seems like quite a lot happening for just a "very short and
> simple thing" you refer to as a musical theme.
I'd expect Eru to be able to declare, even in a shortish 'theme'
something extremely complex -- intricate beyond the ability of mortal
minds to comprehend ;-)
> This seems more like a grand and overall plan.
To our human ears, a musical theme needs to be a rather short and
simple element that can be recognised even when varying the key, the
beat and the musical context. I did not intend to imply that Eru's
themes were 'simple (this was part of my description of how themes
are used in real-world music and not meant to apply to the Music of
the Ainur at all).
There will be a limit to how well any analogy to real-world music
will work because we are talking about 'music' that is complex enough
to describe the universe, and in one thime introduce the double
complexity of both the Quendi and the Atani. That said, I think an
analogy to classical symphonic music works best (as I think I have
already implied with my examples and choices of words). The whole
Ainulindalë is a symphonic piece in three movements, then ;-)
> But I agree that you are right to make the distinction (below)
> between a theme (whether short and simple, or a mighty theme),
> and the music composed to adorn that theme.
I think we agree, then, on that part.
<snip>
> Incidentially, do we agree that the two opposing musics, which
> emerge following the introduction of the Third Theme, are Good and
> Evil (or something of that kind)?
Yes, I think that is clear.
There might be other opposites involved as well -- e.g. constructive
vs. desctructive (I'm thinking here of the intense heat and cold of
Melkor), but basically it symbolises (and presages) the struggle
between good and bad.
> The music that is "deep and wide and beautiful" is the correct
> playing of the Third Theme, and that the music that is "loud,
> and vain, and endlessly repeated" is Melkor and his minions
> still getting it wrong?
Yes.
I am not sure how much Melkor's discordant music developed exactly --
how much did it adapt to Eru's shifting themes (if only to oppose
them), and how much any change was merely in search of a final form
for this music.
I tend to see Melkor's music more as one long, evenly developing,
thing, compared to the obvious phases related to the three themes,
but that might well be completely wrong (Eru's third theme seems
designed to shape a music that both answers and anticipates Melkor's
discordant music).
>> Finale: the Great Chord by Eru.
>
> So, given your distinction between 'theme' and 'movement', above,
> what does "But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of
> Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in
> accord with the theme of Iluvatar..." mean? Does Tolkien mean, as
> the _Music_ (or to use your terminology - the movement)
> progressed? [This is the only example I can find where I seriously
> think Tolkien should have written 'music progressed' instead of
> 'theme progressed'.]
I'd say that 'progressed' in this context can be interpreted as
'developed' rather than 'advanced', and as such it describes very
well what happens in general to a theme in music -- it is developed
and progresses throughout the movement (or the entire piece of music
as it might be).
Admittedly that reading might be a bit strained, but if we use
'theme' in the sense described above, this would be the way to read
that specific passage. the idea would then be 'as the Ainur developed
Eru's theme, embellishing and adorning it each with their own
devices, it came into the heart ...'
> And what does it mean to say that something (here, the Children)
> "came with the third theme"?
As I understand it, it means that the Eruhíni were somehow
'described' (using the musical 'language' of Eru and the Ainur) in
the third theme which Eru declared to the Ainur. In the later
description we also learn that they didn't really understand that
part, and didn't dare change it (embellish, adorn etc. as I would
understand it). Musically that would probably mean that the
particular part of the theme that described the Eruhíni was always
played exactly as in the original rendering of the theme, even when
other parts of the theme was changed according to the context (the
embellishments etc.)
To an extent this is where the musical analogy begins to break down
(at least for my knowledge of musical composition).
<snip>
> So the themes are like a set of parameters (eg. play in F-sharp
> major) within which the Ainur improvise? Iluvatar plays a few bars
> as an example, and then the Ainur pick it up and carry on in the
> same fashion?
I think the classical symphonic analogy would work better. Eru plays
the theme -- corresponding to the 'dadada-daaah' of Beethoven's fifth
-- and then the Ainur compose and play the movement that uses that
theme. They keep returning to Eru's theme, playing it in different
contexts, varying the key, beat and notes a little, but keeping it
recognisable (and for the part of the third theme that represented
the Children of Ilúvatar they would keep it identical). Imagine that
you could include the complexity of the basic concept of a living
universe in that 'dadada-daaah' and take it from there.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Those who have no wisdom yet
count their wealth by what they get.
you who have the grace to live:
count your wealth by what you give!
- Piet Hein, /(?)/
Jette Goldie
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns970CF49A...@130.133.1.4...
Basically, Eru's into improvisation.
He's a Jazz-man.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
Stan Brown
> In message <news:MPG.1ddd3d9da...@news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
> > 10 Nov 2005 11:31:18 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
> > <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> >> Did the Fathers of the Dwarves did have the Flame Imperishable
> >> even before Eru accepted them -- they /existed/ (their matter
> >> being part of Arda, which was already Created using the Flame
> >> Imperishable), and what they lacked was the Fëa -- or are Hroa
> >> and Fëa two different aspects of the Imperishable Flame? Only the
> >> latter of them is the part that must be added to achieve not only
> >> independent material existence, but also spiritual independence.
> >
> > I think they did _not_ have the F.I. till Eru gave it to them.
>
> I might, a bit whimsically, say that that much is obvious -- the
> question is how, where and when he gave it to them ;-)
:-) Agreed.
As (I think) you also say below, he "gave it to them" implicitly,
since they were made of the stuff of Arda. I'm not sure now what I
meant when I wrote the above on 10 Nov, because as I stated it it's
too obvious to be useful.
> If my reading, as I am becoming more inclined to call it, is correct,
> then the former (the Flame Imperishable) is related to Creating, the
> Being, or independent existence, of the Created, while the Fëa is
> related to independent Will. This would imply that the Fathers of the
> Dwarves possibly (probably?) already possessed the Flame Imperishable
> through being of Arda, but that Eru's acceptance of them provided
> them with Fëar.
[big snip of your supporting quotes from the Ainulindalë and the
Athrabeth, and discussion]
My reading agrees completely with yours.
I thin those were the passages I dimly remembered. Alas, on the fëar
of the Orcs, as on their origin, I fear there's no one right answer.
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> Essentially all it takes is to accept 'time' in the text to refer
> very specifically to time. That way 'timeless' is fine as long as you
> allow the halls to exist in some other dimension that allows for the
> sequentialisation of events and gives direction to causality :-D
>
> All it requires, really, is for that time-like dimension to be
> orthogonal to our time, and you're home.
This is really quite a striking way out of the difficulty. I can't
tell whether you're quoting someone else or came up with this idea
yourself, but whoever did it deserves praise.
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> I hope somebody more versed in musical theory than I will fill in,
> but the 'theme' (when such is used) in music is often a very short
> and simple thing (like the four-note sequence from Beethoven's fifth,
> the Morse 'V': three short, staccato notes and a long).
I'm not a music-theoretician, but my understanding is that a short
element like the four-note opening of Beethoven's Fifth is more often
called a motif than a theme. My /Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music/
has:
"motif, motive. ... A short melodic and/or rhythmic figure of
characteristic design that recurs throughout a composition or a
section as a unifying element. A motif is distinguished from a theme
or subject by being much shorter and generally fragmentary. ... As
few as two notes may constitute a motif if they are sufficiently
characteristic melodically and/or rhythmically. ..."
The description of Melkor's music makes it sound like a motif with no
development: perhaps the dominant-tonic that ends many Mozartean and
Baroque compositions, endlessly repeated.
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> between themes and movements, but properly used, I think the themes
> are that which Eru 'plays' (or is 'sing' the best word?), whereas the
> Ainur's contribution is to improvise, but based on Eru's themes (a
> divine jam-session <G>).
Or, in the classical music sense, Eru proivides the subject or
opening theme, the exposition section, and the AInur provide the
development section.
Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>>
>> In the introduction I didn't pay too much attention to the
>> difference between themes and movements, but properly used, I
>> think the themes are that which Eru 'plays' (or is 'sing' the
>> best word?), whereas the Ainur's contribution is to improvise,
>> but based on Eru's themes (a divine jam-session <G>).
>
> Or, in the classical music sense, Eru proivides the subject or
> opening theme, the exposition section, and the AInur provide the
> development section.
Very good, thank you.
With respect to the use of 'motif', I, erroneously as it appears,
thought without checking that 'theme' in English would apply to the
same as 'tema' in Danish -- sorry (Danish 'tema' covers both subject
and motif).
But I would in any case agree that the motif of Beethoven's fifth is
too short to be an appropriate analogy for Eru's themes, and 'subject'
would probably be better (I've checked it now <G>).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>>
<snip>
'Time' in the 'Timeless Halls':
>> All it requires, really, is for that time-like dimension to be
>> orthogonal to our time, and you're home.
>
> This is really quite a striking way out of the difficulty. I can't
> tell whether you're quoting someone else or came up with this idea
> yourself, but whoever did it deserves praise.
Looking back at old discussions, I think the idea (as far as I am
involved) evolved out of my discussions with Paul S. Person back in
2002.
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books.tolkien/browse_frm/thread/c7aec82cb9fe7839/d1fc67ef73e35058#d1fc67ef73e35058>
TinyURL to the above: <http://tinyurl.com/8yczz>
It seems that Paul first came up with it; 'because the dimension Eru
experiences as time is a higher dimension than the dimension we
experience that way.' (post number 48 in Google's numbering)
Of course, the idea of a complex notation for time is certainly not
original, and I don't think there's far from that to the general idea
of a time-dimension that is orthogonal to our time.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not
imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They
laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed
at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the
Clown.
- Carl Sagan
Troels Forchhammer
+++ Whimisical mood warning! +++
<snip>
> My reading agrees completely with yours.
Making short work of any discussion ;-)
<snip>
> I thin those were the passages I dimly remembered. Alas, on the
> fëar of the Orcs, as on their origin, I fear there's no one right
> answer.
I agree -- our fear is clearer than their fëar, but their fear is
probably related to their fëar ;-)
(misreading 'fear' the first time in your answer I simply couldn't
resist that one)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
They both savoured the strange warm glow of being much
more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant
of ordinary things.
- Discworld scientists at work, /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> With respect to the use of 'motif', I, erroneously as it appears,
> thought without checking that 'theme' in English would apply to the
> same as 'tema' in Danish -- sorry (Danish 'tema' covers both subject
> and motif).
As I was copying the English definition, an explanation like that
occurred to me, but I forgot to check it or even to mention the
possibility. :-)
JimboCat
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
> The note continues:
> They had little or no will when not actually 'attended
> to' by the mind of Sauron. Does their cheating and
> rebellion pass that possible to such animals as dogs etc.?
>
>A litter further on in the main text.
Isn't that taking the "dogs" thing a litter too far?
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Beam me up again, Sam". - Capt. Rick
R. Dan Henry
>Can I just say that Tolkien writes some great opening sentences?
>"There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar; and he made
>first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, ..." When I read that sentence I knew
>that something awe-inspiring was going to happen. Compare with "Of
>old there was Sauron the Maia" on the one hand, and "In a hole in the
>ground there lived a hobbit" on the other.
While I agree in general that Tolkien writes some great opening
sentences, I wouldn't call the start of the Ainulindale one of them. It
is very typical "in the beginning" stuff, and KJV does that bit better.
In fact, the Ainulindale as a whole is far from Tolkien's most readable
work -- I'd almost recommend skipping it on a first read as the
necessary information is repeated. It certainly holds together as well
as or better than the major of genuine mythological origin stories, but
such tales are rarely the most interesting in any mythology, as
narrative. The theological issues are more interesting to me than the
story as such, but it is, after all, only a prologue to the history of
Middle-Earth. Here the Music is described very briefly; in the following
text and in the Hobbit and LOTR, it is played out.
--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
R. Dan Henry
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>Why is this text so special within the legendarium? Why does this very
>central text undergo so little change to the basic structure and
>central elements?
Possibly because it is an origin tale and not regular narrative. It is
establishing a framework and needs little emendation to accommodate
changes within the frame.
>[5] Now, Melkor is not just some second-rank Ainu,
Well, if he were, he wouldn't be very effective. Even granting that
destruction is easier than creation, if he weren't really powerful, the
advantage in numbers of the faithful Valar would pretty much prevent his
being an effective force.
> 4) '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 Ilúvatar took
> no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness.
> Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar.'
> 4, now ... I think this is very interesting, because Melkor here
> displays two faults which I think are fatal. He desired to Create,
> and he failed to realise that this power is with Eru alone.[7]
Of course, Eru could have let him in on his plans a little. Even just a
word advising patience and showing he wasn't going to leave it empty.
> We then hear that: 'Some of these thoughts he now wove into his
> music, and straightway discord arose about him, [...]' and this is
> the point were we can see that evil has entered Eru's Creation, but
> when did it enter? When Melkor went alone into the void? Or when he
> began to sing in discord with Eru's theme?
When Eru created him out of the part of his mind that was contrary. The
Ainur, after all, are derivative from Eru, reflecting portions of his
own thought.
>[9] Any comments about the use of sea-and-weather metaphors to describe
> the clash of two musical themes before time, sea, water, wind or
> anything?
Since the sea is said to come as close as anything in the created world
to echoing the Music of the Ainur, I think this is quite appropriate.
>[10] So, all in all Eru Ilúvatar makes four musical statements during
> the music.
> I - The First Theme: 'unfolding to them things greater and more
> wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its
> beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur'
> II - The Second Theme: 'like and yet unlike to the former theme, and
> it gathered power and had new beauty.'
> III - The Third Theme: 'it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere
> rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could
> not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity.'
> And 'deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an
> immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came'. This
> was also capable of taking the most 'triumphant notes' from
> Melkor's discord and weave it into 'its own solemn pattern.'
> IV - The Chord: 'deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament,
> piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar'
>
> Now, what, if any, is the significance of these four musical
> statements? Can they, and should they, be equated with some periods
> of the life of Eä (or Arda)?
I'm wondering if the Second Theme is the creation of the special races
related to certain Valar -- the Eagles, the Ents, the Dwarves? These
come before the Children of Iluvatar, and they all contribute to the
protection of various aspects of the world from Morgoth's discord.
>[12] Eru's berating as in [11] above worked, too:
> Then the Ainur were afraid, and they did not yet
> comprehend the words that were said to them; and Melkor was
> filled with shame, of which came secret anger.
> Just a pity about Melkor's 'secret anger', which appears to have
> cemented Melkor's rebellion -- making it irreversible.
I'm wondering why Eru couldn't just spin off a little more Flame
Imperishable and make a scaled-down junior-Ea for Melkor to play in.
"So, you think you can do better? Okay, go ahead and try!" Obviously,
this couldn't happen for narrative reasons, but is there any other
reason this couldn't work? We'd get Arda Unmarred and Melkor and his
followers could have their little world, at least until they decided Eru
knows best after all and repent.
> We are told that 'in every age there come forth things that are new
> and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.' Any
> good suggestions as to specific things?
Gandalf's resurrection.
> What does this limited foreknowledge of the history of Arda / Eä
> mean for Tolkien's stories?
He can use it when he wants to for dramatic purposes and ignore it when
he wants something to surprise everyone.
> I am aware that I am overanalysing and extrapolating wildly here,
> but I have to note (just for the fun of it) that there must be some
> other time-like dimension in the Timeless Halls for this tale to
> make sense -- suggesting imaginary time is a tempting solution ;-)
It may also mean simply that it is beyond astronomical time. There's
some reference to the count of time starting with the Trees, because
their light provides the first clock (the Lamps glowed with steady
light, while the Trees wax and wane). The Timeless Halls may simply be
timeless because Iluvatar doesn't have a clock.
R. Dan Henry
<donn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a classic logical fallacy.
>>
>> Just because Eru introduced the Third Theme _after_ Melkor made a
>> pig's breakfast of the first two, does not mean he introduced it
>> _because_ Melkor made a pig's breakfast of the first two. It might
>> very well have been his plan all along.
>
>Indeed, it may well have been his plan all along, but it was brought
>about specifically as a counter for Melkor's theme.
Furthermore, being all-knowing, Eru would have seen Melkor's theme
coming and so "his plan all along" would have already taken dealing with
Melkor's rebellion into account.
Odysseus
>
> 12 Nov 2005 00:13:37 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> > Essentially all it takes is to accept 'time' in the text to refer
> > very specifically to time. That way 'timeless' is fine as long as you
> > allow the halls to exist in some other dimension that allows for the
> > sequentialisation of events and gives direction to causality :-D
> >
> > All it requires, really, is for that time-like dimension to be
> > orthogonal to our time, and you're home.
>
> This is really quite a striking way out of the difficulty. I can't
> tell whether you're quoting someone else or came up with this idea
> yourself, but whoever did it deserves praise.
Coming in rather late -- I've a lot of catching up to do after a bit
of a vacation from Usenet -- ISTR P.D. Ouspensky saying something
along those lines (not with reference to Tolkien, of course!),
probably in _Tertium Organum_, which was written ca. 1920. Reading
Kant in the light of early XX-c. physics (Einstein, Minkowski) might
well prompt such speculations.
--
Odysseus