The Lord of the Bible?

[Mister Underhill]

Back open for business.

[Bêthberry]

One of the very interesting aspects of reading is finding connections and places where the text resonates with us as readers. This happens as we read. The very process of reading is not a passive 'act upon me text as I empty my mind' but one of engagement, trying out ideas, guessing where things will go, trying to imagine what will happen to various characters, seeing parallels. It isn't an academic exercise in source hunting or breaking apart a story, but a coming together to create greater richness.

This is the pleasure of reading. Sometimes of course our own fantasy takes flight and we can learn how to step back and say, 'well, did I get that right?' Or, 'will someone else be interested in this?'

The point which interested me in Mansun's first post is that I did not see some of the parallels he did. Never in a million years would I see Elrond as he did. And so I posted why the parallel didn't work for me.

This is what I see as being valuable in a thread like this: examining under what conditions parallels apply and when not. I'm as liable as any reader to see connections that might not pertain or apply. I remember mentioning to Estelyn Telcontar the story of Orpheus placed in the heavens as recompense for his great grief over the failure of his guest and thinking this would be an interesting parallel for Frodo, sent West as recompense of his failure to heal. Estelyn said she thought the analogy worked best with Eärendil . Of course!

This is why I think it is less germane to argue authorial intention (although there are many complex reasons for suggesting that authors do not hold the final say on what a text means--philosophical reasons which have nothing to do with denying religious belief, I might add) and more interesting simply to discuss how ideas help us see a text in a fuller light.

Sometimes we actually learn from our reading by making connections even if those connections aren't "there" in the text.

I never thought of Minas Tirith as the holy city, but there is a great deal of cultural meaning ascribed to the idea of a holy city. I think it is a valuable process to consider if that applies to the White City. Maybe in the end some of us accept it and others don't, but surely we learn more about not only LotR and literary/mythological culture but also about how we read in the process.

What holy cities are there in pagan stories? And what trees? Of course there is Yggdrasil, the world tree.

Sometimes our reading can be blinkered--if that is the best word--by our lack of knowledge of other stories and talking about other stories with a similar theme or character or event can enhance our pleasure.

Okay, pontificating over!

[Raynor]

It seems to me that my comparison of Minas Tirith to a holy city (I had Jerusalem in mind) proved rather hard to swallow; I still find it nice (pets it) . One of the things that is interesting though is that MT has seven levels (I would speculate each one has a main gate), while Jerusalem has seven hills (according to the jewish work Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, but not only) and seven gates.

One a lesser note: though not very common, the Christian church has been imagined as a boat also (Noah's ark, as according to St. Augustine of Hippo); in the description of Minas Tirith, we have this:

Originally Posted by Minas Tirith, RotK

For partly in the primeval shaping of the hill, partly by the mighty craft and labour of old, there stood up from the rear of the wide court behind the Gate a towering bastion of stone, its edge sharp as a ship-keel facing east. Up it rose, even to the level of the topmost circle, and there was crowned by a battlement; so that those in the Citadel might, like mariners in a mountainous ship, look from its peak sheer down upon the Gate seven hundred feet below.

I just thought it would be nice to bring this up too.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I wouldn't agree; Odin is, ultimately, a good deity (right?), while Sauron is, for the most part, evil. [I mean, all supreme deities have an aspect which is destructive; but there are certain destructions which are not evil in and of themselves (such as death, which is ultimately, a blessing) while other such acts stem from nihilism, rebellion, thirst for ultimate power.]

No, Odin is Odin. He is good and bad. The point I was making was that Tolkien took Odin's two distinct sides and gave the good aspects to Gandalf and the evil ones to Sauron. Quite 'neat' actually, if both characters are supposed to be equals in terms fo power. Maybe a bit like Odin had had a nightmare where his dual personality had been scrapping with itself?

And on death, I don't think Tolkien viewed it as a blessing, but as an inevitable. He showed that those who could accept it as an inevitable and resign themselves to it could find some comfort in that when the time came (e.g. Theodens words about going to his forefathers), compared with those who resisted it and could not accept the inevitability (and even tried to stave it off!). By no means all mortals found death to be a 'blessing', some of the best even lingered, e.g. Arwen.

Originally Posted by Raynor

It seems to me that my comparison of Minas Tirith to a holy city (I had Jerusalem in mind) proved rather hard to swallow; I still find it nice (pets it) . One of the things that is interesting though is that MT has seven levels (I would speculate each one has a main gate), while Jerusalem has seven hills (according to the jewish work Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, but not only) and seven gates.

I wouldn't take the seven levels/seven hills parallel as good evidence as there are also seven hills in Sheffield (and Rome, but it aint a patch on Yorkshire). I think its much better to think of Jerusalem as a metaphor for the concept of a city or a state of mind, as Blake did.

[Raynor]

He is good and bad.

Well, personally, I find the idea a bit of a stretch, that Odin would be the source of both Gandalf and Sauron

I think its much better to think of Jerusalem as a metaphor for the concept of a city or a state of mind, as Blake did.

I will have to look up what he said

And on death, I don't think Tolkien viewed it as a blessing, but as an inevitable. He showed that those who could accept it as an inevitable and resign themselves to it could find some comfort in that when the time came (e.g. Theodens words about going to his forefathers), compared with those who resisted it and could not accept the inevitability (and even tried to stave it off!). By no means all mortals found death to be a 'blessing', some of the best even lingered, e.g. Arwen.

I would disagree:

Originally Posted by Letter #212

A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one. To attempt by device or 'magic' to recover longevity is thus a supreme folly and wickedness of 'mortals'. Longevity or counterfeit 'immortality' (true immortality is beyond Ea) is the chief bait of Sauron - it leads the small to a Gollum, and the great to a Ringwraith.

And, both in the Silmarillion and in the Atrabeth, seeing death as something terrible is something attributed to the marring of Melkor.

Originally Posted by Of the begining of days, Silmarillion

But Melkor has cast his shadow upon it, and confounded it with darkness, and brought forth evil out of good, and fear out of hope.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth

Nay, death is but the name that we give to something that he has tainted, and it sounds therefore evil; but untainted its name would be good.

Unfortunately (for me ), I am going away for a few days. You all take care

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, personally, I find the idea a bit of a stretch, that Odin would be the source of both Gandalf and Sauron

Fine if you think that personally, and I can see it would be a bit of an odd idea if you find evil/good clearly delineated, but remember Tolkien was one the all time experts on Norse myth, and he would have been well aware of the dual nature of many Gods, and would not have found it uncomfortable. He may, indeed, have been seeking to remake Odin to fit his own ideas. The parallels for both Gandalf and Sauron are found at their most definitive levels in Odin.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I wouldn't take the seven levels/seven hills parallel as good evidence as there are also seven hills in Sheffield (and Rome, but it aint a patch on Yorkshire). I think its much better to think of Jerusalem as a metaphor for the concept of a city or a state of mind, as Blake did.

There's the rub. I don't think Tolkien was suggesting anything special about such a state of mind. He's too much on the natural world's side to be given over to using an urban metaphor for holiness.

There's seven days too to consider. There's seven somethings in Norse mythology too as I vaguely recollect. There used to be seven planets, too.

As for Minas Tirith's ship's keel, methinks the Numenorean link might just have something to do with that design.

Originally Posted by Lal

That's the stuff. Collective Unconscious. Universal truth. The search for an unknowable transcendant truth.

Now don't go forcing your belief in collective unconscious on me! Sometimes an association is just an association.

On the other hand, would Tolkien have been making some kind of comment on holy cities, suggesting that ancient things decline and are not worthy of reverence? He couldn't just be puffing up Minas Tirith, could he? And if we're talking cities, we have to consider the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, don't we? But that's the richness of Tolkien. He leads out in so many directions.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There's the rub. I don't think Tolkien was suggesting anything special about such a state of mind. He's too much on the natural world's side to be given over to using an urban metaphor for holiness.

If there's any place 'holy' in Middle-earth it's Lothlorien, where Galadriel flexes her considerable political muscle and creates her own little Enclave; at the centre of which is Cerin Amroth, a Mother Hill where 'love' happens. And the rest.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Now don't go forcing your belief in collective unconscious on me! Sometimes an association is just an association.

Don't get me started on Dark Matter and theories of Time and Light. I've been obsessed with the building blocks of the Universe for a long time (and before Pullman made it trendy, tch). I'll soon have you believing I am indeed the last Time Lord in the Universe.

[mark12_30]

...part two.

Originally Posted by Post17 Nogrod

And because the mind is a big old stew with us 21st century people, it was the same with the prophets and the apostles of the Bible - their minds were already full of influeneces from their predecessors from the previous generations and so on... We humans are the stories we tell about us.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Post18 Mansun

Just a few more examples as to why I think of Elrond as a Christ-like figure. He is a master of healing, & has command of nature in his valley. One might almost say, he can perform miracles to an extent.

Christ wasn't alone in performing Miracles, though. There were plenty in the OT. For instance, Moses had quite a record; so did Elijah & Elisha.

Originally Posted by Post19 Fea

...using the examples you've used, all Elves would be seen as Christ figures, would they not? The essence of Goodness...

Well, that would take Galion the butler by surprise. But I do see your point. That then begs the question whether the race of elves has a biblical parallel. There are, of course, limits to the parallels; but with Valar/ Maia/ greater and lesser elves, one might suggest Cherubim & Seraphim, Archangels, Angels. Your run-of-the-mill fallen angels would then parallel the orcs (hence generally unredeemed-- there's another old thread popping up.) But it's a thin parallel. The angels aren't children of God, but created; they don't reproduce where the Maiar may and elves certaainly do; etc. The place where it persists for me is actually Gandalf, who reminds me of Michael, especially in the heat of battle, and his general job description: encourage & counsel, and occasionally lead. There is a host of stuff about Michael which I haven't investigated-- something I've been wanting to do. Anyone else know?

Originally Posted by Fea

And for those who disdain of talk of religious allegory, there appears to me to be no difference in taking a fictional archetype versus taking a biblical one and applying it to your story.

No rational difference.

Originally Posted by Lal post 20

Morning Star or Bringer of Light

Regarding the refefrence to "morning star"-- a popular OT reference for this is from Job 38:4-7, which I believe influenced both Lewis (Magician's Nephew) and Tolkien (Ainulindale.)

Originally Posted by Job 38:4-7

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Raynor (post 21) follows up on the creative process and the differences between Tolkien's creation and the biblical account.

Going down to

Originally Posted by post 24 Boromir88

It's perfectly reasonable to find similarities and allegories (Tolkien even chimed in with his own at times), but it's the individuality and the freedom of the reader that shouldn't be taken away, by forcing an accepted view that Elrond=Jesus, the Lord of the Rings was written as a 'Biblical book.' And considering that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis' friendship pretty much ended because Tolkien criticized Lewis for writing too much of 'his religion' in the Chronicles of Narnia...I doubt Tolkien was doing the same with LOTR. There were some other reasons that caused strain between the two, but pretty much C.S. Lewis didn't like Tolkien criticizing his books because it had too much of the religious element.

In terms of "too much of the religious element", the big hit I remember from Letters was Tolkien cringing because Lewis had included Father Christmas in Narnia. And that, indeed, is something Tolkien would never have done. However, in due time, it will be shown that Tolkien did not have any problem with religious element-- as long as it was up to the reader to find it, and not up to the author to shove it down the readers' throat. Review Tolkien's distaste for allegory (gesundheit.)

Originally Posted by post25 Thinlomien

I don't see a point in making an allegory only for the case of making an allegory. I'm along the same lines with Nogrod. I dislike allegories, because if taken too literally, they flatten things.

No argument here. The A-word is verboten in Tolkien.

Originally Posted by psot26 Lalwende

Davem says that the equivalent to Lucifer in Quenya would actually be Earendil.

Fortunately for many denizens of Middle-Earth, Earendil did not rebel or fall. (Ooooo, splat.)

Davem (or Wikipedia, or Sauron Defeated) can tell you that this quote comes from the poem 'Crist' by Cynewulf. "Old English Earendel appears in glosses as translating iubar "radiance, morning star". The article says that in this poem Earendel corresponds to John the Baptist; but the leading two lines.....\

éala éarendel engla beorhtast
ofer middangeard monnum sended

......haunted Tolkein til he wrote a story of his own about them. The translation from Wikipedia is:

Hail Earendel, brightest of angels,
over Midgard to men sent

In the New Testament, the one referred to as The Morning Star is Jesus.

Originally Posted by Rev22:16

16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”

Earendil is actually my favorite (and I think the clearest and most connected) Christ-type in the whole legendarium.

Ah, I should have checked the following post. Davem clarifies. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Post29 Bethberry

The problem with this kind of linking is how to distinguish which are the most likely and the most unlikely and what principles to use in making the associations. For example, Elrond is a father and official leader of the Elves. He has fought in wars.

I think that Squatter answered this further down.
Fea (post 30) and Mansun (post 31) follow; agreed...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And what trees? Of course there is Yggdrasil, the world tree.

There is the tree in the Volsunga Saga into which Odin thrusts the sword. Tolkien drew profusely from that saga as discussed on Rune's Tolkien and Norse Mythology.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, personally, I find the idea a bit of a stretch, that Odin would be the source of both Gandalf and Sauron

Not necessarily. As mentioned, Tolkien borrowed ideas, themes, even blatantly obvious situations (Glaurung and Fafnir, anyone?). Why should it be particularly harder to think he might have borrowed a character or a character type? That was my original argument in favor of Christ figures. If a writer can 'steal' a theme, why can't he 'steal' a character type?

I don't remember enough about Odin off of the top of my head to draw legitimate parallels, or I would. If nobody else beats me to it, I might try for it later tonight.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Not necessarily. As mentioned, Tolkien borrowed ideas, themes, even blatantly obvious situations (Glaurung and Fafnir, anyone?). Why should it be particularly harder to think he might have borrowed a character or a character type? That was my original argument in favor of Christ figures. If a writer can 'steal' a theme, why can't he 'steal' a character type?

That's because they're archetypes (epic and fantasy are stuffed with these figures), and shared across the cultures and the ages. He wasn't stealing anything that hasn't already been stolen. Have a quick look up on Wikipedia about Jung and Joseph Campbell (if you don't know about them already, how dare I presume?!), and it'll give you a good overview. That stuff's a revelation, particularly for the aspiring writer or artist.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Have a quick look up on Wikipedia about Jung and Joseph Campbell (if you don't know about them already, how dare I presume?!), and it'll give you a good overview. That stuff's a revelation, particularly for the aspiring writer or artist.

Collective unconscious and all that? Or am I misremembering?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Collective unconscious and all that? Or am I misremembering?

That's the stuff. Collective Unconscious. Universal truth. The search for an unknowable transcendant truth.

EDIT:

Some more stuff about Gandalf/Odin. In Letters 107, Tolkien calls Gandalf:

the Odinic wanderer that I think of.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Not necessarily. As mentioned, Tolkien borrowed ideas, themes, even blatantly obvious situations (Glaurung and Fafnir, anyone?). Why should it be particularly harder to think he might have borrowed a character or a character type? That was my original argument in favor of Christ figures. If a writer can 'steal' a theme, why can't he 'steal' a character type?

Originally Posted by Lalwende

the Odinic wanderer that I think of.

There are some traits of Odin which would never be reflected in Gandalf; I haven't read anything past Voluspa, but it seems to me that Gandalf would never sacrifice an eye, or a human, for the sake of wisdom. He already had it in him, he just needed to rediscover it; moreover, Gandald isn't bound to a bodily form (IIRC, Odin is slain in the final battle and that's it for him, correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't have children, and esspecially wouldn't kill one of his his child Hoth who _unwillingly_ killed Baldr.

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Yes, I know about original sin and such in a Christian context, but this is a situation where the very fabric of Arda has been contaminated by Morgoth. That didn't happen in the bible.

Well, that is a matter of debate; we have the tree of knowledge of good and evil - therefore evil existed at least theoretically. Furthermore, the cursing of Adam ("cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life" Genesis) and the marring of Men are pretty similar, esspecially in their effects on how life is perceived. There is also the fact that the fallen angel offers Christ all the riches of the world. I would also note that Eru's Creation is good at its core:

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed, HoME X

For which reason it is said that whereas there is now great evil in Arda and many things therein are at discord, so that the good of one seemeth to be the hurt of another, nonetheless the founda¬tions of this world are good, and it turns by nature to good, healing itself from within by the power that was set there in its making; and evil in Arda would fail and pass away if it were not renewed from without: that is: that comes from wills and being [sic] that are other than Arda itself.

which is in accordance with the Atrabeth

Originally Posted by Note 10, Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HoME X

'Matter' is not regarded as evil or opposed to 'Spirit'. Matter was wholly good in origin. It remained a 'creature of Eru' and still largely good, and indeed self-healing, when not interfered with: that is, when the latent evil intruded by Melkor was not deliberately roused and used by evil minds.

Originally Posted by C7A

Ah, if only we could ask him!

Well, he did admit in the BBC interview that Eru is God

G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There are some traits of Odin which would never be reflected in Gandalf; I haven't read anything past Voluspa, but it seems to me that Gandalf would never sacrifice an eye, or a human, for the sake of wisdom. He already had it in him, he just needed to rediscover it; moreover, Gandald isn't bound to a bodily form (IIRC, Odin is slain in the final battle and that's it for him, correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't have children, and esspecially wouldn't kill one of his his child Hoth who _unwillingly_ killed Baldr.

Yes, fair enough, but Tolkien calls Gandalf "the Odinic wanderer that I think of", therefore he did indeed have Odin in mind when he wrote of Gandalf. But I can totally see why you would question the evil (or maybe violent, as it wasn't necessarily evil to those who thought of Odin, and some still do) side of Odin, as this isn't there in Gandalf, but it is there in his counterpart Sauron. And the fact that neither have kids (although who knows what Sauron had got up to in Numenor or Mordor?!) doesn't matter, as Tolkien originally conceived (no pun intended ) of Ainur who had sex and kids, so if he had continued down that line we may have seen Sauron's progeny.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, that is a matter of debate; we have the tree of knowledge of good and evil - therefore evil existed at least theoretically.

Or potentially? It reminds me of the Pandora's Box tale, another story in which evil did not exist in the world but had the potential to; in both cases it was humans who allowed it to be set free. In Arda, the people have no blame in that sense, it was there already.

[Boromir88]

I am going to digress way back earlier to Lal's post here:

There is also the thorny topic of fate vs free will to consider, including whether all the actions of the characters are fated (or determined by Wryd, considering the influence on Tolkien, too, of Beowulf), which would necessarily have implications for both characterisation and on the significance of events such as Frodo's acceptance of Gollum.

Indeed it is a thorny topic, and the term 'Providence' is something Tolkien didn't wish to use. I don't think the term ever appears except in some minimal moments in Tolkien's letters. The Oxford English Dictionary defines providence as:

3. The foreknowing and beneficent care and government of God (or of nature etc); divine direction, control or guidance; 4. Hence applied to the Deity as exercising prescient power and direction.

But, what I have think to come to found through the books, is that through Free Will people can change their 'luck', and hence be rewarded by Eru. Indeed Tolkien notes he had been a lucky man:

"I have always been undeservedly lucky at major points."

I think Tolkien would be more in line with Tom Shippey's remarks in The Road to Middle-earth that 'Luck' would be a more suitable word in Tolkien's works than 'Providence' or 'chance':

However, ‘chance’ was not the word which for Tolkien best expressed his feelings about randomness and design. The word that did is probably ‘luck’.

Shippey goes further to say that it is perhaps better to have luck than it is to have providence:

‘change their luck’, and can in a way say ‘No’ to divine Providence

It's the ability of individuals where they can 'change' their luck, and therefor fate can be denied. I'm reminded of the example with Frodo and the destruction of the Ring. Where I think it's quite clearly established through several places that it was Frodo's previous acts of free will, that gained him his salvation:

''Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest hounour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.''~Letter 246.

Here is one of the few times where Providence does appear, and I think there is a providence, or a fate, but it's to a minimum level and can be changed. Frodo was an instrument of Eru, but it was Frodo's free will and pity towards Gollum that gained himself Mercy in the way that his failure (failure to destroy the Ring) was redressed. This is also noted in Letter 181:

’'But at this point the ’salvation’ of the world and Frodo’s own ’salvation’ is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him , and could rob him in the end. To ’pity’ him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He [Gollum] did rob him and injure him in the end- but by a ’grace’ that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing anyone could have done for frodo! By a situation created by his ’forgiveness’ , he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden.''

I agree with Shippey and feel that Luck is a better term for it, than Providence. There is an element of fate, and Eru uses people for it. I don't think it was a coincidence that Bilbo was meant to find the ring (as Gandalf puts it) who happens to be Frodo's heir, who happens to be the only one during this time, as Tolkien tells us with the strength of will to get the ring to the cracks of doom. So in those ways Frodo was 'an instrument of Providence,' but it was his own Pity and Mercy towards Gollum, where Frodo's own 'luck' was changed, and it earned him Eru's Mercy, so Eru intervened and relieved Frodo from the burden of the Ring.

Kind of getting back onto the current discussion. I've found Tolkien talking about the TCBS in Letter #5 to be interesting. And the striking similarities to the Istari:

"the TCBS had been granted some spark - certainly as a body if not singly- that was destined to kindle a new light, or what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world".

When Cirdan gives Narya to Gandalf:

"For this is the Ring of Fire, and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill"

And in Unfinished Tales, The Istari:

"...opposing the fire that devours and wastes with the fire that kindles and succours in wanhope and distress."

[Lalaith]

People have asked about the Norse world view, optimism and hope. Not believing in a conventional afterlife does not necessarily make you a pessimist. Here's a poem from Havamal which is often quoted to demonstrate the essential Viking view of the afterlife:

Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama;
en orðstírr
deyr aldregi,
hveim er sér góðan getur.

Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama.
Eg veit einn,
að aldrei deyr,
dómur um dauðan hvern.

Translation: "Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall die; but the fair fame of him who has earned it never dies."
"Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall die; one thing I know which never dies: the judgment on each one dead."

Now (look Saucie, I'm on topic!) that sounds very Rohirric to me. Kind of thing Eomer might have roared on the field of Pelennor - and he never struck me as a particularly gloomy soul. The other thing I thought about, regarding the emphasis on bravery and reputation, was that Vikings did have a heaven - Valhalla. It was for men (warriors) only, they fought all day and feasted all night. They were chosen from among the bravest of the slain by the Valkyries of Odin, and it was all in preparation for the Last Battle. Theoden "returning to the halls of my fathers", perhaps?
Turin returning to kill Morgoth at the last battle of Middle earth has always felt very Norse, although I know it's not strictly canon. As does the last stand of the Men of Hithlum. So perhaps Tolkien portrayed the Rohirrim, and the Edain of the First Age, in a similar way - a noble but "young" culture, like that of the pre-Christian Vikings.
The other example of despair that springs to mind is Galadriel's Lorien Lament, but that is very different kind of despair to that of say, the men of Hithlum or Eomer in battle, it feels like a more "Renaissance" kind of intellectual despair.

Fea, in answer to your question about the sun: in Norse (and Germanic) culture, unlike Graeco/Roman, the sun is female. She is called Sol, and will be devoured by a wolf at Ragnarok, the final battle. Some people maintain that Baldur was a sun god, and others that Frey (fertility god) was, but I'm not so sure.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think Tolkien would be more in line with Tom Shippey's remarks in The Road to Middle-earth that 'Luck' would be a more suitable word in Tolkien's works than 'Providence' or 'chance':

Shippey goes further to say that it is perhaps better to have luck than it is to have providence:

It's the ability of individuals where they can 'change' their luck, and therefor fate can be denied.

However, the old meaning of 'luck', which Tolkien no doubt knew from his Anglo-Saxon readings, was that the king's luck was from the gods. When the king became 'unlucky', it meant that the gods had 'unlucked' him, and the folk would believe themselves in need of a new king; would kill that one and raise up another one who was 'lucked' by the gods. So 'luck' in Tolkien does not necessarily signify something other than doom or fate or providence.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

But I can totally see why you would question the evil (or maybe violent, as it wasn't necessarily evil to those who thought of Odin, and some still do) side of Odin, as this isn't there in Gandalf, but it is there in his counterpart Sauron.

The "Odinic wanderer" expression is somewhat a tautology (seeing that one of Odin's names was The Wanderer). Sure, we also have the sacrifice of Odin's eye comparable to a certain degree to the making of the One Ring, but the consequences of each act are rather opposite, for the story and the character. And if we do agree that LotR reflects a Norse Light, what kind of Light is that, where men are sacrificed to gods? It looks more like un-light to me

t reminds me of the Pandora's Box tale, another story in which evil did not exist in the world but had the potential to; in both cases it was humans who allowed it to be set free. In Arda, the people have no blame in that sense, it was there already.

I disagree; Imo, evil, as a moral cathegory, existed far before the coming of humans in the greek legendarium; we have Uranus, Chronos and Zeus displaying canibalistic tendencies; many, if not most, of the gods are adulterous, incestuous, and one is bordering cleptomany. As far as Pandora's jar, I would say it contained the _evils_, as in the pains/woes/misfortunes, not the evil as a moral cathegory:

Originally Posted by Work and days, by Hesiod, paragraph 90

For ere this the tribes of men lived on earth remote and free from ills and hard toil and heavy sickness which bring the Fates upon men; for in misery men grow old quickly. But the woman took off the great lid of the jar with her hands and scattered all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men. Only Hope remained there in an unbreakable home within under the rim of the great jar, and did not fly out at the door; for ere that, the lid of the jar stopped her, by the will of Aegis-holding Zeus who gathers the clouds. But the rest, countless plagues, wander amongst men; for earth is full of evils and the sea is full. Of themselves diseases come upon men continually by day and by night, bringing mischief to mortals silently; for wise Zeus took away speech from them. So is there no way to escape the will of Zeus.

I agree with Shippey and feel that Luck is a better term for it, than Providence.

Luck as in favorable, but random, chance? There are various refferences in the works which hint that randomness is somewhat out of the question

Originally Posted by Lal

what incentive would an Elf actually have to learn to do the right thing?

Well, the judgement of Mandos for one thing; if you are bad enough, you may never get a new body. And how many can count on not losing their current one, considering the consumation of their body by their fea (and the marring of Melkor, if there was any around). All in all, the elves are said to be very like the valar, although not as great, so, besides the mentioned "stick", they were naturally good - considering also that none ever served Melkor willingly.