COTW: Silmarillion Chapter XVI "Of Maeglin"
Huan the hound
chapter "Of Maeglin."
"Of Maeglin" is pretty interesting and not very long. This chapter is
disturbing and deals with some unpleasant characters, and leaves some
suspense in the mind of the reader. There are less characters involved,
which makes a nice change from previous chapters. Several characters make
predictions about the ends of other characters.
Aredhel, Turgon's sister and Fingolfin's daughter, lived in Gondolin for
200 years, after which she wished to leave and ride freely. Turgon first
tried persuading her to stay, and then tried persuading her to go to
their brother Fingon. Aredhel clearly didn't like it when her brother
tried to influence her and threatened to go alone[1]. Turgon didn't want
anyone to reveal the location of Gondolin, but he ended up sending "three
lords of his household" to escort her.
Stubborn Aredhel set out towards her friend Celegorm[2] along the road
between Doriath and Nan Dungortheb. "The riders became enmeshed in
shadows,"[3] but Aredhel continued on. She reached Himlad safely, but
Celegorm and Curufin were in Thargelion with Caranthir. After waiting a
year, she eventually wandered across the river Celon and became "enmeshed
in Nan Elmoth," Eöl's home[3]. Turgon's lords returned to Gondolin and
reported that Aredhel was lost.
Eöl was "the" Dark Elf. Likes: silence, forest, twilight, stars, night,
Dwarves, ladies in white. Dislikes: Noldor, society, authority figures,
sons of Fëanor[4]. Occupation: making his patented metal "galvorn."
Eöl somehow used the forest to draw Aredhel to his home, and she became
his wife and they had a child, and everything was fine for quite a
while.[5] Eöl named his son Maeglin, meaning Sharp Glance. Maeglin had the
skills of his father but looked like the Noldor, and learned the location
of ores from the Dwarves and the tales of the Noldor from his mother. He
was extremely interested in Turgon and Gondolin, and particularly
interested that Turgon had no heir[6]. Aredhel did not tell Maeglin how to
find Gondolin but they both began thinking about going there.
Then Maeglin had a falling out with Eöl regarding a visit to the sons of
Fëanor, and Maeglin stopped traveling to visit the Dwarves with his
father[7]. When Eöl left for a feast in Nogrod, Aredhel and Maeglin decided
to tell the servants that they were riding to visit the sons of Fëanor,
Eöl's least favorite people. Then they headed west towards Gondolin.
Therefore when Eöl went looking for them in Himlad, he encountered Curufin
and they exchanged unpleasant words. Curufin sent Eöl west to follow
Aredhel and Maeglin, and he caught up with them in time to sneak behind
them into Gondolin.
Turgon liked Maeglin and Maeglin declared allegiance to Turgon. Eöl was
caught and brought before Turgon, who welcomed him warmly but required
him to stay in Gondolin to preserve its secrecy[8]. Eöl declared that he
would not be subject to Turgon's will and intended to leave with
Maeglin. Maeglin remained uninvolved, but Turgon would not release Eöl.
Suddenly Eöl threw a poisoned javelin at Maeglin, intending that they
should both die rather than live in Gondolin[9], and Aredhel was hit in the
shoulder by the javelin. She asked for mercy for her husband, but she
died that night and Eöl was thrown from a cliff as Maeglin watched silently.
After this, things went very well for Maeglin, and he became very
powerful. He found ore, forged excellent weapons, and was considered
wise and brave. He continued to be a quiet guy. However, in his heart,
Maeglin lusted for his cousin Idril, the daughter of Turgon, and this
became a "darkness in his heart." Cousins were off-limits for marriage,
and Idril strongly disliked Maeglin.
Discussion points
I hope someone can fill in the details of the evolution of this chapter.
I have never looked at any HOME volumes.
This chapter has a lot of predictions in it. I notice these:
-Turgon predicts no good for him or Aredhel if she leaves Gondolin
-Curufin predicts that Eöl will never return to Nan Elmoth
-Eöl predicts Maeglin's failure to win Idril and that he will die by being
thrown from that cliff
-Idril is troubled and mistrusts Maeglin from the first
When I read this chapter for the first time, I felt that it built up a lot
of suspense about what would happen to Maeglin. It seemed like he was
already evil. I actually felt that what did happen was a lot less
terrible than it could have been. I mean, after this chapter you might
begin to think that Maeglin will start trouble on his own, but we come to
find out that Morgoth started it, so Maeglin looks a little better.
Anyone else think so?
[1] Aredhel certainly seemed to be "firm of will" like her favorite
cousins. She doesn't do anything particularly admirable in the whole
chapter until she pleads for her husband's life and deflects the
spear from her son.
[2] We know from Chapter 5 that Aredhel the White Lady liked to ride and
hunt with the sons of Fëanor but that "to none was her heart's love
given." None probably means "no elf" but since it's written in the same
sentence with the sons of Fëanor, it makes me think "none" applies to
them. That's strange, because this chapter makes it clear that it was
deviant behavior to want to marry a cousin.
[3] What does "enmeshed in shadows" mean? Spider-webs? Lots of
enmeshing going on here even by elves.
[4] There's nothing particularly bad revealed about Eöl until he is in
Gondolin, after all the Fëanorians speak a lot more harshly than he does,
but with all the "dark" descriptions, you know he's just going to end up
being bad.
[5] Aredhel must have been willing to marry Eöl although Curufin
considered her to be stolen.
[6] This interest in Turgon and Turgon's lack of an heir is disturbing
and provides another reason why Maeglin has an unhealthy interest in Idril
[7] So we know that they had a falling out. Was that the whole reason
for sneaking away? I think it's more of an excuse - Maeglin already
wanted to leave his father and go to Gondolin, and therefore he picked a
fight about the Noldor so he could have a grievance against his father.
Was this falling out enough to cause Maeglin not to ask for mercy for his
father in Gondolin?
[8] Turgon is a Nice Guy. There is a big understatement in chapter 6:
"But the children of Indis were great and glorious, and their children
also; and if they had not lived the history of the Eldar would have been
diminished."
[9] IMO this is where Eöl proves that he's a little insane. Maeglin on
the other hand watches Idril for a very long time, and darkness grows in
his heart, but he didn't go insane without Morgoth's help.
-------
There seems to be a lack of interest in COTW at the moment. IMO we might
as well stick to the schedule because it's easy to reopen these threads.
For example, I haven't been keeping up and until now I had about 500
unread COTW messages showing in my newsreader. I wanted to catch up
before writing this chapter summary, and I did. I could have responded
to some of the old threads, and I know a few people do this already.
There's always the archive if your news server doesn't have the old
threads anymore. Anyway, just IMO.
--
Amanda D.
"Huan, the hound of Valinor"
Emma Pease
> This is the chapter summary and initial discussion points for the
> chapter "Of Maeglin."
...
>
> Discussion points
>
> I hope someone can fill in the details of the evolution of this chapter.
> I have never looked at any HOME volumes.
>
> This chapter has a lot of predictions in it. I notice these:
> -Turgon predicts no good for him or Aredhel if she leaves Gondolin
> -Curufin predicts that Eöl will never return to Nan Elmoth
> -Eöl predicts Maeglin's failure to win Idril and that he will die by being
> thrown from that cliff
> -Idril is troubled and mistrusts Maeglin from the first
>
> When I read this chapter for the first time, I felt that it built up a lot
> of suspense about what would happen to Maeglin. It seemed like he was
> already evil. I actually felt that what did happen was a lot less
> terrible than it could have been. I mean, after this chapter you might
> begin to think that Maeglin will start trouble on his own, but we come to
> find out that Morgoth started it, so Maeglin looks a little better.
> Anyone else think so?
I get the feeling that this part of the story was never developed that
much.
...
> [2] We know from Chapter 5 that Aredhel the White Lady liked to ride and
> hunt with the sons of Fëanor but that "to none was her heart's love
> given." None probably means "no elf" but since it's written in the same
> sentence with the sons of Fëanor, it makes me think "none" applies to
> them. That's strange, because this chapter makes it clear that it was
> deviant behavior to want to marry a cousin.
Well Fëanor's sons were actually half cousins (they shared a common
grandfather but not a common grandmother), perhaps that was distant
enough to make them legit marriage partners. IIRC some late variants
of Galadriel's story have her marrying her first cousin.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
burns...@yahoo.com
> Discussion points
>
> I hope someone can fill in the details of the evolution of this chapter.
> I have never looked at any HOME volumes.
>
> This chapter has a lot of predictions in it. I notice these:
> -Turgon predicts no good for him or Aredhel if she leaves Gondolin
> -Curufin predicts that Eöl will never return to Nan Elmoth
> -Eöl predicts Maeglin's failure to win Idril and that he will die by being
> thrown from that cliff
> -Idril is troubled and mistrusts Maeglin from the first
>
> When I read this chapter for the first time, I felt that it built up a lot
> of suspense about what would happen to Maeglin. It seemed like he was
> already evil. I actually felt that what did happen was a lot less
> terrible than it could have been. I mean, after this chapter you might
> begin to think that Maeglin will start trouble on his own, but we come to
> find out that Morgoth started it, so Maeglin looks a little better.
> Anyone else think so?
Given how many premonitions characters have in The Silmarillion, its a
miracle that the story can continue with any pretense of free-will. One
possibilitiy is these future echos are all the result of the Oath of
Feanor, which was in itself a free act and these are just the
consequences... anyways, I always thought Turgon to be among the most
noble and well intentioned of the Noldor.
Maeglin is not evil per se, but later causes much grief. Influenced by
Morgoth but not completely without guilt. I see Maeglin's compulsion as
greater than himself, he is incapable of resisting his lustful urges
for Idril. A pathetic character who descends into evil, but isn't
inherently evil (unlike Morgoth, for example).
> [1] Aredhel certainly seemed to be "firm of will" like her favorite
> cousins. She doesn't do anything particularly admirable in the whole
> chapter until she pleads for her husband's life and deflects the
> spear from her son.
Definitely a Valley Girl of the Noldor. Self-righteous and willful.
Pleading for her husband's life AND protecting her son is a sign of her
inability to make a decision IMHO -- either her husband is evil, or her
and her son are disloyal...she wants to have it both ways.
> [3] What does "enmeshed in shadows" mean? Spider-webs? Lots of
> enmeshing going on here even by elves.
Ungoliant, Melian, Eöl ... only one of which is elf. Enmeshed in
shadows sounds like misdirection through magic to me.
> [4] There's nothing particularly bad revealed about Eöl until he is in
> Gondolin, after all the Fëanorians speak a lot more harshly than he does,
> but with all the "dark" descriptions, you know he's just going to end up
> being bad.
I disagree. Turgon is most gracious as a host, but Eöl has no humility
and can accept no charity.
> [5] Aredhel must have been willing to marry Eöl although Curufin
> considered her to be stolen.
Curufin is not among the wisest of Feanor's sons.
> [6] This interest in Turgon and Turgon's lack of an heir is disturbing
> and provides another reason why Maeglin has an unhealthy interest in Idril
Yup.
> [7] So we know that they had a falling out. Was that the whole reason
> for sneaking away? I think it's more of an excuse - Maeglin already
> wanted to leave his father and go to Gondolin, and therefore he picked a
> fight about the Noldor so he could have a grievance against his father.
> Was this falling out enough to cause Maeglin not to ask for mercy for his
> father in Gondolin?
Freudian 'kill my father, marry my mother' syndrome?' As an adopted
son to Turgon Maeglin got to be close to Idril, but also it made
possible relations even less wholesome.
> [8] Turgon is a Nice Guy. There is a big understatement in chapter 6:
> "But the children of Indis were great and glorious, and their children
> also; and if they had not lived the history of the Eldar would have been
> diminished."
Turgon is perhaps the least flawed of the Noldor. Thingol, Fingolfin,
and Finrod all have their moments but also succumb to moments of
irrationality.
> [9] IMO this is where Eöl proves that he's a little insane. Maeglin on
> the other hand watches Idril for a very long time, and darkness grows in
> his heart, but he didn't go insane without Morgoth's help.
Eöl isn't insane, just cold hearted. Maeglin is the Judas of the
Noldor, that's for certain though.
Huan the hound
> Huan the hound wrote:
[snip]
> Maeglin is not evil per se, but later causes much grief. Influenced by
> Morgoth but not completely without guilt. I see Maeglin's compulsion as
> greater than himself, he is incapable of resisting his lustful urges
> for Idril. A pathetic character who descends into evil, but isn't
> inherently evil (unlike Morgoth, for example).
I agree with you. However, on my very first reading of chapter 16, I
expected worse from Maeglin than what I later read in the fall of Gondolin.
[snip]
>> [4] There's nothing particularly bad revealed about Eöl until he is in
>> Gondolin, after all the Fëanorians speak a lot more harshly than he does,
>> but with all the "dark" descriptions, you know he's just going to end up
>> being bad.
>
> I disagree. Turgon is most gracious as a host, but Eöl has no humility
> and can accept no charity.
Point 4 is a comment from midway through the summary, before he goes to
Gondolin. You are right about Eöl of course, but my point was that we
could predict he'd do the wrong thing in Gondolin only based on his dark
description rather than based on anything he'd done *so far* in the
chapter.
[snip]
>> [8] Turgon is a Nice Guy. There is a big understatement in chapter 6:
>> "But the children of Indis were great and glorious, and their children
>> also; and if they had not lived the history of the Eldar would have been
>> diminished."
>
> Turgon is perhaps the least flawed of the Noldor. Thingol, Fingolfin,
> and Finrod all have their moments but also succumb to moments of
> irrationality.
I find Thingol particularly frustrating.
--
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
> This is the chapter summary and initial discussion points for the
> chapter "Of Maeglin."
Thanks for that!
I'm a Gondolinophile, and this is where I feel that the
story of Gondolin really starts to heat up. That story is the
fourth big narrative thread in Silm, the others being the
rebellion of Fëanor and the Noldor, the story of Beren and
Luthien, and the story of Turin. The story of Gondolin is the
only one that's "distributed" through the book in snippets in
various chapters.
> When I read this chapter for the first time, I felt that it built up a lot
> of suspense about what would happen to Maeglin. It seemed like he was
> already evil. I actually felt that what did happen was a lot less
> terrible than it could have been. I mean, after this chapter you might
> begin to think that Maeglin will start trouble on his own, but we come to
> find out that Morgoth started it, so Maeglin looks a little better.
I have long felt that Tolkien did an extremely good job at
setting up Maeglin's angst. Maeglin doesn't get along with his
father, and so leaves him with his mother. As a result of that
decision, his father kills his mother, his father is executed
(with Maeglin being given the soul-wrenching choice of whether
to save him), his father curses him before he dies, he is stuck
forever in a place where he knows no one, he is thrown together
with one of the most beautiful Elves in Beleriand and he can't
help falling in love with her even though she is... his cousin.
Sheesh! That's the kind of life story you hear about from
hardened criminals.
There are also points of similarity to JRRT's own
background: both of his parents died when he was quite young,
and he was brought up by a kindly older person in a place where
he met and fell in love with a girl older than he. Of course,
JRRT was not related to Edith, and his love story had a happier
ending. I sometimes wonder if Maeglin is JRRT's picture of what
could have happened to him if he had been prevented permanently
from marrying Edith.
> [1] Aredhel certainly seemed to be "firm of will" like her favorite
> cousins.
Note the echoes of previous themes. The Valar try to keep
the Noldor in Aman, but they rebelliously leave. Turgon tries
to keep Aredhel in Gondolin, but she rebelliously leaves. Eöl
tries to keep Aredhel and Maeglin in Nan Elmoth, but they
rebelliously leave. Ironically, the downfall of Gondolin comes
because Turgon rebelliously decides to stay there.
> [2] We know from Chapter 5 that Aredhel the White Lady liked to ride and
> hunt with the sons of Fëanor but that "to none was her heart's love
> given." None probably means "no elf" but since it's written in the same
> sentence with the sons of Fëanor, it makes me think "none" applies to
> them. That's strange, because this chapter makes it clear that it was
> deviant behavior to want to marry a cousin.
Well... cousin is the outer limit of the incest bans in
many societies, including ours; even cousin's child is usually
considered OK. The Sons of Fëanor are Aredhel's half-cousins.
Still, I think you're right -- it's no coincidence that this
reminder of the limits of the incest ban happens to be in this
particular chapter.
> [4] There's nothing particularly bad revealed about Eöl until he is in
> Gondolin, after all the Fëanorians speak a lot more harshly than he does,
> but with all the "dark" descriptions, you know he's just going to end up
> being bad.
I dunno... he is said to consider the Noldor to be
invaders; he marries Aredhel without the involvement of her
relatives, which would seem at least common courtesy; he has
conflicts with Maeglin and seemingly wants to keep him on too
short a leash; and he smarts off to his neighbour Curufin, who
seems to be all too familiar with this behaviour from him. His
withdrawal into Nan Elmoth, lack of contact with other Elves and
association with Dwarves make him out to be at least a
curmudgeon. Elsewhere, we hear that Eöl "begrudges" Thingol the
gift of Anglachel. Seems like an all-round sourpuss.
> [7] So we know that they had a falling out. Was that the whole reason
> for sneaking away? I think it's more of an excuse - Maeglin already
> wanted to leave his father and go to Gondolin, and therefore he picked a
> fight about the Noldor so he could have a grievance against his father.
> Was this falling out enough to cause Maeglin not to ask for mercy for his
> father in Gondolin?
I think JRRT is painting in brief strokes a deep division
between Eöl and Maeglin. Eöl doesn't strike me as the type of
character that would make a caring, lovable father.
> [8] Turgon is a Nice Guy. There is a big understatement in chapter 6:
> "But the children of Indis were great and glorious, and their children
> also; and if they had not lived the history of the Eldar would have been
> diminished."
Yes, but I wonder what JRRT thought of capital punishment.
IIRC, he was writing this chapter only about 15 years before the
last execution in the UK... it may have been as much as 25
years. (IDHTBIFOM, i.e. IDH HoME IFOM.) As a devout Catholic,
he might have sympathized with the anti-capital-punishment
movement. Just speculation, I guess, but I still wonder. JRRT
gives Turgon the sin of pride (loving too much "the work of his
hands"), which is Lucifer's sin, so it looks like he was not
100% sweet on him.
There are some further echoes of previous chapters. Turgon
welcomes Eöl as a "kinsman", but then executes him; thus Turgon
is a "kinslayer", even if he was not one at Alqualondë (I don't
think we have any information about his behaviour at
Alqualondë). Eöl tries to kill his son, and ends up killing his
wife; thus he too is a "kinslayer". Maeglin refuses to save his
father's life; thus he too is a "kinslayer". They all end up
sharing in the fate predicted by Mandos for the kinslayers
("slain ye can be, and slain ye shall be"), even though Eöl is
not a Noldo.
> [9] IMO this is where Eöl proves that he's a little insane. Maeglin on
> the other hand watches Idril for a very long time, and darkness grows in
> his heart, but he didn't go insane without Morgoth's help.
Yes, it's interesting to trace the paths of evil from
Morgoth directly to Eöl (resentment of the Noldor), and from
Morgoth partly through Fëanor to Aredhel (rebelliousness), to
Maeglin and then finally from Morgoth directly to Maeglin.
--Jamie. (efil4dreN)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
Huan the hound
<m...@privacy.net> wrote in <4h05miF...@individual.net>:
[snip]
> There are also points of similarity to JRRT's own
> background: both of his parents died when he was quite young,
> and he was brought up by a kindly older person in a place where
> he met and fell in love with a girl older than he. Of course,
> JRRT was not related to Edith, and his love story had a happier
> ending. I sometimes wonder if Maeglin is JRRT's picture of what
> could have happened to him if he had been prevented permanently
> from marrying Edith.
Wow! This is a new idea to me, has it been discussed here in the past?
[snip]
> There are some further echoes of previous chapters. Turgon
> welcomes Eöl as a "kinsman", but then executes him; thus Turgon
> is a "kinslayer", even if he was not one at Alqualondė (I don't
> think we have any information about his behaviour at
> Alqualondė). Eöl tries to kill his son, and ends up killing his
> wife; thus he too is a "kinslayer". Maeglin refuses to save his
> father's life; thus he too is a "kinslayer". They all end up
> sharing in the fate predicted by Mandos for the kinslayers
> ("slain ye can be, and slain ye shall be"), even though Eöl is
> not a Noldo.
That's an impressive amount of connections, so my question is: did
Tolkien think all this out over time and add it in?
--
Huan, the hound of Valinor
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
>> background: both of his parents died when he was quite young,
>> and he was brought up by a kindly older person in a place where
>> he met and fell in love with a girl older than he. Of course,
>> JRRT was not related to Edith, and his love story had a happier
>> ending. I sometimes wonder if Maeglin is JRRT's picture of what
>> could have happened to him if he had been prevented permanently
>> from marrying Edith.
> Wow! This is a new idea to me, has it been discussed here in the past?
I mentioned it here a few months ago, and some people
posted to say they thought I was nuts. :-)
As Carpenter tells it in his Biography, Father Francis
forbade JRRT from seeing or even writing to Edith, so that he
(JRRT) could concentrate on his studies. For three years he
obeyed, but never forgot her. When he reached the age of
majority (21) and thus felt free to write to Edith again, Edith
was already engaged to someone else. He arranged to meet her,
she broke off the engagement and the rest is history. What
would have happened if she had not broken off that engagement?
Poor Ronald.
Dirk Thierbach
> There are some further echoes of previous chapters. Turgon
> welcomes Eöl as a "kinsman", but then executes him; thus Turgon
> think we have any information about his behaviour at
> wife; thus he too is a "kinslayer". Maeglin refuses to save his
> father's life; thus he too is a "kinslayer".
I think one must make a difference between "kinslaying" as in
*attacking* one's own relatives (unrightfully), and on the other hand
executing someone (even if related) as punishment with the lawful
authority to do so (which Turgon seems to have).
There's also a difference between desperation, and in desperation
trying to kill close family (that still happens today, the newspapers
are full of "man kills his family, and then commits suicide"
stories), and "kinslaying" in the above sense.
Finally, there's definitely a difference between "refusing to save
someone's life" (out of pity, or whatever), and wilfully attacking
somebody.
So while all these cases are related in the aspect that relatives are
killed, the circumstances are quite different.
One should also keep in mind that especially the silmarillion stories
are heavily influenced by the sagas, which have their own concept
of morals.
- Dirk
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
>> There are some further echoes of previous chapters. Turgon
>> welcomes Eöl as a "kinsman", but then executes him; thus Turgon
>> think we have any information about his behaviour at
>> wife; thus he too is a "kinslayer". Maeglin refuses to save his
>> father's life; thus he too is a "kinslayer".
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
> I think one must make a difference between "kinslaying" as in
> *attacking* one's own relatives (unrightfully), and on the other hand
> executing someone (even if related) as punishment with the lawful
> authority to do so (which Turgon seems to have).
Yes, Turgon (as King of Gondolin) has the authority to
execute Eöl. When Aredhel dies, Eöl "finds no mercy" from
Turgon. But this is the Tolkien that wrote "It was Pity that
stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need."
Turgon doesn't really *have* to execute Eöl; he could keep him
imprisoned and try to reform him, as Gandalf did with Gollum.
I think Tolkien is trying to point out that Turgon has made
a moral choice that causes the death of someone he has claimed
as a kinsman. It's a case of someone's words tripping him up,
as for instance happens to the Sons of Fëanor. Whatever he did
at Alqualondë, Turgon can no longer claim in perfect truth never
to have slain a kinsman. You make a good point that the
Silmarillion stories are influenced by the morality of the
sagas, but perhaps Tolkien is partly criticizing that morality too.
> There's also a difference between desperation, and in desperation
> trying to kill close family (that still happens today, the newspapers
> are full of "man kills his family, and then commits suicide"
> stories), and "kinslaying" in the above sense.
> Finally, there's definitely a difference between "refusing to save
> someone's life" (out of pity, or whatever), and wilfully attacking
> somebody.
I agree; none of the choices made are equal to the
deliberate and rapacious kinslaying at Alqualondë, or for
instance the attack on Dior, Elured and Elurin by the Sons of
Fëanor. But they are still moral choices that kill kinsmen,
whether or not desperation or some moral choice is motivating
it. Turgon's choice in particular indicates that he isn't
perfect, and it foreshadows his failings that later lead to his
downfall.
Dirk Thierbach
> Yes, Turgon (as King of Gondolin) has the authority to
> execute Eöl. When Aredhel dies, Eöl "finds no mercy" from
> Turgon. But this is the Tolkien that wrote "It was Pity that
> stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need."
> Turgon doesn't really *have* to execute Eöl; he could keep him
> imprisoned and try to reform him, as Gandalf did with Gollum.
The "pity and mercy" theme comes from Tolkiens Christian background,
while (as said) the SIL is mostly influenced by the style of the
sagas. Yes, they don't mix well. One shouldn't expect consistency
in all points.
> I think Tolkien is trying to point out that Turgon has made
> a moral choice that causes the death of someone he has claimed
> as a kinsman.
Why should he? Turgon has shown generosity in accepting Eol as
"kinsman" (with all of the status that this implies). Eol has
more or less rejected that (rather impolite), and in the end
killed Turgons sister (who was the reason that Eol became "kin"
in the first place). The punishment for this death is death,
according to saga-style morals. End of story. No "kinslaying"
involved.
> It's a case of someone's words tripping him up, as for instance
> happens to the Sons of Fëanor.
I don't think so.
> Whatever he did at Alqualondë, Turgon can no longer claim in
> perfect truth never to have slain a kinsman.
But the point is not to be able claim that. The point is that
attacking innocent people is unjust, and that attacking close
relatives unjustly is even worse. That's what makes it a "hideous
crime", and this unjust deed comes back later to haunt the murders
(again, saga-style). Turgon however wasn't unjust, he was only
doing his duty as supreme judge.
> I agree; none of the choices made are equal to the
> deliberate and rapacious kinslaying at Alqualondë, or for
> instance the attack on Dior, Elured and Elurin by the Sons of
> Fëanor. But they are still moral choices that kill kinsmen, [...]
Yes, but so what? As said above, that's not the important point.
> Turgon's choice in particular indicates that he isn't
> perfect, and it foreshadows his failings that later lead to his
> downfall.
I don't think that this particular choice affects the downfall in
any way. Look at Ulmo's prophecy:
And Ulmo warned Turgon that he also lay under the Doom of Mandos, which Ulmo
had no power to remove. 'Thus it may come to pass,' he said, 'that the curse
of the Noldor shall find thee too ere the end, and treason awake within thy
walls. Then they shall be in peril of fire. But if this peril draweth nigh
indeed, then even from Nevrast one shall come to warn thee, and from him
beyond ruin and fire hope shall be born for Elves and Men.
Now look what happens when Tour comes to Gondolin:
[Tour] gave warning to Turgon that the Curse of Mandos now hastened to
its fulfilment, when all the works of the Noldor should perish; and he
bade him depart, and abandon the fair and mighty city that he had
built, and go down Sirion to the sea.
[...] But Turgon was become proud, and Gondolin as beautiful as a
memory of Elven Tirion, and he trusted still in its secret and
impregnable strength, though even a Vala should gainsay it; and after
the Nirnaeth Arnoediad the people of that city desired never again to
mingle in the woes of Elves and Men without, nor to return through
dread and danger into the West.
So (as in many other cases) the fault of Turgon is his pride in rejecting
the advice of Ulmo. Not that fact that he put Eol to a just death sentence,
relative or not. One may argue that Turgon shouldn't have accepted
Maeglin, but Maeglin would have probably betrayed Turgon in any case.
- Dirk
Emma Pease
>> Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> There are some further echoes of previous chapters. Turgon
>>> welcomes Eöl as a "kinsman", but then executes him; thus Turgon
>>> is a "kinslayer", even if he was not one at Alqualondë (I don't
>>> think we have any information about his behaviour at
>>> Alqualondë). Eöl tries to kill his son, and ends up killing his
>>> wife; thus he too is a "kinslayer". Maeglin refuses to save his
>>> father's life; thus he too is a "kinslayer".
>
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>> I think one must make a difference between "kinslaying" as in
>> *attacking* one's own relatives (unrightfully), and on the other hand
>> executing someone (even if related) as punishment with the lawful
>> authority to do so (which Turgon seems to have).
>
> Yes, Turgon (as King of Gondolin) has the authority to
> execute Eöl. When Aredhel dies, Eöl "finds no mercy" from
> Turgon. But this is the Tolkien that wrote "It was Pity that
> stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need."
> Turgon doesn't really *have* to execute Eöl; he could keep him
> imprisoned and try to reform him, as Gandalf did with Gollum.
Was this the first execution of elf by elf? Did Turgon have the
authority? I suspect no Eldar, king or otherwise, in the West had the
authority (and would the Valar have ordered an execution?).
Shanahan
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>> I think one must make a difference between "kinslaying" as in
>> *attacking* one's own relatives (unrightfully), and on the other hand
>> executing someone (even if related) as punishment with the lawful
>> authority to do so (which Turgon seems to have).
>
> Yes, Turgon (as King of Gondolin) has the authority to
> execute Eöl. When Aredhel dies, Eöl "finds no mercy" from
> Turgon. But this is the Tolkien that wrote "It was Pity that
> stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need."
> Turgon doesn't really *have* to execute Eöl; he could keep him
> imprisoned and try to reform him, as Gandalf did with Gollum.
> I think Tolkien is trying to point out that Turgon has made
> a moral choice that causes the death of someone he has claimed
> as a kinsman. It's a case of someone's words tripping him up,
> as for instance happens to the Sons of Fëanor. Whatever he did
> at Alqualondë, Turgon can no longer claim in perfect truth never
> to have slain a kinsman. You make a good point that the
> Silmarillion stories are influenced by the morality of the
> sagas, but perhaps Tolkien is partly criticizing that morality too.
Oh, definitely. In Silm., I see a real pull between the 'pagan' Tolkien
who was transported by The Kalevala, the Eddas, etc.; and the Catholic
Tolkien. It's there in the pull between Doom/Fate/Destiny and Free Will.
As someone else noted a short while ago, there's darn little Free Will
in /The Silmarillion/ . But there is a powerful sense of Doom.
I believe that's why Ulmo is so important. He is the placemarker for
Free Will; he holds open the crack in the wall of Doom. And the Catholic
Tolkien had to represent free will in this "cycle of stories set in an
Elfinesse of my own imagination". I think if he'd been a Protestant or
an atheist, there would have been no need for a character like Ulmo, and
predestination would have an even larger role in Silm. than it does now.
(Ulmo vs. Mandos, the Catholic and the Calvinist. I love thinking of
Mandos as the lone Calvinist among the Valar.)
- Ciaran S., the Wrackspurt
------------------------------
I float in through your ears and make
your brain go fuzzy.
Stan Brown
> Turgon
> welcomes Eöl as a "kinsman", but then executes him; thus Turgon
> is a "kinslayer", even if he was not one at Alqualondë (I don't
> think we have any information about his behaviour at
> Alqualondë). Eöl tries to kill his son, and ends up killing his
> wife; thus he too is a "kinslayer". Maeglin refuses to save his
> father's life; thus he too is a "kinslayer". They all end up
> sharing in the fate predicted by Mandos for the kinslayers
> ("slain ye can be, and slain ye shall be"), even though Eöl is
> not a Noldo.
"You put your worst cause last and in the chief place," as Thorin
said to Bard. In no sense can someone be considered a murderer who
refuses to save a life. Maeglin didn't kill his father. Furthermore,
I don't even think it's fair to say he "refuses to save his father's
life". We have no particular reason to think that Turgon would have
granted Maeglin's prayer for mercy for a murderer, even if he had
made one; and why should Maeglin have prayed mercy for the man who
killed his mother?
Now for Eöl: He was a murderer, clearly enough.
Turgon, on the other hand, was not -- unless any judge who orders an
execution is a murderer. Whatever we may think about capital
punishment today, I think we must accept that murderers deserved
death in legendary times. A judge who carries out the law and orders
an execution is in no sense a murderer.
Finally, Turgon's hailing Eöl as "kinsman" was perhaps mere
politeness. Remember that Aredhel was taken to wife at least partly
against her will. As Curufin said, "those who steal the daughters of
the Noldor and wed them without gift or leave do not gain kinship
with their kin."
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins 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
er...@swva.net
I have two points: First, Aredhel did not wholly marry Eol (I don't
know how to do umlauts) of her free will, but rather tricked her with
the help of magic; all in all, his courtship of her strikes me as a
little dishonest and creepy. Second, I think that Curufin suspected
something of the sort, or at least realized that _saying so_ was a good
way to insult Eol, and we know from his days in Nargothrond that
Curufin had a sharp and nasty tongue.
(snip)
Eric Root
Taemon
> Turgon, on the other hand, was not -- unless any judge who orders
> an execution is a murderer. Whatever we may think about capital
> punishment today, I think we must accept that murderers deserved
> death in legendary times.
They didn't deserve it any more or less than today. But in those
times, there where no better ways to deal with them.
> A judge who carries out the law and
> orders an execution is in no sense a murderer.
With that, I agree.
T.
Phlip
>> A judge who carries out the law and
>> orders an execution is in no sense a murderer.
>
> With that, I agree.
"I was just following orders!"
--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Huan the hound
<MPG.1f194bf9a...@news.individual.net>:
> life". We have no particular reason to think that Turgon would have
> granted Maeglin's prayer for mercy for a murderer, even if he had
> made one; and why should Maeglin have prayed mercy for the man who
> killed his mother?
It is true that Turon and Maeglin had only just been introduced to each
other. Turgon wouldn't have any reason to be persuaded by this stranger,
and Maeglin wouldn't have any reason to expect him to.
--
Odysseus
er...@swva.net wrote:
<snip>
>
> [...] Eol (I don't know how to do umlauts) [...]
The pair of dots on the O in Eöl is properly called a "diaeresis"; as in
English and French, the marked vowel is pronounced separately from its
neighbour instead of their being combined in a diphthong. Among
philologists the meaning of "umlaut" is restricted to a phonetic
modification of certain vowels in languages such as German; I don't
believe Elvish exhibits it.
"Umlaut" has become the more common term for the mark in popular and
non-linguistic technical contexts such as the HTML "entity" names for
non-ASCII characters, but I very much doubt Tolkien would have approved
of this development.
--
Odysseus
Derek Broughton
LOL. Which gets the poster no closer to doing umlauts or diareses (?).
Just cut & paste: Eöl. Different systems have different ways to do foreign
accents, more or less easily, but in most cases I find it's easiest to just
cut & paste, as I'm hardly likely to be the person who introduces the
accent, just responding to someone using one.
--
derek
Michael Ikeda
news:7c28o3-...@news.pointerstop.ca:
> LOL. Which gets the poster no closer to doing umlauts or
> diareses (?). Just cut & paste: Eöl. Different systems have
> different ways to do foreign accents, more or less easily, but
> in most cases I find it's easiest to just cut & paste, as I'm
> hardly likely to be the person who introduces the accent, just
> responding to someone using one.
Getting back to the chapter discussion...
One thing that occurs to me is that Turgon seems to order Eöl's death
in part out of vengeance. And that sort of thing often is Not a Good
Idea in the Tolkienverse. One might say that mercy seems to tend to
send positive ripples while vengeance often tends to send negative
ripples.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
J.G. Ballard
"Shanahan" <pog...@bluefrog.com> wrote:
> I believe that's why Ulmo is so important. He is the placemarker for
> Free Will; he holds open the crack in the wall of Doom. And the Catholic
> Tolkien had to represent free will in this "cycle of stories set in an
> Elfinesse of my own imagination". I think if he'd been a Protestant or
> an atheist, there would have been no need for a character like Ulmo, and
> predestination would have an even larger role in Silm. than it does now.
> (Ulmo vs. Mandos, the Catholic and the Calvinist. I love thinking of
> Mandos as the lone Calvinist among the Valar.)
Just remember that there are a *lot* of non-Calvinist protestants (the
rather large Methodists congregations spring to mind, but there are
others). But I do like the idea of Mandos as being the
predestinationist Calvinist.
J.G.B.
Shanahan
news:jgballar-keinspam-B...@netnews.insightbb.com...
Quite right. I was demonstrating my ignorance of Protestantism. Do
Methodists not believe in predestination?
At times Ulmo reminds me of the god/desses in Homer, what with the
direct interference in human affairs. Does anyone know of an Ulmo
analogue in Northern mythologies? I'm curious to know if Tolkien based
him at all on a preexisting god.
- Ciaran S.
-----------------------
mooreeffoc
Dirk Thierbach
>> Just remember that there are a *lot* of non-Calvinist protestants (the
>> rather large Methodists congregations spring to mind, but there are
>> others). But I do like the idea of Mandos as being the
>> predestinationist Calvinist.
> Quite right. I was demonstrating my ignorance of Protestantism. Do
> Methodists not believe in predestination?
There aren't any methodists here that I know of, but none of the major
protestant churches here in Germany (which are only different in
details, anyway) believe in predestination. After all, they have their
origin in Luther, not in Calvin :-)
- Dirk
Derek Broughton
> "J.G. Ballard" <jgballar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jgballar-keinspam-B...@netnews.insightbb.com...
>>
>> Just remember that there are a *lot* of non-Calvinist protestants (the
>> rather large Methodists congregations spring to mind, but there are
>> others). But I do like the idea of Mandos as being the
>> predestinationist Calvinist.
>
> Quite right. I was demonstrating my ignorance of Protestantism. Do
> Methodists not believe in predestination?
The problem with categorizing protestants is that there's no single source
of authority. That's why I originally used the term "Calvinist" rather
than any particular protestant creed. There's no "Church of Calvin" but he
had a huge influence on many protestant denominations. I don't know what
Methodists believe - even though my father grew up Methodist - but many
members of the United Church of Canada (which was made up of Methodists,
Congregationalists and some Presbyterians) are Calvinist.
--
derek
Huan the hound
<e8v33...@enews3.newsguy.com>:
> Quite right. I was demonstrating my ignorance of Protestantism. Do
> Methodists not believe in predestination?
John Wesley promoted Arminianism, so I guess that is the reason that
Methodist doctrine went that way, although the famous revival preacher
George Whitfield was Calvinist.
But there's no accounting for what any individual Methodist will believe. :-)
--
Huan, the Methodist
Troels Forchhammer
Emma Pease <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> enriched us with:
> In article <_Xcqg.25$BZ1...@fe06.lga>, Huan the hound wrote:
>>
>> This is the chapter summary and initial discussion points for the
>> chapter "Of Maeglin."
<snip>
>> [2] We know from Chapter 5 that Aredhel the White Lady liked to
>> ride and hunt with the sons of Fëanor but that "to none was her
>> heart's love given." None probably means "no elf" but since it's
>> written in the same sentence with the sons of Fëanor, it makes me
>> think "none" applies to them. That's strange, because this
>> chapter makes it clear that it was deviant behavior to want to
>> marry a cousin.
>
> Well Fëanor's sons were actually half cousins (they shared a
> common grandfather but not a common grandmother), perhaps that was
> distant enough to make them legit marriage partners.
At some point, in one of the versions of the Maeglin texts, Tolkien had
Eöl refer to Curufin as 'Nephew'. CT makes a point of this comment in
HoMe 11 (/The War of the Jewels/), in the section titled 'Maeglin'.
This narrative is followed by various notes. One of these
is a genealogical table:
Míriel = Finwë = Indis
| |
Fëanor Turgon, Aradhel = Eöl
| |
Curufin Maeglin
To this is added: 'So Curufin was half-nephew of Turgon
and Areðel. Eöl was uncle by marriage of Curufin, but that
was denied as a "forced marriage".' This genealogy is the
basis for Eöl's words cited under §22 above, 'to find one's
nephew so kindly at need'; but it is of course entirely
wrong. The correct genealogy is:
Míriel = Finwë = Indis
| |
Fëanor Fingolfin
| |
Curufin Turgon, Aradhel = Eöl
Curufin was not Eöl's nephew (through Areðel), but his
cousin (by marriage). It is a strange error, one might say
unprecedented, since it is not a mere casual slip.
Not that this really matters terribly, except, perhaps, to show that
Tolkien himself occasionally got things turned about ;)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.
- Albert Einstein (1875-1955)
Phlip
> But there's no accounting for what any individual Methodist will believe.
> :-)
Ooh, I can't find the lyrics to Fish Karma's "Baby, Let's Be Methodists
Tonight" on the 'net!
From memory:
- and I'll track a local sports team
and pretend their destiny is somehow wrapped up with mine!
- if they win I'll get excited and I'll drink a lot of beer
- if they loose I'll get depressed and then I'll drink a lot of beer!
And so on...
--
Phlip
Troels Forchhammer
Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> One thing that occurs to me is that Turgon seems to order Eöl's
> death in part out of vengeance.
There's some extra information in HoMe that didn't make it into the
published version of the Silm that is pertains to this question.
> And that sort of thing often is Not a Good Idea in the Tolkienverse.
That's putting it very mildly ;-)
But on to the information. Everything is from /The War of the Jewels/
(HoMe 11), 3,III 'Maeglin'.
Commenting the meeting between Eöl and Curufin, in particular Curufin's
parting shot containing, "By the laws of the Eldar I may not slay you
at this time", CT notes that his father had put a footnote in the
original:
Because the Eldar (which included the Sindar) were
forbidden to slay one another in revenge for any grievance
however great. Also at this time Eöl had ridden towards
Aglon with no ill intent, and it was not unjust that he
should seek news of Areðel and Maeglin.
So, to the Eldar, and definitely to Turgon, it was expressly forbidden
by the law to slay Eöl in revenge. As you note this makes the execution
of Eöl somewhat problematic, even if the Gondolindrim (with the
exception of Idril) agreed with. However, there are extenuating
circumstances; the manner in which Eöl killed Aredhel using poison was
shocking to all involved. Regarding the paragraph describing Aredhel's
death, "It was appointed that Eöl should be brought . . .", CT tells us
that "at the end of the paragraph my father added:"
For the Eldar never used any poison, not even against
their most cruel enemies, beast, ork, or man; and they
were filled with shame and horror that Eöl should have
meditated this evil deed.
So I suppose that the slaying of Eöl technically is a punishment for
the use of poison, but, though I am very far from being an expert on
Eldarin law, I suspect that this, too, would be forbidden (any
punishment carries an element of revenge).
> One might say that mercy seems to tend to send positive ripples
> while vengeance often tends to send negative ripples.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
[Matthew, 5:44]
And in particular
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly
Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men
their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses.
[Matthew, 6:14-15]
--
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)
Shanahan
<snip>
> The problem with categorizing protestants is that there's no
> single source of authority. That's why I originally used the term
> "Calvinist" rather than any particular protestant creed. There's
> no "Church of Calvin" but he had a huge influence on many
> protestant denominations. I don't know what Methodists believe -
> even though my father grew up Methodist - but many members of the
> United Church of Canada (which was made up of Methodists,
> Congregationalists and some Presbyterians) are Calvinist. --
> derek
Oh dear, now see the can o' worms! And then with the Lutherans, and
High and Low churches in England, and various fundies in the States
athumpin' Bibles about the Saved and the Damned...I can't keep it all
straight. That's why I was ignorant about protestantism in the first
place!
- Ciaran
-----------------------
mooreeffoc
J.G. Ballard
"Shanahan" <pog...@bluefrog.com> wrote:
> Quite right. I was demonstrating my ignorance of Protestantism. Do
> Methodists not believe in predestination?
Nope. Methodists are Arminian in their theology. To quote the
Wikipedia:
"Within the broad scope of church history, Arminianism is closely
related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share
both history and many doctrines in common. Nonetheless, they are often
viewed as archrivals within Evangelicalism because of their disagreement
over the doctrines of predestination and salvation."
For full details, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism> or
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism>.
> At times Ulmo reminds me of the god/desses in Homer, what with the
> direct interference in human affairs. Does anyone know of an Ulmo
> analogue in Northern mythologies? I'm curious to know if Tolkien based
> him at all on a preexisting god.
I don't know Northern/Germanic mythology well enough to answer that one.
But it sounds like a good research project!
Cheers,
J.G.B.
J.G. Ballard
Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
> There aren't any methodists here that I know of, but none of the major
> protestant churches here in Germany (which are only different in
> details, anyway) believe in predestination. After all, they have their
> origin in Luther, not in Calvin :-)
Well, according to the Wiki, there are *some* Methodists in Germany.
"There are small Methodist Churches in many European countries, the
strongest being in Germany. These mostly derive from links with the
American rather than the British church."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism#Other_countries>
But you are entirely correct that Lutherans are not Calvinists, or
pre-destinationists of any sort. In the words of the large and
conservative Missouri Synod:
"On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the
doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire
to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them.
Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved,
not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and
salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious
operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt.
23:37; Acts 13:46." <http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=569>
Cheers,
J.G.B.
Dirk Thierbach
> In article <2006071107422...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>,
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>> There aren't any methodists here that I know of, but none of the major
>> protestant churches here in Germany (which are only different in
>> details, anyway) believe in predestination. After all, they have their
>> origin in Luther, not in Calvin :-)
> Well, according to the Wiki, there are *some* Methodists in Germany.
There are probably *some* members of every possible religion everywhere,
including Germany. Here, there are just not very significant compared to
the two big ones (catholic and protestant). If there are any Methodists
here, I just never happened to notice them.
> But you are entirely correct that Lutherans are not Calvinists, or
> pre-destinationists of any sort.
Careful. "Lutherans" is often used as the name of just another protestant
variation. Just because the protestant church here historically
began with Luther, that doesn't mean they are "Lutherans".
> In the words of the large and conservative Missouri Synod:
> "On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the
> doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire
> to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them.
That doesn't sound very much like the sort of theological argument
either of the big churches here would make. The "agressive" stance
("convert and save hearers of the Word") is just not practically
relevant (and nobody would express it in that way in the first
place). Which, IMHO, is a good thing, because that sort of preaching
puts me off big time.
Protestants around the globe are just very different, and one shouldn't
mix them up (which was, I think, the original point_.
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
news:2006071207141...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
[snip]
>> "On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the
>> doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire
>> to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them.
>
> That doesn't sound very much like the sort of theological argument
> either of the big churches here would make. The "agressive" stance
> ("convert and save hearers of the Word") is just not practically
> relevant (and nobody would express it in that way in the first
> place). Which, IMHO, is a good thing, because that sort of preaching
> puts me off big time.
>
> Protestants around the globe are just very different, and one shouldn't
> mix them up (which was, I think, the original point_.
In the Nordic countries, which basically became Lutherans because of
influences from Germany (the country of Luther), the Lutheran congregations
(which constitute the majority religion) do not believe in predestination at
all. I find it hard to believe that Lutherans in Germany are very different
in that respect. But as for the aggressiveness, ye be at your liberté. I
have no idea what the attitude to missionary work is among present-day
Germans of any description.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
news:e91m3...@enews3.newsguy.com...
[snip]
> Oh dear, now see the can o' worms! And then with the Lutherans, and
> High and Low churches in England, and various fundies in the States
> athumpin' Bibles about the Saved and the Damned...I can't keep it all
> straight. That's why I was ignorant about protestantism in the first
> place!
If you find Protestantism uninteresting, that is, of course, something you
are perfectly entitled to. They do disagree about many things among
themselves. And then there are the disagreements betwen Catholics and
Othodox Christians, and between the both of them and the Coptic Christians,
and then there are the Nestorians, and the Thomas Christians, and, oh dear.
Congregationalism, anyone?
Öjevind
Öjevind
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
That's why your best bet is to join FATS. For just $450.99 a year, we
will resolve all your doubts about everything.
J.G. Ballard
Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
> There are probably *some* members of every possible religion everywhere,
> including Germany. Here, there are just not very significant compared to
> the two big ones (catholic and protestant). If there are any Methodists
> here, I just never happened to notice them.
>
> > But you are entirely correct that Lutherans are not Calvinists, or
> > pre-destinationists of any sort.
>
> Careful. "Lutherans" is often used as the name of just another protestant
> variation. Just because the protestant church here historically
> began with Luther, that doesn't mean they are "Lutherans".
I'm confused by your use of "protestant." Methodists are decidedly
protestant, or using my limited German, "evangelish." And I'm pretty
sure that many of the protestant/evangelishe churches in Germany are
"Lutheran" in denomination. And the ones that aren't "Lutheran" in
denomination are typically "Calvinist" Reformed churches.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EKD>
But then again, I'm relying upon what I learned in high school and
Wikipedia. You live there! So I'm not in the best position to argue.
Cheers,
J.G.B.
who remembers that this thread had something to do with Mandos at one
point! :)
Shanahan
> "Shanahan" <pog...@bluefrog.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:e91m3...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> If you find Protestantism uninteresting, that is, of course,
> something you are perfectly entitled to.
Oh for heaven's sake, I was trying to inject a tone of light humor
into the discussion. It seems I failed.
- Ciaran
-----------------------
mooreeffoc
Morgil
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
>>"Shanahan" <pog...@bluefrog.com> skrev i meddelandet
>>news:e91m3...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>protestantism in the first place!
>>
>>If you find Protestantism uninteresting, that is, of course,
>>something you are perfectly entitled to.
>
>
> Oh for heaven's sake, I was trying to inject a tone of light humor
> into the discussion. It seems I failed.
And you're surprised that someone protested??
Morgil
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>> Careful. "Lutherans" is often used as the name of just another
>> protestant variation. Just because the protestant church here
>> historically began with Luther, that doesn't mean they are
>> "Lutherans".
> I'm confused by your use of "protestant." Methodists are decidedly
> protestant, or using my limited German, "evangelish."
Yes.
> And I'm pretty sure that many of the protestant/evangelishe churches
> in Germany are "Lutheran" in denomination.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EKD>
Yes, depending on what you mean by Lutheran. As this wiki page tells you,
the EKD (Evangelische Kirche Deutschland = Protestant Church of
Germany) consists of many "Landeskirchen" (regional churches, which
correspond roughly, but not exactly, to the "Bundeslaender"). Some of
those call themselves additionally "Lutheran".
There also also other minority churches which call themselves
Lutheran, which are not part of the EKD. To quote
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheraner:
"Die [...] lutherischen Freikirchen, [...] gehören auf Grund ihrer
starken lutherischen Bekenntnisbindung nicht zur Evangelischen Kirche
in Deutschland."
Rough translation:
"The 'lutheran free churches' (lutherische Freikirchen) do not
belong to the Protestant Church of Germany, because of their
strong lutheran confession".
So when one speaks of "Lutherans" here, one often means the minority
of the "lutheran free churches", which are somewhat more conservative,
and not those "Lutherans" which are part of the EKD.
And one usually calls all of the regional churches that belong
to the EKD just "evangelisch", and it's not really important if
they were originally Lutheran or not, because they are mostly
just "mainstream Protestant" today.
Yes, it's confusing :-)
> And the ones that aren't "Lutheran" in denomination are typically
> "Calvinist" Reformed churches.
I don't know about all of the Landeskirchen from personal experience,
but I am pretty sure that the majority of those is not Calvinist, even
if they are not "Lutheran" in the first sense. And I would be really
surprised to learn that there's really a regional church in the EKD
whose members believe in predestination.
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> In the Nordic countries, which basically became Lutherans because of
> influences from Germany (the country of Luther), the Lutheran
> congregations (which constitute the majority religion) do not
> believe in predestination at all.
Nor do they here.
> I find it hard to believe that Lutherans in Germany are very different
> in that respect.
Of course they are not. I hope I didn't expressed myself so badly that
you understood it this way.
- Dirk
Derek Broughton
> Oh dear, now see the can o' worms!
No, no, no. _Wurms_!
--
derek
(who can't believe nobody else stooped this low...)
Morgoth's Curse
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>So, to the Eldar, and definitely to Turgon, it was expressly forbidden
>by the law to slay Eöl in revenge. As you note this makes the execution
>of Eöl somewhat problematic, even if the Gondolindrim (with the
>exception of Idril) agreed with. However, there are extenuating
>circumstances; the manner in which Eöl killed Aredhel using poison was
>shocking to all involved. Regarding the paragraph describing Aredhel's
>death, "It was appointed that Eöl should be brought . . .", CT tells us
>that "at the end of the paragraph my father added:"
> For the Eldar never used any poison, not even against
> their most cruel enemies, beast, ork, or man; and they
> were filled with shame and horror that Eöl should have
> meditated this evil deed.
I wonder if this footnote was related to Tolkien's own experiences
with poison gas during World War I. To the best of my knowledge,
neither Tolkien nor any of his company were ever gassed, but he
certainly would have shared his compatriots' horror when the Germans
first deployed that weapon. It certainly would have been an
abomination to one who was already drawn to the heroic spirit of the
Norse legends.
Morgoth's Curse
Christopher Kreuzer
> Shanahan wrote:
>
>> Oh dear, now see the can o' worms!
>
> No, no, no. _Wurms_!
No, no, no, no, no, NO! Were-worms!
Laurie Forbes
"Shanahan" <pog...@bluefrog.com> wrote in message
news:e94k6...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
> > "Shanahan" <pog...@bluefrog.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:e91m3...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >> protestantism in the first place!
> >
> > If you find Protestantism uninteresting, that is, of course,
> > something you are perfectly entitled to.
>
> Oh for heaven's sake, I was trying to inject a tone of light humor
> into the discussion. It seems I failed.
Yeah, Öjevind! What the heck's the matter with you?? And now Ciaran will
go and join FATS without even realizing that they've jacked the membership
price way up. (I joined as an infiltrator for only $250.99. They didn't
know what an "infiltrator" was, so I got a discount.)
OK, Mandos .... Mandos .... has anyone said "a mandate" yet?
> mooreeffoc
!seY
Flame of the West
> And then there are the disagreements betwen Catholics and
> Othodox Christians, and between the both of them and the Coptic Christians,
> and then there are the Nestorians, and the Thomas Christians, and, oh dear.
All those differences are trivial compared to their differences with
Protestantism.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.