The sinking of Numenor - a lesson to whom?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I wonder, would there be a touch of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah there also?

Well, the Numenoreans were worshipping a false god (Morgoth), and then there was that whole human sacrifice thing, but if I recall the biblical version of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah had more to do with sexual perversion and inhospitality (selfishness, lack of compassion). I suppose sacrificing whole families on the pyre of Morgoth would be rather inhospitable...rude even, but it seems the Numenoreons suffered more from the sins of Blasphemy and Pride (particularly since Tolkien was usually rather vague about sexual subjects); however, there is the forced marriage of Tar-Miriel by Ar-Pharazon (which, by the degree of consanguinity, could be considered incestuous by a medieval pope, and would require a hefty donation for a dispensation).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Well, the Numenoreans were worshipping a false god (Morgoth), and then there was that whole human sacrifice thing,

That's the main thing, I would say. In any case, in contrary to the story of Akallabeth, the biblical descriptions are usually pretty vague, but I have no doubt Tolkien was inspired by both, as well as Atlantis, as it has been already mentioned here too.

but if I recall the biblical version of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah had more to do with sexual perversion and inhospitality (selfishness, lack of compassion).

Let me add a note here. The second one definitely, but the first one, not - seeing sexual perversion in it was only a later meaning added to the text by later interpretators. The story itself speaks mainly about inhospitability in the worst sense - visitors come to the city, and the inhabitants not only don't offer them what they can, but actually intend harm and violence towards them. The fact that it had something to do with sex is merely the "colorite" - it's just another form of the violence when you want to rape somebody who came to your house asking for a night stay there. But overall, if I took the story, I would say it is something I could imagine even on Númenor as it's depicted during Pharazon's rule (or perhaps even in some scale during the reign of the kings before him).

[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]

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.