The sinking of Numenor - a lesson to whom?

[Formendacil]

If I may interject with my interpolation, I do not think Bêthberry was so much concerned with the particular sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how that was applicable to Númenor, but rather that she was pointing out that in the Akallabêth, as in Genesis, you have the story of a society that is deeply sinful (or evil, if you prefer) and is utterly smitten by God (Eru), with only a few survivors... Lot & Daughters/Elendili.

Interestingly, and tying back to the main question, it seems to me that the Genesis story of Lot's company not being able to look back lest they turn to salt (as his wife did) is applicable to the original question of the thread title. Whether or not this is the point of Genesis, one could certainly say, literally, that Lot's family was not to turn back in any manner. In the same way, the utter destruction of Númenor utterly prevents any sort of a turning back. Elendil's family, like Lot's, can NEVER go back (although it is interesting to note, from the legend of Meneltarma rising above the waves and the many mariners that sought it, that the Dúnedain clearly tried).

Personally, I don't think the sinking of Númenor can be considered a lesson to Sauron. If Eru had wanted him punished, I'm pretty sure that the Ilúvatar could have done quite a bit worse to him. As for Ar-Pharazôn and his crew, they either died flat out or were imprisoned. In the former case, it's hardly a lesson since the dead can't apply the lesson, and in the latter case they probably never even found out.

That really only leaves the Elendili.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If I may interject with my interpolation, I do not think Bêthberry was so much concerned with the particular sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how that was applicable to Númenor, but rather that she was pointing out that in the Akallabêth, as in Genesis, you have the story of a society that is deeply sinful (or evil, if you prefer) and is utterly smitten by God (Eru), with only a few survivors... Lot & Daughters/Elendili.

Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah was indeed struck down for wickedness and only Lot and his children survived; however, could not the same be said of Noah and his family? God struck down the wicked, drowning all the evil folk (which, if you believe the bible, would be all of mankind), leaving Noah in his floating ark. In Eru's case, this was not merely striking down two cities, but a great island continent, and then he fundamentally altered the geography of the world, forever separating the Undying lands from Arda.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Interestingly, and tying back to the main question, it seems to me that the Genesis story of Lot's company not being able to look back lest they turn to salt (as his wife did) is applicable to the original question of the thread title. Whether or not this is the point of Genesis, one could certainly say, literally, that Lot's family was not to turn back in any manner. In the same way, the utter destruction of Númenor utterly prevents any sort of a turning back. Elendil's family, like Lot's, can NEVER go back (although it is interesting to note, from the legend of Meneltarma rising above the waves and the many mariners that sought it, that the Dúnedain clearly tried).

Good point, but 'no turning back' is a theme elsewhere in the bible (Adam and Eve -- and the whole human race, for that matter -- never to return to the earthly paradise of Eden).

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Personally, I don't think the sinking of Númenor can be considered a lesson to Sauron. If Eru had wanted him punished, I'm pretty sure that the Ilúvatar could have done quite a bit worse to him. As for Ar-Pharazôn and his crew, they either died flat out or were imprisoned. In the former case, it's hardly a lesson since the dead can't apply the lesson, and in the latter case they probably never even found out.

That really only leaves the Elendili.

The point is certainly arguable; however, if you read the final section of the Akallabêth concerning Sauron, "he was filled with fear at the wrath of the Valar, and the doom that Eru laid upon seas and land." Eru, ever-prescient but prone to allow free will (save for the Numeoreans blithely ignoring the prohibition against Men entering the Undying Lands), did not destroy Sauron utterly, which would be an utter removal of Sauron's free will, but gave him such an admonishment that most reasonable beings would take the hint. As it was, Sauron was forever stripped of his fair appearance and had to exist in spirit form for quite a time before being able to reassume a physical manifestation. Of course, we know that Sauron was never reasonable (being on the losing end of the War of Wrath should've been enough to show him the error of his ways).

In the end, Sauron was not destroyed by Eru, but by himself and the Ring he alone created. He chose the path of his own destruction by not heeding warnings that were so dire and ominous that one has to wonder about Sauron's mental state.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks for keeping up this discussion, gentlemen.

I can see one other similarity between the story of Lot/Sodom and Numenor, although I grant it is hardly likely that such would have been one of Tolkien's intentions. Both stories demonstrate a traditional attitude towards women in patriarchial societies. Numenor enacts the traditional idea that it is an ill fate for a woman to inherit the throne--this was one of the prejudices which Elizabeth I constantly faced and had to fight down; in the story of Sodom Lot's wife is punished for looking back but Lot is never punished for offering his own daughters to be raped (to say nothing of what happens subsequently with the lewd story of drunkenness and incest--although the land of his son Moab is said to be a tainted land). Gender does not play a role in Babel except that I suppose one can say it is males who presume to build a tower to heaven in order to preempt further punishment from God--with God taking back his gift to Adam of naming things by creating linquistic diversity Himself.

Yet upon further ruminations I wonder if a lesson needs to be a central part of the story of Numenor. Perhaps the most salient point is that the pure, perfect Undying Lands are saved from the rude incursion of a deeply sinful people. Arda Unmarred (can I call the Deathless Lands Arda Umarred?) is removed from any possibility of taint or evil by this action. This was Eru's motivation, to preserve the only or last vestige of pureness from the hand of evil, rather than to teach sinful Men a lesson per se. He was preserving the last remnant of his perfect music by making it impossible for Men to know of it.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Akallabeth

And there is not now upon Earth any place abiding where the memory of a time without evil is preserved. For Iluvatar cast back the Great Seas west of Middle-earth, and the Empty Lands east of it, and new lands and new seas were made and the world was diminished, for Valinor and Eressea were taken from it into the realm of hidden things.

Just another suggestion.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yet upon further ruminations I wonder if a lesson needs to be a central part of the story of Numenor. Perhaps the most salient point is that the pure, perfect Undying Lands are saved from the rude incursion of a deeply sinful people. Arda Unmarred (can I call the Deathless Lands Arda Umarred?) is removed from any possibility of taint or evil by this action. This was Eru's motivation, to preserve the only or last vestige of pureness from the hand of evil, rather than to teach sinful Men a lesson per se. He was preserving the last remnant of his perfect music by making it impossible for Men to know of it.

Hmmm...If that is the case (and again, very plausible, m'lady), then that is where Tolkien actually diverges from the bible, in that Eru acts only to save a piece of Eden unmarred, whereas Yahweh is punishing Adam and his descendants by removing Eden forever (as well as plopping the original sin guilt-trip on procreation, as well as casting woman as a seething pit of lasciviousness and temptation).

Yahweh was much more 'old school' vindictive than the more liberal Eru. I don't think the Puritans or the original Calvinists would have cared for Eru much.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...If that is the case (and again, very plausible, m'lady), then that is where Tolkien actually diverges from the bible, in that Eru acts only to save a piece of Eden unmarred, whereas Yahweh is punishing Adam and his descendants by removing Eden forever (as well as plopping the original sin guilt-trip on procreation, as well as casting woman as a seething pit of lasciviousness and temptation).

Yahweh was much more 'old school' vindictive than the more liberal Eru. I don't think the Puritans or the original Calvinists would have cared for Eru much.

Well, this would leave us with several possible avenues to explore.

1. A deity who removes man from paradise, leaving the memory of it. This could lead two ways: Man would retaliate with anger and cognitive dissonance (those grapes are probably too sour anyway) and become even more isolated and distanced from paradise/perfection, or the memory would somehow inspire Man to hope somehow to attain it again, or to strive after it.

2. A deity who removes all memory of paradise/perfection leaves Man with his own devises and frailties, prey to evil without any hope or inkling of purity, beauty, perfection (assuming the long defeat).

This second possiblity is very dark indeed. But ultimately we know that the passage from the Akallabeth which I quote earlier is mitigated not only by the establishment of Gondor, and Aragorn (hope) in LotR but by the claims of Elendil's influence made in the Akallabeth itself.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Akallabeth

Elendil and his sons after founded kingdoms in Middle-earth; and though their lore and craft was but an echo of that which had been ere Sauron came to Numemor, yet very great it seemed to the wild men of the world.

So, one has to wonder what Tolkien meant by saying there was no place with a memory of a time without evil, yet that some faint aspect of that time persisted in Elendil's influence. Did Tolkien realise that the first passage I quoted would create a very modern philosophy with no hope and no perfection, Middle-earth abandoned to Sauron? Or is this too much niggling because the Third Age had no revelation?

Legate, I must ask the boon of a delay in replying to your very interesting points, as RL makes strident demands on my internet time these days. I shall return as soon as I am able.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Okay, this is more like general thoughts on the subject, not replying concretely on what's been said here, but connected to it.
(I wrote this post in the way "whatever comes to my mind", so please forgive eventual inconsistency - although I was trying to achieve it, at least in some way.)

There is one thing. Middle-Earthian Man was actually never "removed from paradise". In the meaning, he was never physically there. He was denied it from the very beginning - THE paradise, Valinor. Then, there was Númenor, the given land, which was not paradise (for example, the people had to work there like everywhere else and also, it could have been marred, as it was in the end), but it was something "special" - indeed, the "Golden Age" comparison seems very good to me - and it was taken away from the Númenoreans to be never given back. Along with it, any contact with the "real paradise" was removed - not a sight of it, just memory. But the memory was there (cf. even Faramir's ritual of looking to the West before dinner, "to Númenor which was, and to Eressea which is, and to what is behind Eressea and will always be"). Mentioning Faramir's words now, I seem to notice one thing: I originally thought that Valinor and all such stuff may have been just a memory of the glorious past, the time when we could climb up Meneltarma and had our own island and such things, but now it seems to me that - "which is behind Eressea and will always be" - Valinor has, strangely enough, some importance to the Dúnedain even in the present. My question would be, why should it? It's been removed from the Circles of the World and either way, it's the Elves' "heaven" - not Men's. Men have a different fate. Why are Dúnedain concerned at all? Is it the closeness to the Elves, maybe even in bloodline in some cases? Is it an expectation of hope like in Eärendil's times - and well-deserved, actually, thinking of the Istari? Or what?

As for the still returning comparisons to the biblical portrayals of paradise and such things. It's good to use them because it's probably the easiest way to compare something. But I would like to warn that it's not staying good to the subject to put the equal marks between some things in Arda's story and the biblical story. I said: comparison. When you look at the things in which the tales differ, you can notice more about how it works in Middle-Earth.
For one, we should acknowledge one thing - Arda lacks deeper interaction of the Creator and the Creation. It lacks the aspect of the "God descending", be it Christ in New Testament or "shekhina", presence of God following the Israelites even into the exile. As it has been said above, Eru is far more "liberal", also in the sense that he cares a lot less about the creation, at least compared to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He seldom acts in an apparent way, and when he does, we see rather an All-Ruler aspect in him than the descending God. (His acts are like that he "pushes" Gollum into the lava, for example.)

In any case, of all the comparisons of the tale mentioned here, I think the best comparison used was alatar's tower of Babel. Although I am pretty sure Tolkien did not intend it, so I disagree on that it would be retelling of it, but the point of the story seems to be the closest to what happened on Númenor: just as alatar said.

Originally Posted by alatar

This act of pride was 'rewarded' with the dispersing of all humanity due to divinely-enacted language barriers, and so never again could humanity unite in such a prideful way - trying to reach Heaven/Aman.

So the direction of the "lesson" may be as well such as this one. Directed to all the "further generations" - however even here one interesting problem arises, and I am sure we are all aware of it: if the Undying Lands cannot be reached anymore, why the lesson? Even if Men tried to enter Aman with armies, they couldn't anymore. So this lesson may actually not be lesson at all; it may not be a word, but rather an actual deed.

To which relates: Note also one thing, which I am not sure if has been emphasised enough - the course of events during the Fall of Númenor is such that Manwë calls to Eru (apparently, things have reached the point where Manwë himself doesn't have adequate "power" - or what - to do something), and Eru does something unimaginable - a real change, literally the world "shakes at its basis". And at least to me it always seemed that without Manwë's asking for it, Eru wouldn't have done anything. It's obviously one of the "big shocks no one would expect" that he only can do, though, of course. But still - I would compare it for example to Eärendil's journey, although it was in a different scale and also somewhat different circumstances.

Although still, the destruction is not total, at least the memory remains - and, if we believe the legends, the top of Meneltarma. And now you can look back at the first paragraph of this post and think what it means to have this memory - even in presence.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Legate, I must ask the boon of a delay in replying to your very interesting points, as RL makes strident demands on my internet time these days. I shall return as soon as I am able.

Granted

EDIT: x-ed with Morthoron, and it seems we both remembered some things - obviously Faramir should have made a fortune by becoming a restaurant-owner: everybody recalls his meals

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hmm... I thought if this is not getting too off-topic, but then, it is still about the thesis you propose about Númenor. Whether Númenor was a patriarchal society (seemingly it was) and what effects it had is another thing, but it can't be shown on the examples you pose. Or, of course the society in which the biblical stories take place, and in which they are written, is patriarchal, and it's even shown on for example Lot's authority over his daughters, as you also mentioned. But the way you use the examples is actually not percieving them the way they are meant. (Whoever doesn't want to read more and to whom this suffices may skip the rest of the post.)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I can see one other similarity between the story of Lot/Sodom and Numenor, although I grant it is hardly likely that such would have been one of Tolkien's intentions. Both stories demonstrate a traditional attitude towards women in patriarchial societies. Numenor enacts the traditional idea that it is an ill fate for a woman to inherit the throne--this was one of the prejudices which Elizabeth I constantly faced and had to fight down; in the story of Sodom Lot's wife is punished for looking back but Lot is never punished for offering his own daughters to be raped (to say nothing of what happens subsequently with the lewd story of drunkenness and incest--although the land of his son Moab is said to be a tainted land).

Lot's wife was turned into that statue because she turned back even though the refugees were told not to do so. On the other hand, Lot giving his daughters to be raped was actually a good deed from him (indeed! Though of course we won't perceive it like that in the current society, but you must think how people perceived it with the morals of the ancient societies, when the tale came to be), because he was willing to give his own daughters (his property, in that society -again, if you wished the story to happen in today's circumstances, you would have to imagine something else instead of the daughters there - but still it was probably the most prized "possession" he had) in exchange for the safety of his guests, strangers who came under his roof and to whom he promised a shelter and he was not going to break it, he was willing to sacrifice his own in order to really provide the guests with a safe haven. For illustration, if you wanted to make a story with similar point for example in M-E, you could make a story where for example Mim the Dwarf would send son for certain death to divert Morgoth's spies away from Amon Rudh in order to save Túrin from being discovered, or something like that.

As for the incest episode later, that could do for long. But in short, it was common in the ancient times in many cultures, for example for the Egyptians, to marry their close relatives, but the Israelites had clear law against it and it was not necessary to point out that it's something wrong, everybody knew - like nowadays. The "curse" for the incest can be explained for example in the meaning of the names of the two sons: the way they are translated here is different from the way the nations of Ammon and Moab (the descendants of these two sons) understood them. That way, this would be aimed against the nations of Ammon and Moab who claimed their kings being the descendants of gods, or maybe being so "high" and of "pure blood" because of the pure blood of their forefathers (the same blood = through the incest). It's well known also from many ancient mythologies that there are often incests in the families of the gods. So the Ammonites probably were proud of having such an ancestor. This tale was supposed to show that there's nothing to be proud of. (Although the main point of the story probably lies in the motives of the daughters and Lot, but that'd be probably for other talk.)

Gender does not play a role in Babel except that I suppose one can say it is males who presume to build a tower to heaven in order to preempt further punishment from God--with God taking back his gift to Adam of naming things by creating linquistic diversity Himself.

Well, here I would actually say that it definitely were not just males. Because even though a patriarchal society, the point of the story was that all the people wanted to be united by building the tower - and that would include even women, with no doubt, simply because of the logical point of the story.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Hmm... I thought if this is not getting too off-topic, but then, it is still about the thesis you propose about Númenor. Whether Númenor was a patriarchal society (seemingly it was) and what effects it had is another thing, but it can't be shown on the examples you pose. Or, of course the society in which the biblical stories take place, and in which they are written, is patriarchal, and it's even shown on for example Lot's authority over his daughters, as you also mentioned. But the way you use the examples is actually not percieving them the way they are meant. (Whoever doesn't want to read more and to whom this suffices may skip the rest of the post.)

I don't think Numenor was as patriarchal a society as Gondor was to become. There were, after all, ruling queens in the dynastic chronology (and a strong-willed heroine in Erendis), and that only really changed when Ar-Pharazon usurped the throne and forced marriage on his cousin Tar-Miriel (the rightful queen). Obviously this was an upsetting point in Numenorean history, as it is cast in the negative in the Akallabêth; however, in a strange turn of events the Kings of Gondor from Elendil on down kept to a strict rule of primogeniture (first son inheriting, or in the case of no sons, the closest male heir), rather like the dubious Salic Law which the French quickly cobbled together to assure their favorite, Phillip VI, received the throne rather than England's Edward III (who had a better bloodline through his mother).

I have not really studied Gondorion dynastical history to any great degree, but I recall several gaps in which there was no son to inherit, and a related male claimed the throne. It seems that Tolkien, like the lands he created, became more patriarchal and stratified as the story progressed. Really, beyond Galadriel, there is no woman of regal stature left in Middle-earth at the end of the 3rd Age. Would Eowyn have inherited the crown of Rohan had Eomer died directly after Theoden? I think arguments could be made either way, but considering the dual lines of barrows outside of Meduseld (all occupied by dead male kings), it would be a first if she had.

And Tolkien does make the point (and proudly so) that the line of the Northern Dunedain remained unbroken from father to son all the way back to Valandil. The daughters and wives were merely left at home to mourn the dead.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, this would leave us with several possible avenues to explore.

1. A deity who removes man from paradise, leaving the memory of it. This could lead two ways: Man would retaliate with anger and cognitive dissonance (those grapes are probably too sour anyway) and become even more isolated and distanced from paradise/perfection, or the memory would somehow inspire Man to hope somehow to attain it again, or to strive after it.

2. A deity who removes all memory of paradise/perfection leaves Man with his own devises and frailties, prey to evil without any hope or inkling of purity, beauty, perfection (assuming the long defeat).

This second possiblity is very dark indeed. But ultimately we know that the passage from the Akallabeth which I quote earlier is mitigated not only by the establishment of Gondor, and Aragorn (hope) in LotR but by the claims of Elendil's influence made in the Akallabeth itself.

So, one has to wonder what Tolkien meant by saying there was no place with a memory of a time without evil, yet that some faint aspect of that time persisted in Elendil's influence. Did Tolkien realise that the first passage I quoted would create a very modern philosophy with no hope and no perfection, Middle-earth abandoned to Sauron? Or is this too much niggling because the Third Age had no revelation?

Well, depending on how one looks at it, the fact that Eru saved Elendil and his ships (like Yahweh saved Noah), but destroyed the rest of the wicked (or the non-commital) was a sign that the faithful would prevail (if, of course, they remained faithful); thus, the dark foreboding of your #2 is precluded from contention, as it was obviously not Eru's aim to wipe everyone out, and leave no lasting memory of that which was (remember the quote regarding Faramir and his silent remembrance before meals earlier in the discussion).

Again, I don't think Eru was as vengeful as Yahweh (and there are plenty of times Yahweh got out his bat of righteousness and smoted folk for merely being on land he wanted his Chosen Folk to occupy). If anything, Eru was a more hands-off kind of guy than Yahweh, and trusted his musical plan to work its way out in the end (the Numenorean debacle being one of the few times he actively assisted, and then only due to the the imploring Valar).

[Bêthberry]

Finally able to return to reply . . .

Some of this discussion leads us very far away from the topic and Tolkien, so I will keep my comments short. Those who wish to consider Numenor might well wish to ignore this post.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But the way you use the examples is actually not percieving them the way they are meant. (Whoever doesn't want to read more and to whom this suffices may skip the rest of the post.)

Hoom. Hummm. Hruummm. Ascertaining the way stories are meant is a long and difficult process, as anyone who followed the infamous Canonicity may recall(That was I think before your time) and one not immune to the ravages of time. In fact, it can be argued that often 'intention' is more a creation of the time of the reader/perceiver than of the author. Nor is intention the only criterion one may use in discussing or analyzing narrative; it is often valuable to consider the context of narrative, something that, in a text as old and as gathered from multiple sources as Genesis, may not always provide one clear intention. After all, the story of Lot's incest is missing from the Quran, where Lot is regarded as a Prophet.

Originally Posted by Legate

Lot's wife was turned into that statue because she turned back even though the refugees were told not to do so.

Actually, she did not turn back; she merely looked back, possibly the first Entwife. And while this was prohibited by the angels who warned Lot, my comment was to point out the value system of the story. One may not even look upon destruction without incurring wrath, but one may engage in incest without being punished--or rather, having only the descendents punished, as Amon and Moab were to become the traditional enemies of the Isrealites. Readers may ask why or how that system exists-- why is it that a mere look or glance is circumscribed but a sexual act that had been prohibited is not punished. Of course Genesis is all about men's refusal to accept limitation, therebye putting in greater contrast the great climax of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's demand. But one can also ask why no Ram appeared in a bush to save Jephthah's daughter. It is all well and good to say that offerring one's child, one's most prized possession, is a sign of faithfulness and virtue, but one can also ask how the offerring is distributed and what it means for a child to be a mere possession of a father.

Originally Posted by Legate

Well, here [referring to my comment about Babel] I would actually say that it definitely were not just males. Because even though a patriarchal society, the point of the story was that all the people wanted to be united by building the tower - and that would include even women, with no doubt, simply because of the logical point of the story.

Actually, the passage in Genesis 11.1-9 uses only the word 'men' or 'children of men' or 'they' (I'm using the King James Bible and the Oxford New Engish Bible; I don't have the Jerusalem Bible at hand to compare translations.) And the context of Genesis 11 names only males: Genesis 10 lists the generations of male children of Noah and Genesis 11:10-23 lists the generations of Shem, again, all male children. The only named children are first born sons. It is a cultural assumption to say that the word 'men' includes women and it can quite often be demonstrated (not just in the Bible but in many literary texts over the centuries) that women are really not represented in this word because they don't contribute to the significance of the context, in this case, the context being heredity. As Morthoron pointed out, Aragorn comes from an unbroken line of male heirs. (As the Supreme Court of Canada once decided, "persons" does not include women.)

Originally Posted by Legate

In any case, of all the comparisons of the tale mentioned here, I think the best comparison used was alatar's tower of Babel. Although I am pretty sure Tolkien did not intend it, so I disagree on that it would be retelling of it, but the point of the story seems to be the closest to what happened on Númenor: just as alatar said.

One of the really interesting things about this comparison to Babel is, I think, the absence of its linguistic consequence in Tolkien's work. His Legendarium has no mythological moment to explain or justify linguistic variation. Was this a case of his professional life influencing his creative life: the career philologist who devoted his time to the historical development of language could not imagine/write an episode which attributed language diversity to something other than historical change?

What this all rambling has to do with the drowning of Numenor, I'm not sure.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

One of the really interesting things about this comparison to Babel is, I think, the absence of its linguistic consequence in Tolkien's work. His Legendarium has no mythological moment to explain or justify linguistic variation. Was this a case of his professional life influencing his creative life: the career philologist who devoted his time to the historical development of language could not imagine/write an episode which attributed language diversity to something other than historical change?

That is why I don't think the Tower of Babel analogy is applicable. Because Tolkien was a philologist, his languages bare the subtle variations of time and place. Languages do change (the Gothic strains of the Northmen of Greenwood are altered eventually into the pseudo-Anglo-Saxon of Rohan, for instance), but there is a logic to the variances, such as the long sundering of two or three groups of the same race (the differences between Quenyan and Sindarin and Silvan), and the use of the Westron tongue as the lingua franca of the 3rd Age (like Latin, French and English examples in history). Frankly, Tolkien loved words too much to plop in a rather simplistic fable to explain away such a rich and evocative branch of learning; or to put it another way, weren't languages, in fact, the wellspring of all his works?

[Bêthberry]

Well, let me come to the party late but still with good wishes for a happy fete day, Legate.

Really intriguing link there, alatar. Thanks for posting the story about earlier interpretations.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Frankly, Tolkien loved words too much to plop in a rather simplistic fable to explain away such a rich and evocative branch of learning; or to put it another way, weren't languages, in fact, the wellspring of all his works?

Well, for a fable, the story has permeated a great deal of contemporary society; witness Babel fish and the movie of the same name, although the theme of Man's presumptuous pride and agression against God is less referenced these days, the confusion rather than the tower gaining prominence. Still, the Tower of Babel does incorporate the aspect of false belief which also hovers around the Sodom and Gamorrah tale. The tower was built upon the demand of Nimrod, kind of Babylon, and of course was part of the great city itself, a site of false, rival belief. This aspect is also found in the story of Sodom and Gamorrah: Lot had, after all, turned away from Abraham's land and journeyed east; he was a stranger in Sodom himself and perhaps tainted by its ways. And Numenor is a story about a falling away from true belief in a monotheistic god in favour of a false pretender.

But, yes, I do think that Tolkien rather relished the confusion of languages.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But there are some things which simply are not following the original intention of the story in any way. . . . one important thing is to take care and consider where the original story aims. . . . but the only thing I want to point out is that the original readers, the ones to whom the story was narrated as to the first listeners, did NOT ask, because they considered some things as clear and they also saw some things clearer than us because of their circumstances. It's always easier to understand a contemporary book than a book even from let's say two hundred years ago,

Well, I suppose I would say that original intention for the original readers--listeners really, as all the Pentateuch began as Oral Law--comes down to us through a long line of redactors, starting with the change over two generations between the Prophets and the Scholars, way back centuries before the Second Temple fell, 70 CE and that's a very intersting switch in the nature of those whose inheritance it was to preserve the Law. And, if that original intention was so clear, how come the theme of disobedience and willful refusal to follow God's way had to be hammered home so often, and how come there's such a rich tradition of interpretation and analysis? I suppose this question is very similar to alatar's line about "missed it by this much."

There's also an argument to be made that it is more difficult to understand a contemporary book than one written two hundred years ago, as more is involved in interpretation than just the very important aspect of literal definition. Look at how easily LotR has been given several contradictory readings and how for some it is a reactionary tome and for others a very modern, forward looking book. And look at Tolkien's own Foreword where he gives a very stark 'interpretation' of the story had it truly had parallels with World War II. To continue with the hoom, harooms, it's very easy to miss the forest for the trees.

Yet, for all this, I think we have different points of view about intention and original meaning, which will likely never meet.

Originally Posted by Legate

"all the whole earth", actually. These are the words by which the text starts. And that would definitely include women. Patriarchal society or not, all the nations are included, and that includes women. If nothing else, then it's clear enough that it's not like that men would be speaking different languages but women would still have the same language, so they must have been included in the event too. And all the logic speaks for it, as I said before.
(In any case, what would be the point of asking this I am not sure.)

Well, just for the sake of discussion as this is really getting tangential to the topic, I'm not sure where exactly the story of the Tower of Babel "starts" in the Hebrew, because the chapter and verse numbers are an invention of Christian exegesis. And I'm just a little bit intrigued by the fact that, of all the historical contexts and interpretations offerred of Babel on Wikipedia, only an apocryphal one, from the pseudepigrapha, The Third Apocalypse of Baruch, actually mentions women by word, with a rather stark story about the cruelty of the Tower's instigators: Wiki on Babel. But the treatment of queens is part of Tolkien's story of Numenor.

How did this get started?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hoom. Hummm. Hruummm. Ascertaining the way stories are meant is a long and difficult process, as anyone who followed the infamous Canonicity may recall(That was I think before your time) and one not immune to the ravages of time. In fact, it can be argued that often 'intention' is more a creation of the time of the reader/perceiver than of the author. Nor is intention the only criterion one may use in discussing or analyzing narrative; it is often valuable to consider the context of narrative, something that, in a text as old and as gathered from multiple sources as Genesis, may not always provide one clear intention. After all, the story of Lot's incest is missing from the Quran, where Lot is regarded as a Prophet.

Hoom, hoom, this is about interpretation and the discussion will stray too far... well even further than it did now... if we continued that. But simply put, my point was aimed the way that I would not consider using it the way you use it "fair". All the stories, and with the biblical ones it can be seen very well, as they are very old, can be interpretated in different ways and new meanings and interpretations fitting the context of the current time may be applied to them in every century. That's normal, and of course even good. We do that even with Tolkien, sometimes asking for things which the Prof would simply not have thought about. But there are some things which simply are not following the original intention of the story in any way. Such things happen, for example many times lots of biblical texts have been misused, one example for all, Revelation 2,9 - the words about "synagogue of Satan" had been (and even is till today by some!) used as a basis of antisemitism, while it's obvious from the verse itself that the people about whom the verse speaks "say they are Jews, and are not, but the synagogue of Satan". So it's not that "they are Jews, i.e. synagogue of Satan", but they present themselves as Jews, but are not (meaning probably that they are Jews but do things a proper Jew shouldn't do). But it's simply that some people used it the way they wanted to. And that's a common thing everywhere. So because of this, one important thing is to take care and consider where the original story aims. For one, it's definitely not that the tale of Lot would support incest. That's clear enough, because of the motives of the daughters. *sigh* I didn't want to start about it. That'd be really for long. I will just point out the few things: all the "foremothers" (Sarah, Rachel...) had problems with giving birth, this way it was also underlined that it depended on God whether his chosen people will continue to exist. Yet both of Lot's daughters immediately become pregnant - isn't it curious? And their motives for the incest? "Our father is old, and there's not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth." So instead they decided to make their father drunk and have children from him. Lot, probably, although he was drunk, also isn't without guilt, but that'd be for really too long and far more speculative. In any case, the daughters' stance is obvious fear, maybe even the sight of hopeless situation face to face to the end of the lineage. They choose this very odd way to make the lineage continue, their own short-sighted solution for their cornered situation; and indeed, they immediately give birth to two sons, how great! But who becomes of such sons? Ammon and Moab. No chosen people, not even any special descendants of pure bloodline (cf. my previous post), but some "losers", or how to say that. So as if this was saying: dear daughters, this was not a good way you chose to solve your situation. (So you see, it does concern incest itself rather from just rational, calculated reasons.)

And while this was prohibited by the angels who warned Lot, my comment was to point out the value system of the story. One may not even look upon destruction without incurring wrath, but one may engage in incest without being punished--or rather, having only the descendents punished, as Amon and Moab were to become the traditional enemies of the Isrealites. Readers may ask why or how that system exists-- why is it that a mere look or glance is circumscribed but a sexual act that had been prohibited is not punished. Of course Genesis is all about men's refusal to accept limitation, therebye putting in greater contrast the great climax of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's demand. But one can also ask why no Ram appeared in a bush to save Jephthah's daughter. It is all well and good to say that offerring one's child, one's most prized possession, is a sign of faithfulness and virtue, but one can also ask how the offerring is distributed and what it means for a child to be a mere possession of a father.

In any case, indeed, the readers may ask and they ask rightfully - but the only thing I want to point out is that the original readers, the ones to whom the story was narrated as to the first listeners, did NOT ask, because they considered some things as clear and they also saw some things clearer than us because of their circumstances. It's always easier to understand a contemporary book than a book even from let's say two hundred years ago, if only for example because you no longer know what "heap" was or something like that (I don't know if I gave a good example, in Czech it would be an old and not-used word). I believe the message of the text is always actualised, can be always actualised, should be always actualised, but there's just that some stories don't count with some things. In every tale, there's always the "core" and the "colorite". For example, I haven't seen anybody bother with the fact that Bilbo Baggins was seemingly a not-working exploiter of the society. If you for example ask, why the story punishes Lot's wife for disobedience, but doesn't punish the incest in also such a clear way, like that for example the cave would collapse on Lot and his daughters, I reply, because the point of the story lies elsewhere (aside from what I said before, that the incest actually IS punished). The same for example with Jephtah's daughter - the story will lose its point if some ram appeared to save her; the drasticness (is that a word?) of the story is what hits the reader hard and makes him see that making an unbreakable vow without thinking about the consequences is not a good thing to do (lo, Fëanor!). Someone spoke about lesson in the title of this thread, so this is exactly the case: a man who wishes to make an oath may actually stop, because he remembers the story (or in M-E terms, he could remember Fëanor or the Dead of Dunharrow). Or - oh, wonderful, I manage to stay on-topic! - a Fourth-Age King who starts to do some things the Númenoreans did can remember what happened to Númenor, and so rather stop and reconsider.

Here it is! I think I managed to formulate my response to the original question of the thread.

Actually, the passage in Genesis 11.1-9 uses only the word 'men' or 'children of men' or 'they' (I'm using the King James Bible and the Oxford New Engish Bible; I don't have the Jerusalem Bible at hand to compare translations.) And the context of Genesis 11 names only males: Genesis 10 lists the generations of male children of Noah and Genesis 11:10-23 lists the generations of Shem, again, all male children. The only named children are first born sons. It is a cultural assumption to say that the word 'men' includes women and it can quite often be demonstrated (not just in the Bible but in many literary texts over the centuries) that women are really not represented in this word because they don't contribute to the significance of the context, in this case, the context being heredity. As Morthoron pointed out, Aragorn comes from an unbroken line of male heirs. (As the Supreme Court of Canada once decided, "persons" does not include women.)

Yes, I checked the Hebrew text and it says "sons of Adam" (or "sons of Man" which is the same thing, the same word), which is rather poetic expression and indeed, one could argue whether "sons" does not include even females here. But in any case, it says "sons". The facts that in the name lists there are just males named is of no value here, because simply, in the patriarchal society there was really no reason to include women there. As you say, it played no role in the context of heredity, but this has nothing to do with this text, mind you. Here there's nothing about heredity, we speak about some unidentified masses of people - "all the whole earth", actually. These are the words by which the text starts. And that would definitely include women. Patriarchal society or not, all the nations are included, and that includes women. If nothing else, then it's clear enough that it's not like that men would be speaking different languages but women would still have the same language, so they must have been included in the event too. And all the logic speaks for it, as I said before.
(In any case, what would be the point of asking this I am not sure.)

[alatar]

Happy Birthday, LoAL!

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Hoom, hoom, this is about interpretation and the discussion will stray too far... well even further than it did now... if we continued that. But simply put, my point was aimed the way that I would not consider using it the way you use it "fair". All the stories, and with the biblical ones it can be seen very well, as they are very old, can be interpretated in different ways and new meanings and interpretations fitting the context of the current time may be applied to them in every century. That's normal, and of course even good.

Just one cynical note: Words from a god should be more absolute and clear if one is to escape eternal damnation by their proper interpretation. In the words on Agent Smart, "Missed it by THAT much!"

And that's a common thing everywhere. So because of this, one important thing is to take care and consider where the original story aims.

Something I've always hoped to point out is that ancient stories and myths had to have a peer audience, meaning that these stories weren't just written for people thousands of years in the future, but for the contemporary culture as well (if not exclusively).

Yet both of Lot's daughters immediately become pregnant - isn't it curious? And their motives for the incest? "Our father is old, and there's not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth." So instead they decided to make their father drunk and have children from him. Lot, probably, although he was drunk, also isn't without guilt, but that'd be for really too long and far more speculative. In any case, the daughters' stance is obvious fear, maybe even the sight of hopeless situation face to face to the end of the lineage. They choose this very odd way to make the lineage continue, their own short-sighted solution for their cornered situation; and indeed, they immediately give birth to two sons, how great! But who becomes of such sons? Ammon and Moab. No chosen people, not even any special descendants of pure bloodline (cf. my previous post), but some "losers", or how to say that. So as if this was saying: dear daughters, this was not a good way you chose to solve your situation. (So you see, it does concern incest itself rather from just rational, calculated reasons.)

I know that this too may be even more tangential, but from the above I'm reminded of the story of Noah Arkwright, when, having survived the Deluge, raised grapes, made wine, and his son Ham did something that made Noah not curse Ham but Ham's son Canaan, as stated here:

Originally Posted by Genesis 9:20-27

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

May God extend the territory of Japheth;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave."

I've read that one interprets the sin of Ham of having impregnated Noah's wife, Ham's mother. The son she bares is then cursed.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that it's not always the women involved in incest.