Plan A, temporary insanity, and lesser Elves

[Jerry Friedman]

Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.

Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?

(Of course, one of the odder things in the book is that Treebeard waits to
fight Saruman till Merry and Pippin come to Fangorn and... change his
perspective or something.)

When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?

The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [The Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?
(Of course, one of the odder things in the book is that Treebeard waits to
fight Saruman till Merry and Pippin come to Fangorn and... change his
perspective or something.)
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [The Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?
(Of course, one of the odder things in the book is that Treebeard waits to
fight Saruman till Merry and Pippin come to Fangorn and... change his
perspective or something.)
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?

But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:51:29 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?
(Of course, one of the odder things in the book is that Treebeard waits to
fight Saruman till Merry and Pippin come to Fangorn and... change his
perspective or something.)
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

Does Tolkien know? I get the imopression that he hadn't himself fully
explored his universe.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:51:29 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?
(Of course, one of the odder things in the book is that Treebeard waits to
fight Saruman till Merry and Pippin come to Fangorn and... change his
perspective or something.)
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

Does Tolkien know? I get the imopression that he hadn't himself fully
explored his universe.

Certainly--in fact fully exploring it would have been impossible. Maybe
he didn't even know whether Iorlas was Bergil's uncle on his mother's or
father's side.

But mentioning an uncle seems in character for Bergil there, and I
assume Tolkien tells us Bergil said it because it's cute. On the other
hand, not knowing tales seems out of character for elves, and I don't
see any reason for him to inform us of this detail at this point.

He goes on to say, "the tales of later Men are confused with memories of
other races", but I can see a reason for that--he doesn't want us to
think of Dwarves as giving Freya a necklace in return for sex, or
whistling while they work. He makes similar comments about Elves.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?
(Of course, one of the odder things in the book is that Treebeard waits to
fight Saruman till Merry and Pippin come to Fangorn and... change his
perspective or something.)
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

But what does he mean by "lesser elves"? Assuming that he's
specifically thinking of the Green Elves of Mirkwood, etc., well, why
should they know? There are multiple layers of separation there

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?
(Of course, one of the odder things in the book is that Treebeard waits to
fight Saruman till Merry and Pippin come to Fangorn and... change his
perspective or something.)
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

But what does he mean by "lesser elves"? Assuming that he's specifically
thinking of the Green Elves of Mirkwood, etc., well, why should they
know? There are multiple layers of separation there

They should know because elves have good memories and long lives, and
they like narrative songs and tales. That's their entertainment after
the feast at Rivendell. The Silvan Elves made many songs about
Nimrodel, and when they thought Gandalf was dead, they made songs about
him. Creation stories seem like an odd gap.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?
(Of course, one of the odder things in the book is that Treebeard waits to
fight Saruman till Merry and Pippin come to Fangorn and... change his
perspective or something.)
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

But what does he mean by "lesser elves"? Assuming that he's specifically
thinking of the Green Elves of Mirkwood, etc., well, why should they
know? There are multiple layers of separation there

They should know because elves have good memories and long lives, and
they like narrative songs and tales. That's their entertainment after
the feast at Rivendell. The Silvan Elves made many songs about
Nimrodel, and when they thought Gandalf was dead, they made songs about
him. Creation stories seem like an odd gap.

I said "of Mirkwood". Thranduil was born in Doriath.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the
lesser Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few
copies of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

But what does he mean by "lesser elves"? Assuming that he's specifically
thinking of the Green Elves of Mirkwood, etc., well, why should they
know? There are multiple layers of separation there

They should know because elves have good memories and long lives, and
they like narrative songs and tales. That's their entertainment after
the feast at Rivendell. The Silvan Elves made many songs about
Nimrodel, and when they thought Gandalf was dead, they made songs
about him. Creation stories seem like an odd gap.

I said "of Mirkwood".

You said, "of Mirkwood, etc." Maybe I misunderstood what that "etc."
included.

Post by John W Kennedy
Thranduil was born in Doriath.

So he was, I gather. Why do you mention that fact?

I'm belatedly realizing that my question may be connected with another
strange thing. When Frodo first hears Gildor and his friends, he says,
"These are High-Elves! They spoke the name of Elbereth!" Why wouldn't
other elves speak that name? Are they unworthy? Frodo doesn't mind
saying it. Could they possibly not know where the stars came from?

[Wayne Brown]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the
lesser Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few
copies of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

But what does he mean by "lesser elves"? Assuming that he's specifically
thinking of the Green Elves of Mirkwood, etc., well, why should they
know? There are multiple layers of separation there

They should know because elves have good memories and long lives, and
they like narrative songs and tales. That's their entertainment after
the feast at Rivendell. The Silvan Elves made many songs about
Nimrodel, and when they thought Gandalf was dead, they made songs
about him. Creation stories seem like an odd gap.

I said "of Mirkwood".

You said, "of Mirkwood, etc." Maybe I misunderstood what that "etc."
included.

Post by John W Kennedy
Thranduil was born in Doriath.

So he was, I gather. Why do you mention that fact?
I'm belatedly realizing that my question may be connected with another
strange thing. When Frodo first hears Gildor and his friends, he says,
"These are High-Elves! They spoke the name of Elbereth!" Why wouldn't
other elves speak that name? Are they unworthy? Frodo doesn't mind
saying it. Could they possibly not know where the stars came from?

I've always thought of the Noldor as the historians and scholars
of the elves (after all, they spoke "Elf Latin"), and the Sindar
as the backwoods cousins who didn't go in much for book larnin'
like those who lived in Valinor did. (Of course, the people of
Doriath were an exception, but that was due entirely to their King
being married to a Maia and the tutoring they received from her.)
Remember too that there were Dark Elves who never even tried to
answer the call to come to Valinor and who would have known nothing
about the Valar and the Maiar except what they heard from the Exiles.

The "lesser elves" would have known of Elbereth (after all, that's
her Sindarin name) but they may not have held her in the sort of
reverence that the Valinorean elves did and might not have mentioned
her often.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the
lesser Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few
copies of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

But what does he mean by "lesser elves"? Assuming that he's specifically
thinking of the Green Elves of Mirkwood, etc., well, why should they
know? There are multiple layers of separation there

They should know because elves have good memories and long lives, and
they like narrative songs and tales. That's their entertainment after
the feast at Rivendell. The Silvan Elves made many songs about
Nimrodel, and when they thought Gandalf was dead, they made songs
about him. Creation stories seem like an odd gap.

I said "of Mirkwood".

You said, "of Mirkwood, etc." Maybe I misunderstood what that "etc."
included.

Post by John W Kennedy
Thranduil was born in Doriath.

So he was, I gather. Why do you mention that fact?
I'm belatedly realizing that my question may be connected with another
strange thing. When Frodo first hears Gildor and his friends, he says,
"These are High-Elves! They spoke the name of Elbereth!" Why wouldn't
other elves speak that name? Are they unworthy? Frodo doesn't mind
saying it. Could they possibly not know where the stars came from?

I've always thought of the Noldor as the historians and scholars
of the elves (after all, they spoke "Elf Latin"), and the Sindar
as the backwoods cousins who didn't go in much for book larnin'
like those who lived in Valinor did.

In the real world, backwoods people who don't go in for book larnin' are
often reverent and good at keeping old stories going. Of course,
they're not elves.

Post by Wayne Brown
(Of course, the people of
Doriath were an exception, but that was due entirely to their King
being married to a Maia and the tutoring they received from her.)

But I'd assume their descendants are among those who don't mention Elbereth.

Post by Wayne Brown
Remember too that there were Dark Elves who never even tried to
answer the call to come to Valinor and who would have known nothing
about the Valar and the Maiar except what they heard from the Exiles.

But I'd think that would be everything. What else did they have to
entertain themselves with?

Post by Wayne Brown
The "lesser elves" would have known of Elbereth (after all, that's
her Sindarin name) but they may not have held her in the sort of
reverence that the Valinorean elves did and might not have mentioned
her often.

Well, /The Silmarillion/ says, "Of all the Great Ones who dwell in this
world the Elves hold Varda most in reverence and love. Elbereth they
name her, and they call upon her name out of the shadows of
Middle-earth, and uplift it in song at the rising of the stars."
Likewise "Mandos spoke [...] 'Moreover it is doom that the Firstborn
shall come in the darkness, and they shall look first upon the stars.
Great light shall be for their waning. To Varda ever shall they call at
need.'"

Shortly thereafter, "By the starlit waters of Cuviénen, Water of
Awakening, they arose from the sleep of Ilúvatar; and while they dwelt
yet silent by Cuviénen their eyes beheld first of all things the stars
of heaven. Therefore they have ever loved the starlight, and have
revered Varda Elentári above all the Valar."

Nothing there about only the High-Elves, but I suppose that could be a
mistake on somebody's part.

It is true, I think, that in /The Lord of the Rings/ and /The
Silmarillion/, the Sindar and the Silvan Elves never mention Elbereth.

Hm. Some readers have compared her to the Virgin Mary. Could there be
a Catholic-Protestant thing going on?

[Wayne Brown]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the
lesser Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few
copies of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

But what does he mean by "lesser elves"? Assuming that he's specifically
thinking of the Green Elves of Mirkwood, etc., well, why should they
know? There are multiple layers of separation there

They should know because elves have good memories and long lives, and
they like narrative songs and tales. That's their entertainment after
the feast at Rivendell. The Silvan Elves made many songs about
Nimrodel, and when they thought Gandalf was dead, they made songs
about him. Creation stories seem like an odd gap.

I said "of Mirkwood".

You said, "of Mirkwood, etc." Maybe I misunderstood what that "etc."
included.

Post by John W Kennedy
Thranduil was born in Doriath.

So he was, I gather. Why do you mention that fact?
I'm belatedly realizing that my question may be connected with another
strange thing. When Frodo first hears Gildor and his friends, he says,
"These are High-Elves! They spoke the name of Elbereth!" Why wouldn't
other elves speak that name? Are they unworthy? Frodo doesn't mind
saying it. Could they possibly not know where the stars came from?

I've always thought of the Noldor as the historians and scholars
of the elves (after all, they spoke "Elf Latin"), and the Sindar
as the backwoods cousins who didn't go in much for book larnin'
like those who lived in Valinor did.

In the real world, backwoods people who don't go in for book larnin' are
often reverent and good at keeping old stories going. Of course,
they're not elves.

Post by Wayne Brown
(Of course, the people of
Doriath were an exception, but that was due entirely to their King
being married to a Maia and the tutoring they received from her.)

But I'd assume their descendants are among those who don't mention Elbereth.

Post by Wayne Brown
Remember too that there were Dark Elves who never even tried to
answer the call to come to Valinor and who would have known nothing
about the Valar and the Maiar except what they heard from the Exiles.

But I'd think that would be everything. What else did they have to
entertain themselves with?

Post by Wayne Brown
The "lesser elves" would have known of Elbereth (after all, that's
her Sindarin name) but they may not have held her in the sort of
reverence that the Valinorean elves did and might not have mentioned
her often.

Well, /The Silmarillion/ says, "Of all the Great Ones who dwell in this
world the Elves hold Varda most in reverence and love. Elbereth they
name her, and they call upon her name out of the shadows of
Middle-earth, and uplift it in song at the rising of the stars."
Likewise "Mandos spoke [...] 'Moreover it is doom that the Firstborn
shall come in the darkness, and they shall look first upon the stars.
Great light shall be for their waning. To Varda ever shall they call at
need.'"
Shortly thereafter, "By the starlit waters of Cuviénen, Water of
Awakening, they arose from the sleep of Ilúvatar; and while they dwelt
yet silent by Cuviénen their eyes beheld first of all things the stars
of heaven. Therefore they have ever loved the starlight, and have
revered Varda Elentári above all the Valar."
Nothing there about only the High-Elves, but I suppose that could be a
mistake on somebody's part.
It is true, I think, that in /The Lord of the Rings/ and /The
Silmarillion/, the Sindar and the Silvan Elves never mention Elbereth.
Hm. Some readers have compared her to the Virgin Mary. Could there be
a Catholic-Protestant thing going on?

Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.
Perhaps some elves had the same sort of attitude toward Elbereth.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Appendix F says, "Of their [the Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the
lesser Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."

[my typo corrected]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Jerry Friedman
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few
copies of the book.

I think you may be confusing the Quenta Silmarillion with "The
Silmarillion" (1977).

Could easily be. Which one did Tolkien have in mind in that passage?
But really my questions are: Why does the reader need to know that the
lesser Elves don't know the origin of the Dwarves? And why don't the
lesser Elves know it? Elves like to tell tales. Sorry if I was unclear.

But what does he mean by "lesser elves"? Assuming that he's specifically
thinking of the Green Elves of Mirkwood, etc., well, why should they
know? There are multiple layers of separation there

They should know because elves have good memories and long lives, and
they like narrative songs and tales. That's their entertainment after
the feast at Rivendell. The Silvan Elves made many songs about
Nimrodel, and when they thought Gandalf was dead, they made songs
about him. Creation stories seem like an odd gap.

I said "of Mirkwood".

You said, "of Mirkwood, etc." Maybe I misunderstood what that "etc."
included.

Post by John W Kennedy
Thranduil was born in Doriath.

So he was, I gather. Why do you mention that fact?
I'm belatedly realizing that my question may be connected with another
strange thing. When Frodo first hears Gildor and his friends, he says,
"These are High-Elves! They spoke the name of Elbereth!" Why wouldn't
other elves speak that name? Are they unworthy? Frodo doesn't mind
saying it. Could they possibly not know where the stars came from?

I've always thought of the Noldor as the historians and scholars
of the elves (after all, they spoke "Elf Latin"), and the Sindar
as the backwoods cousins who didn't go in much for book larnin'
like those who lived in Valinor did.

In the real world, backwoods people who don't go in for book larnin' are
often reverent and good at keeping old stories going. Of course,
they're not elves.

Post by Wayne Brown
(Of course, the people of
Doriath were an exception, but that was due entirely to their King
being married to a Maia and the tutoring they received from her.)

But I'd assume their descendants are among those who don't mention Elbereth.

Post by Wayne Brown
Remember too that there were Dark Elves who never even tried to
answer the call to come to Valinor and who would have known nothing
about the Valar and the Maiar except what they heard from the Exiles.

But I'd think that would be everything. What else did they have to
entertain themselves with?

Post by Wayne Brown
The "lesser elves" would have known of Elbereth (after all, that's
her Sindarin name) but they may not have held her in the sort of
reverence that the Valinorean elves did and might not have mentioned
her often.

...

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
It is true, I think, that in /The Lord of the Rings/ and /The
Silmarillion/, the Sindar and the Silvan Elves never mention Elbereth.
Hm. Some readers have compared her to the Virgin Mary. Could there be
a Catholic-Protestant thing going on?

Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.

Thanks, it's good to get information from someone who knows.

Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!" I see that
Anglicans (who I'm sure would be the first non-Roman Christians Tolkien
would think of), Methodists, and Lutherans mention her in their frequent
use of the Apostles' Creed, and other Protestants must mention her at
least in a Christmas carol or two.

Post by Wayne Brown
Perhaps some elves had the same sort of attitude toward Elbereth.

Maybe even most.

[Paul S. Person]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:32:48 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snippo>

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown
Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.

Thanks, it's good to get information from someone who knows.
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!" I see that
Anglicans (who I'm sure would be the first non-Roman Christians Tolkien
would think of), Methodists, and Lutherans mention her in their frequent
use of the Apostles' Creed, and other Protestants must mention her at
least in a Christmas carol or two.

She is mentioned in the creeds because she is in the creeds.

She also appears in the Christmas story, and at Easter.

But the RC (I don't know about the Orthodox) do a whole lot more. Back
in the 50's, part of the traditional values of creed-using Protestants
was to say that the RC pay excessive attention to her. This was, of
course, part of a general animosity toward the RC -- something those
claiming to want the traditional values of the 50's to return might
want to keep in mind.

But that was then, and this is now.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:33:31 -0700, Paul S. Person

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:32:48 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<snippo>

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown
Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.

Thanks, it's good to get information from someone who knows.
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!" I see that
Anglicans (who I'm sure would be the first non-Roman Christians Tolkien
would think of), Methodists, and Lutherans mention her in their frequent
use of the Apostles' Creed, and other Protestants must mention her at
least in a Christmas carol or two.

She is mentioned in the creeds because she is in the creeds.
She also appears in the Christmas story, and at Easter.
But the RC (I don't know about the Orthodox) do a whole lot more. Back
in the 50's, part of the traditional values of creed-using Protestants
was to say that the RC pay excessive attention to her. This was, of
course, part of a general animosity toward the RC -- something those
claiming to want the traditional values of the 50's to return might
want to keep in mind.
But that was then, and this is now.

There is, however, no comparison between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary,
and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't intend one.

A frequently-sung Orthodox hymn is:

More honourable than the cherubim
And more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim
Without defilement you gave birth to God the Word
true Theotokos, we magnify thee.

Elbereth belongs roughly to the same order as the cherubim and
seraphim.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Steve Hayes
There is, however, no comparison between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary,
and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't intend one.

In Letter 142 (1953), Tolkien replied to Father Robert Murray, who
had compared Galadriel to Mary, with:

"I think I know exactly what you mean by the order of Grace; and of
course by your references to Our Lady, upon which all my own small
perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded. The
Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic
work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

I don't find any mention in /Letters/ of Elbereth in connection with
Mary, though it's possible I just didn't use the right search.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
There is, however, no comparison between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary,
and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't intend one.

In Letter 142 (1953), Tolkien replied to Father Robert Murray, who
"I think I know exactly what you mean by the order of Grace; and of
course by your references to Our Lady, upon which all my own small
perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded. The
Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic
work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."
I don't find any mention in /Letters/ of Elbereth in connection with
Mary, though it's possible I just didn't use the right search.

...

If I may revive this thread-- I suggested that Frodo's remark that
that Gildor's band were High-Elves because they mentioned Elbereth
might be related to the fact that Roman Catholics have greater devotion
to Mary the Mother of Jesus than Protestants do. Steve Hayes emphasized
the difference between Elbereth, an angel, and Mary, a sinless human
being.

Tolkien addressed these comparisons in Letter 213, discussing facts
about his life that are significant to his work:

"Or more important, I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my
stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic. The latter 'fact' can perhaps
not be deduced; though one critic asserted (by letter) that the
invocations of Elbereth, and the character of Galadriel as directly
described (or through the words of Gimli and Sam) were clearly related
to Catholic devotion to Mary. Another saw in waybread (lembas)=viaticum
and the reference to its feeding the /will/ (vol. III, p. 213) and
being more potent than fasting, a derivation from the Eucharist. (That
is: far greater things may colour the mind when dealing with the
lesser things of a fairy-story.)

That's a bit equivocal, but I think it's consistent with the idea that
Tolkien was aware of the theological difference but didn't object to
seeing an influence in imagery and "colour".

Less equivocally but only about Galadriel, from Letter 320:

"I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel.....I
think it is true that I owe much of this character to Christian and
Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel
was a penitent [and he explains her sin and repentance]".

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
There is, however, no comparison between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary,
and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't intend one.

In Letter 142 (1953), Tolkien replied to Father Robert Murray, who
"I think I know exactly what you mean by the order of Grace; and of
course by your references to Our Lady, upon which all my own small
perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded. The
Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic
work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."
I don't find any mention in /Letters/ of Elbereth in connection with
Mary, though it's possible I just didn't use the right search.

...
If I may revive this thread-- I suggested that Frodo's remark that
that Gildor's band were High-Elves because they mentioned Elbereth
might be related to the fact that Roman Catholics have greater devotion
to Mary the Mother of Jesus than Protestants do. Steve Hayes emphasized
the difference between Elbereth, an angel, and Mary, a sinless human
being.
Tolkien addressed these comparisons in Letter 213, discussing facts
"Or more important, I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my
stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic. The latter 'fact' can perhaps
not be deduced; though one critic asserted (by letter) that the
invocations of Elbereth, and the character of Galadriel as directly
described (or through the words of Gimli and Sam) were clearly related
to Catholic devotion to Mary.

It was bloody obvious to me as a 17-year-old atheist-from-birth with
Methodist ancestors.

Post by Jerry Friedman
Another saw in waybread (lembas)=viaticum
and the reference to its feeding the /will/ (vol. III, p. 213) and
being more potent than fasting, a derivation from the Eucharist. (That
is: far greater things may colour the mind when dealing with the
lesser things of a fairy-story.)
That's a bit equivocal, but I think it's consistent with the idea that
Tolkien was aware of the theological difference but didn't object to
seeing an influence in imagery and "colour".
"I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel.....I
think it is true that I owe much of this character to Christian and
Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel
was a penitent [and he explains her sin and repentance]".

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:33:31 -0700, Paul S. Person

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:32:48 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<snippo>

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown
Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.

Thanks, it's good to get information from someone who knows.
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!" I see that
Anglicans (who I'm sure would be the first non-Roman Christians Tolkien
would think of), Methodists, and Lutherans mention her in their frequent
use of the Apostles' Creed, and other Protestants must mention her at
least in a Christmas carol or two.

She is mentioned in the creeds because she is in the creeds.
She also appears in the Christmas story, and at Easter.
But the RC (I don't know about the Orthodox) do a whole lot more. Back
in the 50's, part of the traditional values of creed-using Protestants
was to say that the RC pay excessive attention to her. This was, of
course, part of a general animosity toward the RC -- something those
claiming to want the traditional values of the 50's to return might
want to keep in mind.
But that was then, and this is now.

There is, however, no comparison between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary,
and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't intend one.
More honourable than the cherubim
And more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim
Without defilement you gave birth to God the Word
true Theotokos, we magnify thee.
Elbereth belongs roughly to the same order as the cherubim and
seraphim.

I believe you, and I'm sure Tolkien understood and believed the RC
equivalent. I still think there's a comparison, namely that both are
heavenly female figures who some people (in the broad sense) sing hymns
to and call on. So if we don't dismiss Frodo's comment as something
Tolkien didn't think through (although I consider that a reasonable
position) or as an error by Frodo, maybe that similarity can help us
understand Frodo's comment. Maybe it's somewhat aanlogous to the way
some Christian churches sing hymns to the Virgin Mary and call on her,
and some don't, which Wayne suggested as a possibility. And maybe
Tolkien even had that in mind without overlooking any of the differences
between the Virgin Mary and the higher-ranking angels.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 20:31:25 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:33:31 -0700, Paul S. Person

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:32:48 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<snippo>

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown
Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.

Thanks, it's good to get information from someone who knows.
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!" I see that
Anglicans (who I'm sure would be the first non-Roman Christians Tolkien
would think of), Methodists, and Lutherans mention her in their frequent
use of the Apostles' Creed, and other Protestants must mention her at
least in a Christmas carol or two.

She is mentioned in the creeds because she is in the creeds.
She also appears in the Christmas story, and at Easter.
But the RC (I don't know about the Orthodox) do a whole lot more. Back
in the 50's, part of the traditional values of creed-using Protestants
was to say that the RC pay excessive attention to her. This was, of
course, part of a general animosity toward the RC -- something those
claiming to want the traditional values of the 50's to return might
want to keep in mind.
But that was then, and this is now.

There is, however, no comparison between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary,
and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't intend one.
More honourable than the cherubim
And more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim
Without defilement you gave birth to God the Word
true Theotokos, we magnify thee.
Elbereth belongs roughly to the same order as the cherubim and
seraphim.

I believe you, and I'm sure Tolkien understood and believed the RC
equivalent. I still think there's a comparison, namely that both are
heavenly female figures who some people (in the broad sense) sing hymns
to and call on. So if we don't dismiss Frodo's comment as something
Tolkien didn't think through (although I consider that a reasonable
position) or as an error by Frodo, maybe that similarity can help us
understand Frodo's comment. Maybe it's somewhat aanlogous to the way
some Christian churches sing hymns to the Virgin Mary and call on her,
and some don't, which Wayne suggested as a possibility. And maybe
Tolkien even had that in mind without overlooking any of the differences
between the Virgin Mary and the higher-ranking angels.

I still think the angelic imagery expresses what Tolkien had in mind
better.

From a Christian point of view, Mary was the first Christian. She was
the first (to use Evangelican Protestant terminology) "receive Jesus
Christ as her Lord and Saviour", and not merely spiritually, but
physically too. The paradox of her giving birth to her creator has
provided a lot of material for Christian poets and hymn writers,
reverring to her "womb mor spacious than the heavens" and so on.

The thing about her, the reason she is honoured, is that she is seen
as receiving the good.

Honouring angels is, in a sense, just the opposite, or at least the
other side of the coin. Angels are honoured for resisting evil.

This can be seen in a Western paraphrase of an Eastern hymn:

Still let them succor us; still let them fight,
Lord of angelic hosts, battling for right;

you can see the full thing here, if you are interested:

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/s/t/starsotm.htm

So when Frodo is in dire straits he calls on the name of Elbereth.

And Tolkien was drawing on a long tradition in that.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 20:31:25 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:33:31 -0700, Paul S. Person

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:32:48 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<snippo>

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown
Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.

Thanks, it's good to get information from someone who knows.
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!" I see that
Anglicans (who I'm sure would be the first non-Roman Christians Tolkien
would think of), Methodists, and Lutherans mention her in their frequent
use of the Apostles' Creed, and other Protestants must mention her at
least in a Christmas carol or two.

She is mentioned in the creeds because she is in the creeds.
She also appears in the Christmas story, and at Easter.
But the RC (I don't know about the Orthodox) do a whole lot more. Back
in the 50's, part of the traditional values of creed-using Protestants
was to say that the RC pay excessive attention to her. This was, of
course, part of a general animosity toward the RC -- something those
claiming to want the traditional values of the 50's to return might
want to keep in mind.
But that was then, and this is now.

There is, however, no comparison between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary,
and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't intend one.
More honourable than the cherubim
And more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim
Without defilement you gave birth to God the Word
true Theotokos, we magnify thee.
Elbereth belongs roughly to the same order as the cherubim and
seraphim.

I believe you, and I'm sure Tolkien understood and believed the RC
equivalent. I still think there's a comparison, namely that both are
heavenly female figures who some people (in the broad sense) sing hymns
to and call on. So if we don't dismiss Frodo's comment as something
Tolkien didn't think through (although I consider that a reasonable
position) or as an error by Frodo, maybe that similarity can help us
understand Frodo's comment. Maybe it's somewhat aanlogous to the way
some Christian churches sing hymns to the Virgin Mary and call on her,
and some don't, which Wayne suggested as a possibility. And maybe
Tolkien even had that in mind without overlooking any of the differences
between the Virgin Mary and the higher-ranking angels.

I still think the angelic imagery expresses what Tolkien had in mind
better.

What he had in mind in general about Elbereth, or what he had in mind
when Frodo said "These are High-Elves!"

Post by Steve Hayes
From a Christian point of view, Mary was the first Christian. She was
the first (to use Evangelican Protestant terminology) "receive Jesus
Christ as her Lord and Saviour", and not merely spiritually, but
physically too. The paradox of her giving birth to her creator has
provided a lot of material for Christian poets and hymn writers,
reverring to her "womb mor spacious than the heavens" and so on.
The thing about her, the reason she is honoured, is that she is seen
as receiving the good.
Honouring angels is, in a sense, just the opposite, or at least the
other side of the coin. Angels are honoured for resisting evil.

Interesting, thanks.

Post by Steve Hayes
Still let them succor us; still let them fight,
Lord of angelic hosts, battling for right;
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/s/t/starsotm.htm
So when Frodo is in dire straits he calls on the name of Elbereth.
And Tolkien was drawing on a long tradition in that.

I didn't know that.

Do some Christians sing hymns to the angels comparable to "A Elbereth
Gilthoniel?" (Maybe on Michaelmas, which you mentioned in your
enjoyable blog post on your "secret" wedding?) Are there divisions
between Christians who call on the angels and sing hymns to them and
Christians who don't? I feel sure any such distinctions aren't as
conspicuous as those relating to the attitude to Mary.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:17:22 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 20:31:25 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:33:31 -0700, Paul S. Person

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:32:48 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<snippo>

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown
Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.

Thanks, it's good to get information from someone who knows.
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!" I see that
Anglicans (who I'm sure would be the first non-Roman Christians Tolkien
would think of), Methodists, and Lutherans mention her in their frequent
use of the Apostles' Creed, and other Protestants must mention her at
least in a Christmas carol or two.

She is mentioned in the creeds because she is in the creeds.
She also appears in the Christmas story, and at Easter.
But the RC (I don't know about the Orthodox) do a whole lot more. Back
in the 50's, part of the traditional values of creed-using Protestants
was to say that the RC pay excessive attention to her. This was, of
course, part of a general animosity toward the RC -- something those
claiming to want the traditional values of the 50's to return might
want to keep in mind.
But that was then, and this is now.

There is, however, no comparison between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary,
and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't intend one.
More honourable than the cherubim
And more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim
Without defilement you gave birth to God the Word
true Theotokos, we magnify thee.
Elbereth belongs roughly to the same order as the cherubim and
seraphim.

I believe you, and I'm sure Tolkien understood and believed the RC
equivalent. I still think there's a comparison, namely that both are
heavenly female figures who some people (in the broad sense) sing hymns
to and call on. So if we don't dismiss Frodo's comment as something
Tolkien didn't think through (although I consider that a reasonable
position) or as an error by Frodo, maybe that similarity can help us
understand Frodo's comment. Maybe it's somewhat aanlogous to the way
some Christian churches sing hymns to the Virgin Mary and call on her,
and some don't, which Wayne suggested as a possibility. And maybe
Tolkien even had that in mind without overlooking any of the differences
between the Virgin Mary and the higher-ranking angels.

I still think the angelic imagery expresses what Tolkien had in mind
better.

What he had in mind in general about Elbereth, or what he had in mind
when Frodo said "These are High-Elves!"

Mostly the former, but to some extent the latter. Didn't the less high
elves call Elbereth "Gilthoniel"? I'd have to read it again to make
sure.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
From a Christian point of view, Mary was the first Christian. She was
the first (to use Evangelican Protestant terminology) "receive Jesus
Christ as her Lord and Saviour", and not merely spiritually, but
physically too. The paradox of her giving birth to her creator has
provided a lot of material for Christian poets and hymn writers,
reverring to her "womb mor spacious than the heavens" and so on.
The thing about her, the reason she is honoured, is that she is seen
as receiving the good.
Honouring angels is, in a sense, just the opposite, or at least the
other side of the coin. Angels are honoured for resisting evil.

Interesting, thanks.

Post by Steve Hayes
Still let them succor us; still let them fight,
Lord of angelic hosts, battling for right;
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/s/t/starsotm.htm
So when Frodo is in dire straits he calls on the name of Elbereth.
And Tolkien was drawing on a long tradition in that.

I didn't know that.

The Ainulindale can be taken as a summary or paraphrase of Christian
doctrine on the matter. The hynm I quoted has another verse:

Then, when the earth was first poised in mid space,
then, when the planets first sped on their race,
then, when were ended the six days' employ,
then all the sons of God shouted for joy.

C.S. Lewis had a similar chapter in "The magician's nephew about the
singing stars.

And all of them have as their ultimate source Job 38:4-7:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if
thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath
stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner
stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted
for joy?

THIS, rather than the Virgin Mary, is the background to what Tolkien
wrote about Elbereth,

And I'm pretty sure that he and Lewis and the other Inklings chatted
about such thing when they read the relevant chapters of their works
to each other.

Post by Jerry Friedman
Do some Christians sing hymns to the angels comparable to "A Elbereth
Gilthoniel?" (Maybe on Michaelmas, which you mentioned in your
enjoyable blog post on your "secret" wedding?) Are there divisions
between Christians who call on the angels and sing hymns to them and
Christians who don't? I feel sure any such distinctions aren't as
conspicuous as those relating to the attitude to Mary.

Well the hymn I quoted is an example, and yes, most of them are sung
around Michaelmas -- 29 September in the West and 8 November in the
East.

Of course High Elves probably do so more than mere men!

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:32:48 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<snippo>

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Wayne Brown
Possibly. Protestants know about the Virgin Mary and we regard her
with a great deal of admiration and respect, but we don't talk about
her a lot and don't call upon her for help the way Catholics do.

Thanks, it's good to get information from someone who knows.
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!" I see that
Anglicans (who I'm sure would be the first non-Roman Christians Tolkien
would think of), Methodists, and Lutherans mention her in their frequent
use of the Apostles' Creed, and other Protestants must mention her at
least in a Christmas carol or two.

She is mentioned in the creeds because she is in the creeds.

Hard to argue with.

Post by Paul S. Person
She also appears in the Christmas story, and at Easter.
But the RC (I don't know about the Orthodox) do a whole lot more. Back
in the 50's, part of the traditional values of creed-using Protestants
was to say that the RC pay excessive attention to her. This was, of
course, part of a general animosity toward the RC -- something those
claiming to want the traditional values of the 50's to return might
want to keep in mind.
But that was then, and this is now.

Thanks. Of course, then is much closer to the time Tolkien wrote LotR
than now is.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Jerry Friedman
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!"

There are times when I feel that discussion of the finer points of
Tolkien's opus actually detracts from my appreciation. I don't mean
that anyone should refrain from discussing them, just that sometimes
I wish I could un-read them.

This is one such time. "These are high-Elves! They spoke the name of
Elbereth." sounds reasonable if not examined too closely, but really
the more we talk about it the less I think it can be justified. I
wonder if this is another instance of Tollkien's starting off with
something quite different in an earlier draft, then failing to make
all the revisions needed in the new version.

[Paul S. Person]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:36:59 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!"

There are times when I feel that discussion of the finer points of
Tolkien's opus actually detracts from my appreciation. I don't mean
that anyone should refrain from discussing them, just that sometimes
I wish I could un-read them.
This is one such time. "These are high-Elves! They spoke the name of
Elbereth." sounds reasonable if not examined too closely, but really
the more we talk about it the less I think it can be justified. I
wonder if this is another instance of Tollkien's starting off with
something quite different in an earlier draft, then failing to make
all the revisions needed in the new version.

Particularly since, just because the Author has a character make a
statement, that doesn't mean that the statement is /true/.

Indeed, in some cases, it doesn't even mean that the character
believes it to be true.

This is Frodo's opinion. He may well believe what he is implying --
that speaking the name of Elbereth is something only High Elves do.
That doesn't make it JRRT's opinion; that doesn't make it true.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:36:59 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!"

There are times when I feel that discussion of the finer points of
Tolkien's opus actually detracts from my appreciation. I don't mean
that anyone should refrain from discussing them, just that sometimes
I wish I could un-read them.
This is one such time. "These are high-Elves! They spoke the name of
Elbereth." sounds reasonable if not examined too closely, but really
the more we talk about it the less I think it can be justified. I
wonder if this is another instance of Tollkien's starting off with
something quite different in an earlier draft, then failing to make
all the revisions needed in the new version.

Particularly since, just because the Author has a character make a
statement, that doesn't mean that the statement is /true/.
Indeed, in some cases, it doesn't even mean that the character
believes it to be true.
This is Frodo's opinion. He may well believe what he is implying --
that speaking the name of Elbereth is something only High Elves do.
That doesn't make it JRRT's opinion; that doesn't make it true.

I'd be interested in why Tolkien might have had Frodo make that mistake,
and why he wouldn't have corrected it as he did "Frodo's" mistake about
the language of the Lórien elves.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:06:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:36:59 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!"

There are times when I feel that discussion of the finer points of
Tolkien's opus actually detracts from my appreciation. I don't mean
that anyone should refrain from discussing them, just that sometimes
I wish I could un-read them.
This is one such time. "These are high-Elves! They spoke the name of
Elbereth." sounds reasonable if not examined too closely, but really
the more we talk about it the less I think it can be justified. I
wonder if this is another instance of Tollkien's starting off with
something quite different in an earlier draft, then failing to make
all the revisions needed in the new version.

Particularly since, just because the Author has a character make a
statement, that doesn't mean that the statement is /true/.
Indeed, in some cases, it doesn't even mean that the character
believes it to be true.
This is Frodo's opinion. He may well believe what he is implying --
that speaking the name of Elbereth is something only High Elves do.
That doesn't make it JRRT's opinion; that doesn't make it true.

I'd be interested in why Tolkien might have had Frodo make that mistake,
and why he wouldn't have corrected it as he did "Frodo's" mistake about
the language of the Lórien elves.

Perhaps because hobbits at home don't have much to do with elves, high
or low, and they are semi-legendary creatures.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:06:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:36:59 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say, "These are Roman
Catholics or Orthodox! They spoke the name of Mary!"

There are times when I feel that discussion of the finer points of
Tolkien's opus actually detracts from my appreciation. I don't mean
that anyone should refrain from discussing them, just that sometimes
I wish I could un-read them.
This is one such time. "These are high-Elves! They spoke the name of
Elbereth." sounds reasonable if not examined too closely, but really
the more we talk about it the less I think it can be justified. I
wonder if this is another instance of Tollkien's starting off with
something quite different in an earlier draft, then failing to make
all the revisions needed in the new version.

Particularly since, just because the Author has a character make a
statement, that doesn't mean that the statement is /true/.
Indeed, in some cases, it doesn't even mean that the character
believes it to be true.
This is Frodo's opinion. He may well believe what he is implying --
that speaking the name of Elbereth is something only High Elves do.
That doesn't make it JRRT's opinion; that doesn't make it true.

I'd be interested in why Tolkien might have had Frodo make that mistake,
and why he wouldn't have corrected it as he did "Frodo's" mistake about
the language of the Lórien elves.

Perhaps because hobbits at home don't have much to do with elves, high
or low, and they are semi-legendary creatures.

As I see it, that allows him to have Frodo make the mistake, if it is
one, but it doesn't explain why Tolkien would want him to. How does
Frodo's mistake (with no correction) make the book better? So we can
see how exciting it is to meet High-Elves?

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:27:40 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
As I see it, that allows him to have Frodo make the mistake, if it is
one, but it doesn't explain why Tolkien would want him to. How does
Frodo's mistake (with no correction) make the book better? So we can
see how exciting it is to meet High-Elves?

My point was not that Frodo made a mistake, but only that he might
have done so.

In the context of the original discussion, this meant that the
speculation on the relationship between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary
may have been based on a false assumption: that Frodo was correct.

Are you trying to complete a homework assignment? Or do you just have
an abiding interest in how fiction is put together?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Paul S. Person
On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:27:40 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
As I see it, that allows him to have Frodo make the mistake, if it is
one, but it doesn't explain why Tolkien would want him to. How does
Frodo's mistake (with no correction) make the book better? So we can
see how exciting it is to meet High-Elves?

My point was not that Frodo made a mistake, but only that he might
have done so.

Do we agree that "Frodo might have made a mistake" is a short way of
saying "Tolkien might have had Frodo make a mistake"?

In principle, certainly Tolkien might have had Frodo make a mistake at
this point. In practice, I don't find that possibility an interesting
way of reading the book. It doesn't strike me as the kind of book where
the interest is in determining what unreliable statements are true and
what aren't, or in being in enjoyable doubt. So I do assume that
characters aren't mistaken about matters of fact unless we have some
clear knowledge that they are or we can see why Tolkien would have had
the character make the mistake.

That's certainly not the only way to read it. But if you start doubting
Frodo, who's the source for the whole story, you have the problem of
deciding where to stop.

Post by Paul S. Person
In the context of the original discussion, this meant that the
speculation on the relationship between Elbereth and the Virgin Mary
may have been based on a false assumption: that Frodo was correct.

Actually, it isn't based on that assumption. Tolkien might have come up
with the image of some elves calling on Elbereth and some based on
different Christian denominations' practices in regard to the Virgin
Mary, whether that image is true in the book or Frodo's mistake.
Likewise our knowledge of different Christian practices might help us
understand what Frodo's mistaken belief was. But as you say, it's still
pure speculation.

Post by Paul S. Person
Are you trying to complete a homework assignment? Or do you just have
an abiding interest in how fiction is put together?

The latter, though "increasing" would be closer than "abiding", and it
applies mostly to my favorite books.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?

I think that Ulmo (or whichever Vala sent the dreams) did indeed want
Faramir to go, and that's why he received the dream "often". But when
Faramir showed no signs of moving, Boromir received the dream "once".
Then, finally, they both went to Denethor -- why didn't Faramir go to
him sooner, I wonder?

On the other hand, maybe Ulmo didn't care, and was just broadcasting
to the young men of the ruling house, and Faramir was much more
receptive, being a lore-master. But that again leaves us with the
question why Faramir took no action.

However -- I don't think the Vala or Valar who sent the dreams had
any clear plan beyond getting someone from the family to Rivendell.
Their foreknowledge of the actions of Elves and Men was very limited,
wasn't it?

I don't think there was a necessary connection between Boromir's
presence on the quest and the events you mention. If the Company had
been a day earlier or later, they wouldn't have met the Orc-raid,
would they?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
Three topics that I've been wondering about. The first two have to do with
the way that everything works out perfectly because Boromir tries to get the
Ring from Frodo.
Faramir got the dream to seek for the Sword a number of times, and Boromir
only got it once. I can see why Tolkien did this to tell us about Boromir's
self-willed character. But why did the Valar, or whoever sent the dream,
do it? Did they have a Plan A in mind with Faramir going instead of
Boromir? Maybe with Faramir trying to get the Ring in the same way?
How else could Aragorn have gotten to the Paths of the Dead and Merry
and Pippin to Fangorn?

I think that Ulmo (or whichever Vala sent the dreams) did indeed want
Faramir to go, and that's why he received the dream "often". But when
Faramir showed no signs of moving, Boromir received the dream "once".
Then, finally, they both went to Denethor -- why didn't Faramir go to
him sooner, I wonder?
On the other hand, maybe Ulmo didn't care, and was just broadcasting
to the young men of the ruling house, and Faramir was much more
receptive, being a lore-master. But that again leaves us with the
question why Faramir took no action.

I think that question can be answered. Boromir says, "Therefore my
brother, seeing how desperate was our need, was eager to heed the dream
and seek for Imladris; but since the way was full of doubt and danger, I
took the journey on myself. Loth was my father to give me leave [...]"
As the older, more impetuous, and favored brother, he can overrule
Faramir and talk Denethor into letting him go.

Post by Stan Brown
However -- I don't think the Vala or Valar who sent the dreams had
any clear plan beyond getting someone from the family to Rivendell.

What's so good about "someone from the family", I wonder? Showing one
of them that Aragorn has the qualities of the rightful king? Otherwise
there must be plenty of men from Gondor and Rohan who could contribute
as much as Boromir and could better be spared from the war.

Post by Stan Brown
Their foreknowledge of the actions of Elves and Men was very limited,
wasn't it?

Hm. I don't know.

Post by Stan Brown
I don't think there was a necessary connection between Boromir's
presence on the quest and the events you mention. If the Company had
been a day earlier or later, they wouldn't have met the Orc-raid,
would they?

The Orc-raid would have been a day earlier or later.

I'm going on the assumption that Someone is planning all the
coincidences. The wiser characters like to suggest this; they say
things like "Just chance brought me there, if chance you call it."
(Bombadil on rescuing the hobbits from Old Man Willow.) Paul Kocher, in
/Master of Middle-Earth/ (the only book on Tolkien I've read, goes
through all the evidence for this. If the Valar's foreknowledge is
limited, Eru's is not.

Boromir's presence in the Company is the result of explicit supernatural
intervention, and it works out so well for everybody that I can't help
thinking it was meant to work out that way.

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Stan Brown
However -- I don't think the Vala or Valar who sent the dreams had
any clear plan

[snip]

... which pretty much sums up their whole dealings with Midde-Earth
in the Third Age.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Jerry Friedman
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?

I think the explanation is a lot simpler: they were still the flighty
barely-adult hobbits they were at the beginning of the story.
Remember how casually Pippin dropped the rock down the well in Moria
and nearly brought them all to disaster?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
When Boromir comes back without Frodo, "A sudden panic or madness seemed
to have fallen on the Company." Pippin thinks about it again at the
beginning of "The Uruk-Hai", in case the reader missed it the first
time. "What had come over them? Why had they dashed off like that, taking
no notice of old Strider?" Is this simply justification for Merry and
Pippin running off to where they could get kidnapped and Boromir could die
nobly, or are we supposed to see an explanation? Saruman's evil influence,
which Aragorn and Legolas feel later? Or on the other hand, divine
intervention?

I think the explanation is a lot simpler: they were still the flighty
barely-adult hobbits they were at the beginning of the story.
Remember how casually Pippin dropped the rock down the well in Moria
and nearly brought them all to disaster?

It wasn't just the hobbits. I see I should have quoted more from "The
Breaking of the Fellowship".

"Sam had dashed off first. Merry and Pippin had followed, and were
already disappearing westward into the trees by the shore, shouting:
/Frodo! Frodo!/ in their clear, high hobbit-voices. Legolas and Gimli
were running. A sudden panic or madness seemed to have fallen on the
Company."

[Stan Brown]

Post by Jerry Friedman
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [The Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

Remember that the appendices, like the rest of LotR, were supposedly
compiled by Frodo. He's telling us, in old-fashioned language, that
he tried to find out about the origin of the Dwarves, but the Elves
of Elrond's house don't know it.

I think "this tale" in the quote refers to the tale of the origin of
the Dwarves, not to the whole tale of the Silmarils. Elrond, at
least, was an eyewitness to the events at the end of the First Age.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Jerry Friedman
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [The Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?
And why don't they have that knowledge? It's not like their lives are
too short to get some reading done, even if there are only a few copies
of the book.

Remember that the appendices, like the rest of LotR, were supposedly
compiled by Frodo.

I'd have said the appendices probably weren't compiled by Frodo. Parts
of them certainly weren't, because they concern events that happen after
he left the Shire.

Post by Stan Brown
He's telling us, in old-fashioned language, that
he tried to find out about the origin of the Dwarves, but the Elves
of Elrond's house don't know it.

The source for the origin of the Dwarves is presumably Bilbo's
"Translations from the Elvish", and the "living and written" sources for
that were in Rivendell, according to the "Note on the Shire Records", so
it seems odd that the (lesser) Elves there didn't know it.

Post by Stan Brown
I think "this tale" in the quote refers to the tale of the origin of
the Dwarves, not to the whole tale of the Silmarils.

Could well be.

Post by Stan Brown
Elrond, at
least, was an eyewitness to the events at the end of the First Age.

Anyway, he's not a lesser elf.

[Michael Graf]

Hi!
[...]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Stan Brown
Elrond, at
least, was an eyewitness to the events at the end of the First Age.

Anyway, he's not a lesser elf.

He's not even an elf. ;-)

Michael

[Paul S. Person]

Post by Michael Graf
Hi!
[...]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Stan Brown
Elrond, at
least, was an eyewitness to the events at the end of the First Age.

Anyway, he's not a lesser elf.

He's not even an elf. ;-)

Elrond is "reckoned among the Eldar".

He /is/ an Elf, by the only real test: when he dies, his fea will
/not/ exit through the Door of Night, as the fear of Men do.

[Michael Graf]

Hi!

Post by Paul S. Person

Post by Michael Graf
Hi!
[...]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Stan Brown
Elrond, at
least, was an eyewitness to the events at the end of the First Age.

Anyway, he's not a lesser elf.

He's not even an elf. ;-)

Elrond is "reckoned among the Eldar".

Yes, but he's a descendant of Melian as well, and his ancestors are of
human as well as of elven kind.

Post by Paul S. Person
He /is/ an Elf, by the only real test: when he dies, his fea will
/not/ exit through the Door of Night, as the fear of Men do.

Applying that definition would mean that dwarves are elves as well.

Michael

[Paul S. Person]

Post by Michael Graf
Hi!

Post by Paul S. Person

Post by Michael Graf
Hi!
[...]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Stan Brown
Elrond, at
least, was an eyewitness to the events at the end of the First Age.

Anyway, he's not a lesser elf.

He's not even an elf. ;-)

Elrond is "reckoned among the Eldar".

Yes, but he's a descendant of Melian as well, and his ancestors are of
human as well as of elven kind.

Post by Paul S. Person
He /is/ an Elf, by the only real test: when he dies, his fea will
/not/ exit through the Door of Night, as the fear of Men do.

Applying that definition would mean that dwarves are elves as well.

Apparently, I have forgotten the passage by JRRT in which it is stated
that Dwarves not only have fear but also that those fear go to the
Halls of Mandos. Feel free to cite it.

[Michael Graf]

Hi!

Post by Paul S. Person
Apparently, I have forgotten the passage by JRRT in which it is stated
that Dwarves not only have fear but also that those fear go to the
Halls of Mandos. Feel free to cite it.

Now that you mention it: I can't recall whether dwarves are thought to
come to the Halls of Mandos after their death (in halls set apart from
those of the elves), or if it's indeed sure that this is their fate.
According to the SIL, I think second is correct, but SIL is a tricky
source...

Michael

[Stan Brown]

Post by Michael Graf
Now that you mention it: I can't recall whether dwarves are thought to
come to the Halls of Mandos after their death (in halls set apart from
those of the elves), or if it's indeed sure that this is their fate.
According to the SIL, I think second is correct, but SIL is a tricky
source...

/Peoples of Middle-earth/ might be a better source, I thought, but
the index is unhelpful and in quickly leafing through the section
about Dwarves and Men I came up with bupkus. The Encyclopedia of Arda
was no help, either.

If the Dwarves do come to Mandos, they probably have a segregated
waiting room, as Men do.

[Wayne Brown]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Michael Graf
Now that you mention it: I can't recall whether dwarves are thought to
come to the Halls of Mandos after their death (in halls set apart from
those of the elves), or if it's indeed sure that this is their fate.
According to the SIL, I think second is correct, but SIL is a tricky
source...

/Peoples of Middle-earth/ might be a better source, I thought, but
the index is unhelpful and in quickly leafing through the section
about Dwarves and Men I came up with bupkus. The Encyclopedia of Arda
was no help, either.
If the Dwarves do come to Mandos, they probably have a segregated
waiting room, as Men do.

In the Silmarillion it says that the Dwarves themselves believe
that Aule comes for them when they die and takes them to a place
in the Halls of Mandos that is set apart for them. It also says
they believe that at the end of world Eru will hallow them and they
will take their place among the Children of Illuvatar. But I'm
not aware of anything in Tolkien's writings that says they were
correct in their beliefs about those things. It seems to be one
of those things that was left (perhaps intentionally) as a mystery.

[Paul S. Person]

Post by Michael Graf
Hi!

Post by Paul S. Person
Apparently, I have forgotten the passage by JRRT in which it is stated
that Dwarves not only have fear but also that those fear go to the
Halls of Mandos. Feel free to cite it.

Now that you mention it: I can't recall whether dwarves are thought to
come to the Halls of Mandos after their death (in halls set apart from
those of the elves), or if it's indeed sure that this is their fate.
According to the SIL, I think second is correct, but SIL is a tricky
source...

To be fair, I suppose we could infer that, when Eru gave the Fathers
of the Dwarves wills independent of Aule's, this is intended to imply
that he gave them fear, but I don't think that is anywhere stated.

If they do have fear, being summoned by Mandos would seem to follow,
presumably to their own Halls, but what, if anything happens next
cannot (IMHO, of course) be inferred. Perhaps their fear turn to stone
and are then used decoratively by the Valar and Maiar; who can say?

To be honest, whatever the fate of the Dwarves may be, I don't think
that affects my explanation of what saying Elrond is an Elf means,
since the alternatives there are clearly Elf or Man and Dwarf simply
isn't a part of that particular issue.

[Michael Graf]

Hi!

Post by Paul S. Person

Post by Michael Graf
Hi!

Post by Paul S. Person
Apparently, I have forgotten the passage by JRRT in which it is stated
that Dwarves not only have fear but also that those fear go to the
Halls of Mandos. Feel free to cite it.

Now that you mention it: I can't recall whether dwarves are thought to
come to the Halls of Mandos after their death (in halls set apart from
those of the elves), or if it's indeed sure that this is their fate.
According to the SIL, I think second is correct, but SIL is a tricky
source...

To be fair, I suppose we could infer that, when Eru gave the Fathers
of the Dwarves wills independent of Aule's, this is intended to imply
that he gave them fear, but I don't think that is anywhere stated.

Perhaps in a rather 'oblique' way. One can maybe derive the essence of
your hypothesis by the words that Eru said to Aule, something like 'how
could you even think of creating independent live on your own, this is
my uttermost privilege!". So his following act of creation, meaning
giving the dwarves real life instead of retaining an existence as
'mechanoids', resembles those of Men and Elves.
Aule's attempt to create live somewhat reminds me of Mary Shelley's
'Frankenstein', and it seems that Aule's Maia are the ones which are in
greatest danger of being drawn to the evil side (Sauron, Saruman).

Post by Paul S. Person
If they do have fear, being summoned by Mandos would seem to follow,
presumably to their own Halls, but what, if anything happens next
cannot (IMHO, of course) be inferred. Perhaps their fear turn to stone
and are then used decoratively by the Valar and Maiar; who can say?
To be honest, whatever the fate of the Dwarves may be, I don't think
that affects my explanation of what saying Elrond is an Elf means,
since the alternatives there are clearly Elf or Man and Dwarf simply
isn't a part of that particular issue.

Indeed it doesn't, I'm just overfond of exact definitions, it seems. Sorry.

Michael

[Stan Brown]

Post by Michael Graf

[quoted text muted]
To be fair, I suppose we could infer that, when Eru gave the Fathers
of the Dwarves wills independent of Aule's, this is intended to imply
that he gave them fear, but I don't think that is anywhere stated.

Perhaps in a rather 'oblique' way. One can maybe derive the essence of
your hypothesis by the words that Eru said to Aule, something like 'how
could you even think of creating independent live on your own, this is
my uttermost privilege!". So his following act of creation, meaning
giving the dwarves real life instead of retaining an existence as
'mechanoids', resembles those of Men and Elves.

And by contrast, Tolkien's original conception of dragons and Orcs is
that they had no independent will, but were simply extensions of
Morgoth. I think he gave that up, though -- look at the Orcs in the
Tower of Cirith Ungol talking about setting up on their own. OTOH,
Tolkien's description of Orcs going witless, like ants, when Sauron
died -- that sounds more like the original idea.

The Dwarves were originally in that same "robotic" relation to Aulë.
One of the most moving parts of the Silmarillion, for me, is when Eru
pointed out to Aulë that they had tried to defend themselves against
being smashed by Aulë, because Eru had given them independent life.

[No One In Particular]

Post by Stan Brown
And by contrast, Tolkien's original conception of dragons and Orcs is
that they had no independent will, but were simply extensions of
Morgoth. I think he gave that up, though -- look at the Orcs in the
Tower of Cirith Ungol talking about setting up on their own. OTOH,
Tolkien's description of Orcs going witless, like ants, when Sauron
died -- that sounds more like the original idea.

If they were mere extensions of his will, they just would have stopped,
like the dwarves did when Aule wasn't thinking about them. They
scattered like ants instead, which means that they did have their own
wills. When the will of Sauron wasn't overriding their sense of self
preservation, they ran.

Brian

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by No One In Particular

Post by Stan Brown
And by contrast, Tolkien's original conception of dragons and Orcs is
that they had no independent will, but were simply extensions of
Morgoth. I think he gave that up, though -- look at the Orcs in the
Tower of Cirith Ungol talking about setting up on their own. OTOH,
Tolkien's description of Orcs going witless, like ants, when Sauron
died -- that sounds more like the original idea.

If they were mere extensions of his will, they just would have stopped,
like the dwarves did when Aule wasn't thinking about them. They
scattered like ants instead, which means that they did have their own
wills. When the will of Sauron wasn't overriding their sense of self
preservation, they ran.

Some of them did, but some of them don't seem to have had any sense of
self-preservation.

"As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their
crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and
purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or
troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and
some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back
to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope."

So they were mindless, but some had enough mind to be able to run and
hide, whatever we can conclude from that.

(It's probably been mentioned here, but as far as I can tell from a
little poking around, Tolkien's description of what ants do when the
queen dies isn't correct.)

[Paul S. Person]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:15:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by No One In Particular

Post by Stan Brown
And by contrast, Tolkien's original conception of dragons and Orcs is
that they had no independent will, but were simply extensions of
Morgoth. I think he gave that up, though -- look at the Orcs in the
Tower of Cirith Ungol talking about setting up on their own. OTOH,
Tolkien's description of Orcs going witless, like ants, when Sauron
died -- that sounds more like the original idea.

If they were mere extensions of his will, they just would have stopped,
like the dwarves did when Aule wasn't thinking about them. They
scattered like ants instead, which means that they did have their own
wills. When the will of Sauron wasn't overriding their sense of self
preservation, they ran.

I am currently reading James on Psychology (the next-to-last of the
Great Books collection), and he uses this difference to argue (among
other things) that, in some animals, an intact brain is what makes
them clearly act as something other than an automaton. He shows this
by citing experiments, unlikely to be approved by any SPCA, involving
removing parts of or slicing apart parts of the brains of animals.

Post by Jerry Friedman
Some of them did, but some of them don't seem to have had any sense of
self-preservation.
"As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their
crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and
purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or
troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and
some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back
to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope."
So they were mindless, but some had enough mind to be able to run and
hide, whatever we can conclude from that.

Which is why I prefer to think of them as utterly lost after decades
of outside control suddenly ceases. This would be a psychological
effect, and some of the reported results would, I think, be compatible
with sudden suicidal depression, for example. Or even guilt and
remorse over what they were forced to do.

Post by Jerry Friedman
(It's probably been mentioned here, but as far as I can tell from a
little poking around, Tolkien's description of what ants do when the
queen dies isn't correct.)

I have read similar reports about bees, but how old they were, and so
how likely to be accurate, I can no longer recall.

Also, characterizing the queen as a "swollen brooding thing" sounds
remarkably negative to my ears, even though the queen, if "swollen",
is swollen with her unlaid eggs rather than gluttony, and is
"brooding" in the sense of caring for her eggs and young (although,
IIRC, workers actually do that). IOW, I hear it as saying that the
queen eats like a pig and is always thinking dark thoughts. This might
make sense if Shelob were being described, but that isn't the case
here.

But then, the passage cited sounds more like something from classical
antiquity (or, perhaps better, in the style of something from
classical antiquity) than anything else. A stylistic flourish, IOW.

[No One In Particular]

Post by Michael Graf
Aule's attempt to create live somewhat reminds me of Mary Shelley's
'Frankenstein', and it seems that Aule's Maia are the ones which are in
greatest danger of being drawn to the evil side (Sauron, Saruman).

They were the makers, the do-ers, the ones with the most emotional
investment to the physical world. The love of things made,and the act
of making, seems to be a shortcut to the dark path in Arda Marred.

[Steve Morrison]

Post by Jerry Friedman
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [The Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?

I suspect the misunderstanding is the Elvish belief that when Dwarves die,
they revert to stone (presumably forever).

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Steve Morrison

Post by Jerry Friedman
The third thing is unrelated. Appendix F says, "Of their [The Dwarves']
strange beginning... the Silmarillion tells; but of this tale the lesser
Elves of Middle-Earth had no knowledge..."
Why does the reader need to know that the lesser Elves have no knowledge
of the Silmarillion? Does that explain some misunderstanding somewhere?

I suspect the misunderstanding is the Elvish belief that when Dwarves die,
they revert to stone (presumably forever).

Seems reasonable. That's in /The Peoples of Middle-Earth/? I haven't
read most of the books published after /The Silmarillion/. I wonder
whether Tolkien thought better of including that Elvish misunderstanding
but forgot to take out the sentence that explained how it could happen.