The Lord of the Bible?

[Child of the 7th Age]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. You can spend hours, weeks, years searching Arda for images and symbols of Christian hope and veiled references to providence. It is definitely there. You can also view Arda in terms of its pagan themes and allusions, studying the profound pessimism and fatalism that embodied the dreams of the North. Both of these exercises are fulfilling and will get you a little closer to Tolkien's head.

But it's only when you realize that both these strains were somehow tangled up in the soul of a single man, that you get to the heart of what is going on. When you think about this dichotomy, how these different world views somehow blend into one and form the core of Tolkien's Legendarium, it's rather astounding. Ah, if only we could ask him! Truthfully, this recognition makes me feel a bit humble. I know I wouldn't have the brain or the heart to keep two different world views in balance while carrying through with the mundane things in life but he apparently managed it. Yes, this whole balancing act is certainly beyond my ken, and I suspect that it is one reason the Legendarium so appeals to me. I have always been suspicious of "packaged answers", whether secular or religious in origin. My head leans at least vaguely in the direction of hope and the Judeao-Christian heritage, but my experiences in life stubbornly whisper to my heart that fate and doom and pessimism seem all too commonplace.

As an historian, the next thing I want to do is bang on the table and demand to know where this dichotomy comes from in Tolkien. The Somme is certainly a factor, but I personally suspect it goes back much earlier than that. Tolkien has talked about some of the problems he and his brother encountered when their mother died. Yet on another level we know absolutely nothing about what this young man was actually feeling when the two of them were left on their own. Tolkien's commitment to Catholicism as well as his personal view of the world as a very frightening place, a place where every man and woman faced an implacable Doom, surely stemmed from this youthful period. His later experience in war would only confirm what he'd already learned as a child about the nature of life and fate.

I would love to hear from Squatter or someone else who is more knowledgable about ancient Nordic ways and thinking as well as to hear from those for whom the Christian element in the Legendarium remains especially important.

[littlemanpoet]

The two world views are not as difficult to keep in balance as one might think. Those who call themselves disciples of Christ (I include myself) are, they (and I) believe, rightfully pessimistic about what good can be achieved by my fellow humans; there's just too much orc in all of us. The Northern pessimism is different, but it still agrees with the Christian idea that this world is coming to a crash and burn some day. The difference, of course, is in regard to what happens after that.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yes, Littlemanpoet. That is certainly a big piece of the equation. And in that sense the difference between the two world views is smaller than what they first appear to be.

I guess where I see a greater difference is in the sense of Doom and fate that seems to hang over all the northern epics, including LotR to some decree. You have very little sense of choice or free will, which is an important part of Christianity. There is an inherent pessimism here which, at least to me, seems a heavier burder than what will be possible later in human history when divine revelation rears its head.

The interesting thing, of course, is that LotR gives the reader a hint of both sides of that equation. Frodo is free to accept or reject the task, yet we know even from the beginning that he is "doomed". His inability to throw the Ring into the firepit is a confirmation of that. Somehow, Tolkien manages to put the two pieces together in one story and so we argue and question where free will comes in and where providence (or fate) takes over.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The two world views are not as difficult to keep in balance as one might think. Those who call themselves disciples of Christ (I include myself) are, they (and I) believe, rightfully pessimistic about what good can be achieved by my fellow humans; there's just too much orc in all of us. The Northern pessimism is different, but it still agrees with the Christian idea that this world is coming to a crash and burn some day. The difference, of course, is in regard to what happens after that.

Originally Posted by Child

I guess where I see a greater difference is in the sense of Doom and fate that seems to hang over all the northern epics, including LotR to some decree.

I think I agree with Child that the subtle differences are important. That "what happens after that" is profoundly different, is it not? In Christian eschatology, the righteous will be glorified--although I think that various Christian churches treat Revelation differently--Anglicans don't have any liturgical references to it, but many Protestant sects do. I haven't by any means read all of Norse mythology, but I don't have any sense that the few who will survive Ragnarok will merit that survival. In other words, is there any sense in Norse mythology that the Good will ultimately be rewarded? The Norse gods know what their fate is. They know who will win and who will lose and their glory is to persist nevertheless in that final battle. It is, to be true to themselves.

This encroaches upon the warrior ethic of the Norse mythologies. Perhaps what is called for is a rereading of Tolkien's thoughts on chivalry in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth.

[littlemanpoet]

I am not on strong ground with the following, so I'll offer it as a perhaps.

The free will that is - er - glorified in many popular modes of Christianity is misunderstood and perhaps overrated. Christian teaching from the New Testament has a very strong piece that speaks of election and predestination, with which the libertarian minded West has great difficulties. Especially in democratically minded countries such as those of Anglo-Saxon heritage. Read the Revelation of John, the last 3 chapters sometime: while there is hope of glory for the saints, the doom awaiting cowards, the licentious, the rebellious, etc., is quite scary.

.....which I find interesting (and have for a while) that perhaps there is more reality to Ragnarok from the perspective of the gods who, in Christian teaching, would be denizens of the enemy; knowing themselves to be condemned, they do the best then can and are true to themselves out of a kind of self-respect/pride of heart. Just a notion.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

. . . . Both of these exercises are fulfilling and will get you a little closer to Tolkien's head. . . .

But it's only when you realize that both these strains were somehow tangled up in the soul of a single man, that you get to the heart of what is going on. . . .

As an historian, the next thing I want to do is bang on the table and demand to know where this dichotomy comes from in Tolkien.

This is the point at which I will simply retire from commenting, as I don't think one needs to resort to biographical construction to understand how a text can reflect a cultural dilemma or dichotomy. People have a difficult enough time understanding their fellow family members, friends, and others in their community--let alone internet posts and posters--to say nothing of the difficulty in reconstructing a person from literary remains.

Of course, others are welcome to discussing it.