Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Formendacil
Tolkien had Eru and the Valar to reconcile his love for the multiple, Norse gods with his beliefs in a One, omniscient God, who is the God of Catholicism. Therefore, if he is trying to reconcile his world with Catholicism by creating a parallel Eru, then surely it stands to reason that this Eru should, statements contradicting notwithstanding, have the same powers and such as the "real" person on which He is based.
Furthermore, later in life, Tolkien took the time to reconcile "the One" of Eru with the "Trinity" of God (in the Debate of Finrod and Andreth)..
|
Still, Eru is Tolkien's invention, God is not. Tolkien may have been attempting such a reconciliation, but are his readers? My position is that Middle earth should stand alone & not require any primary world input/baggage to make it wither understandable or accessible. Therefore, Eru must stand alone as a figure within Middle earth, & not be dependent on God to be meaningful. Eru may have the same or similar attirbutes to God, but does that come across within the story? If you had no knowledge of God how would you understand Eru? Would he seem omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, involved in the life of His creatures?
Is the Legendarium a 'parable'? Probably, to my mind, but it is not an allegory, in that it is not dependent on, or in the service of, another story - if it was it would not be able to stand alone. As far as the Athrabeth goes, Tolkien himself was uncomfortable with its similarity to the Christian Incarnation. Personally, I think that the incarnation of Eru as predicted in the 'Conversation' fits in with the internal logic of the Legendarium, & its relationship to the Christian story owes more to applicability than allegory, similarity to, rather than dependence on, a primary world event.
He himself stated that primary world religious symbols did not belong in secondary worlds, because they inevitably either make the secondary world into an allegory, or they result in the 'purposed domination of the author'. If Tolkien had made 'Eru=God'. 'Eru's incarnation=Christ's incarnation' then the reader would be 'dominated' by the author's interpretation of the story.
From this perspective, what Tolkien intended is not really relevant - he may have intended what you say (actually I agree with you), but he was also a great enough artist to write his story in such a way that the reader is free to apply a Christian interpretation or not.
So, I'm not saying that your 'application' of God to Eru is wrong, only that it is not an inevitable one-to-one correlation, & that it is not necessary to an understanding & interpretation of the character. I would say, though, that if Eru is only understandable as an allegory of God then the secondary world is not self contained & is merely an aspect of the primary & dependent on it for its meaning & relevance. In other words, the secondary world & its inhabitants are dependant on us to supply the reason for their existence.