The sinking of Numenor - a lesson to whom?

[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?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Yes, and we know that good ol' Nimrod has permeated modern society as well, being the title of a Green Day album, and a slang term for a dolt as well (it also could mean 'hunter', but I've not seen any piece of literature published within the last 100 years that uses the name thus). Nevertheless, the major premise of the fable is the divergence of languages (brought on by presumptive pride); therefore, I still maintain it is not germane to the Fall of Numenor, as the moral of the story does not fit in any case.

But it would've been funny if Elendil, having landed on the shore of Eriador after the storm-tossed trip, claiming all the lands in the name of the Shire and uttering his name as Caradoc Brandybuck, with his sons Palanquin and Hennequin.

[Macalaure]

Can I post something on topic?


I don't think the sinking of Numenor was supposed to be a punishment. This seems to me to be an unexpectedly calculated action by Iluvatar. Who should it be a lesson to? Sauron? It was not very effective, then. The surviving Numenoreans and the other people of Middle-earth? I can't think so. What would the lesson be? A lesson of fear, of course. But Eru doesn't at one (other) time give me the impression of being a father who desired to be feared by his children. The other option seems to be that he destroyed Numenor out of wrath. But this seems equally unlikely, because, as has been mentioned, Eru doesn't give a wrathful impression anywhere else either.

Originally Posted by Legate

And at least to me it always seemed that without Manwë's asking for it, Eru wouldn't have done anything.

It seemed that way to me, too. Actually, I wonder whether Manwe really expected Eru to do something along those lines or whether he was shocked at the measure, too.

What I don't understand is, why did Eru wait to take action until Manwe asked him to, and then decided he would need to deal out punishment / decided he wanted to be wrathful. Wouldn't he just have addressed Manwe's plea, which was only to protect Valinor? Where did this idea come from? Or did Eru make up his mind long before, but didn't want to realize his plan as long as it would undermine Manwe's authority? I'm not sure whether any of this makes sense. Let's have a look at the quote.

Then Manwe upon the Mountain called upon Iluvatar, and for that time the Valar laid down their government of Arda. But Iluvatar showed forth his power, and he changed the fashion of the world; and a great chasm opened in the sea between Numenor and the Deathless Lands, and the waters flowed down into it, and the noise and smoke of the cataracts went up to heaven, and the world was shaken. And all the fleets of the Numenoreans were drawn down into the abyss, and they were drowned and swallowed up for ever. But Ar-Pharazon the King and the mortal warriors that had set foot upon the land of Aman were buried under falling hills: there it is said that they lie imprisoned in the Caves of the Forgotten, until the Last Battle and the Day of Doom.
But the land of Aman and Eressea of the Eldar were taken away and removed beyond the reach of Men for ever. And Andor, the Land of Gift, Numenor of the Kings, Elenna of the Star of Earendil, was utterly destroyed. For it was nigh to the east of the great rift, and its foundations were overturned, and it fell and went down into darkness, and is no more. 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.
In an hour unlocked for by Men this doom befell, on the nine and thirtieth day since the passing of the fleets. Then suddenly fire burst from the Meneltarma, and there came a mighty wind and a tumult of the earth, and the sky reeled, and the hills slid, and Nъmenor went down into the sea, with all its children and its wives and its maidens and its ladies proud; and all its gardens and its balls and its towers, its tombs and its riches, and its jewels and its webs and its things painted and carven, and its lore: they vanished for ever.

~Akallabeth

(emphasis mine, of course)

Does anybody but me read this thinking that maybe Eru didn't actually want to destroy Numenor in the first place and that it was just an "accident" that happened when Eru wanted to protect Valinor? In the first paragraph, Ar-Pharazon's fleet is destroyed and his army captured. This is the only thing that's immediately necessary to satisfy Manwe's plea and this is what Tolkien starts with. In the second he describes Eru going further and removing Valinor, making it safe not just for the moment but for the future. Numenor is mentioned, but no more. Then, only in the third paragraph, Tolkien mentions the drowning of Numenor. (Of course, it could also be that it was just the last of the things to happen, chronologically.)

In the second paragraph, Tolkien gives a reason for the sinking of Numenor, being that "it was nigh to the east of the great rift". In other words, Numenor just happened to be in the way. This does not sound like its destruction was a prime intention of Eru. Now, one could ask, if he didn't want to destroy Numenor, couldn't he, being Eru, have devised a way to destroy Ar-Pharazon's fleet and remove Valinor without it? This is difficult to answer. Maybe Arda's geography really didn't allow it without a change to its laws of physics, who knows? But the feeling I get is that maybe Eru has simply ceased to care for Numenor. After all, the Numenoreans used to be the only people who didn't "just" worship the Valar primarily, but himself. I would say that Eru didn't really wanted to destroy Numenor - otherwise the blow would have been more direct, and the text passage wouldn't carry the feeling of collateral damage - but that Eru has grown indifferent enough towards it that it didn't matter to him very much anymore and if it had to be sacrificed to protect Valinor, then so be it.

(I have to add that I haven't checked any passages from HoMe to check for different descriptions, so I could be rather wrong.)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

Thank you. And to you too, alatar.

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.

That's true. But the way I put it in the post before I think the books written in different circumstances are more difficult to read - when you don't know much about the time when they were written. Because of the reasons I stated. It's true that when you know about the circumstances, it may be easy for you to abstract some "time-specific" things, like for example now I am reading a book about Mahatma Gandhi written by a Czech author during the era of totality here, and I know which things to relativise or to take with reservations (although I am aware that even this may be dangerous, as I possibly can't know all). But still I think the contemporary books are easier to understand just because of that. And what you say for example about Tolkien, and I believe it concerns even the biblical story by the time it was narrated in its first times, and that's also about the "clear intention" and the things you speak about in the first paragraph, it was prone just to the "wilful interpretation", as much as everything is.
Nevertheless, I never said the story has just one correct interpretation or something like that. That would be the biggest nonsense. But I simply say that there are certain criteria - and the disobedience, wilful refusals and such things you mention prove it - that there are some borders where the interpretation simply becomes wilful and untrue to the central message of it (also in the case you take the Bible as canon, be it just OT or both or in any other cases, you can actually apply this on any set of books, even on Tolkien - then you have to count with the single stories' interpretations being coherent with the message of the book as a whole). Now I must say I also mix some "criticism" into it, simply saying that there are things which I believe cannot in any way be based upon the concerned text. Anyway, actually I believe there may be situations when one interpretation may be appropriate while in a different situation it would not be. Look even into the biblical canon itself! There are some really contradictory things inside it. But that's what it is - and that's actually what I believe makes it still "live" and gives it some possibility of "dialogue". Aside from, whenever I am already speaking from personal opinion, the Holy Spirit, which makes it possible to convey some message to you. But that's purely Christian view now.

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

Who told you that? At least I was not able to "decipher" what is your point of view about intention and original meaning, not in the way that the result would tell me it's totally different from mine and that they can never meet.

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.

Of course. But just for the sake of discussion, the point is that the story speaks, at least in this sentence, which is seemingly important (well, after all, it apparently caught the eye of those who divided the chapters), speaks about "all the earth". And it's definite that the point of the story concerns all people, be they male or female.
As for where it starts, one might take a look at it, but I would personally think, who knows, because it's put into the one whole by the redaction(s?) and one would have to try to find out by some signs, or actually, conclude where it theoretically might have started. Fortunately that's not our task at the moment anyway. At least not mine.

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.

That's, I would say, an usual way it goes for the apocrypha. With the later age when they were written, one of the things they do is that they "fill in" these things which a reader would usually think about when using some logical conclusion, finding out that it seems the tale misses something. Like for example that women are not mentioned there.


On topic for a change: Mac, I'd agree with some of the things you say, mainly I really am not sure, as you say, whether to see Eru's action as aimed against Númenor primarily. If anything, I would say it was like "All right Manwë, if you ask, I will take Valinor out, and just by the way it will destroy Númenor, how lucky it happens to be so close to the great rift, two flies by one hit, at least." But that's going too far in one direction and I think that won't still be the proper answer for the question.
In any case, on the other hand, even the "I will rip the world apart and look, as collateral damage it destroyed Númenor" explanation does not seem satisfactory, as Eru would surely know so we cannot label it as "accident" and the story even makes one think that it was not a mere "accident", right? Now I am a little exaggerating of course, but in any case we cannot avoid the question "so why did Eru do this?" and cannot just say "it just happened to be that way". Or so I would think.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I don't think the sinking of Numenor was supposed to be a punishment.

I disagree. The Numenorians were not allowed to come to Aman. They did come however with the intention to make war upon it and were severly punished.

Now, one could ask, if he didn't want to destroy Numenor, couldn't he, being Eru, have devised a way to destroy Ar-Pharazon's fleet and remove Valinor without it? This is difficult to answer.

I don't think it is difficult to answer. I believe Tolkien made it quite clear that Eru is limitless or omnipotent in relation to his creation, Eä, and that he (is it he btw?) could have chosen to spare all those who were innocent with a thought only, had he wished to do so. The destruction of Numenor was no accident.

Judging by the description in the Silmarillion Eru sees upon his creation much like a work of art and he wants it to be perfect and complete. To achieve this end, ugliness, suffering and evil deeds are just as important as beauty, goodness and pleasure, because without the former, the latter would of lesser value.

Eru doesn't seem bothered at all by the suffering of individual people (or elves) in Arda and the millions of innocent drowned in Numenor is of little or no importance to him I believe. Eru sees the big picture. Perhaps good people get their reward in the after-life (the gift of men) but of this not a word is spoken in the books. What becomes of men when they die is a complete mystery.

As for why Eru chose to destroy Numenor and remove Aman from the circles of the earth it is hard to say. Personally I feel that Tolkien thought not so much about Eru's inner motives and the theological implications when he wrote the story but rather about how good a story, or myth, it was, tying in with the Atlantis myth as it does. He probably pondered the theology as well, but imo this was more likely an afterthought and not the prime motivation behind the story.

If I am to make a guess, I'd say Eru removed Aman for sentimental reasons. It was so pretty and he couldn't stand to lose it, and his buddies the Ainur.. Since men have the freedom to make their own destiny, he might have hoped that they would play nice and leave Aman alone or at least not ruin it. But as it was, men would inevetably ruin Aman had it been left reachable on earth. Perhaps men will eventually make a new paradise of Arda (I forgot what they called it in HoME X) but sooner (Ar-Pharazon) or later (modern air pollution and the plundering of resources) Aman would have been ruined, there's no doubt about that.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

and that he (is it he btw?)

You should know that I smirked a little when reading this, because the note seemed just false to me. Eru, as far as I know, is addressed as "he" in the book, and so I would say he is "he", simply because there's no argument which would make us think we should call him "she" or "it", which is both as nonsens-ish, mind you. Why this seemed silly question to me is because Tolkien's books are a literary work we are given, and we have characters in them. You don't ask whether Frodo is "she", why should you ask the same about Eru. I hope it's understandable what I mean (the last sentence makes it pretty clear I think).

Judging by the description in the Silmarillion Eru sees upon his creation much like a work of art and he wants it to be perfect and complete.

Eee... really? I am not sure I ever had this impression. Eru likes to listen to the Music and see (or, hear) the beauty which comes out of it, but at least his behavior always made me think that there's something else going on in his head behind the beauty. Remember:

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Ilúvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves in the labour of their music had been busy with the preparation of this dwelling, and yet knew not that it had any purpose beyond its own beauty.

And also, in particular, if he, as you say, wanted the creation to be perfect and complete, why not make it himself and instead call some Ainur, who only made a mess.

Perhaps good people get their reward in the after-life (the gift of men) but of this not a word is spoken in the books. What becomes of men when they die is a complete mystery.

This is actually a good point, because it seems to me this far we managed to fall into the trap of Morgoth together with the Middle-Earthians and take death as something negative. While it's actually a Gift, for the Men. So we shouldn't maybe worry about the death of the "innocent" (?) inhabitants of Númenor too much.

As for why Eru chose to destroy Numenor and remove Aman from the circles of the earth it is hard to say. Personally I feel that Tolkien thought not so much about Eru's inner motives and the theological implications when he wrote the story but rather about how good a story, or myth, it was, tying in with the Atlantis myth as it does. He probably pondered the theology as well, but imo this was more likely an afterthought and not the prime motivation behind the story.

That's also a good point.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Legate

In any case, on the other hand, even the "I will rip the world apart and look, as collateral damage it destroyed Númenor" explanation does not seem satisfactory, as Eru would surely know so we cannot label it as "accident" and the story even makes one think that it was not a mere "accident", right? Now I am a little exaggerating of course, but in any case we cannot avoid the question "so why did Eru do this?" and cannot just say "it just happened to be that way". Or so I would think.

Well, calling it an "accident" was a little bit of an exaggeration itself, that's why I put the quote marks around it. My idea is not Eru saying "Oops, I guess that was a little too much to the right.", but that his intent was only to destroy Ar-Pharazôn's fleet and army and to remove Valinor into eternal safety. He probably could have done this without destroying Númenor, but didn't. He also could have let the great rift go straight through Númenor and make the character of punishment uncontestable, but didn't either. This leads me to speculate that Eru has become indifferent to it. I can't find a quote stating that Eru wanted to coldly punish the Númenóreans or destroyed it in wrath.

Originally Posted by skip

As for why Eru chose to destroy Numenor and remove Aman from the circles of the earth it is hard to say. Personally I feel that Tolkien thought not so much about Eru's inner motives and the theological implications when he wrote the story but rather about how good a story, or myth, it was, tying in with the Atlantis myth as it does. He probably pondered the theology as well, but imo this was more likely an afterthought and not the prime motivation behind the story.

With this I completely agree. And that is why it makes such a good topic for discussion. However, if you think this, then how do you know that

Originally Posted by skip

The Numenorians were not allowed to come to Aman. They did come however with the intention to make war upon it and were severly punished.

While it certainly was a punishment to the Númenóreans, how can you tell that it was Eru's intention to punish them? This is more than just splitting hairs: Only if it was Eru's intention to punish them, it makes sense to ask who the lesson was directed at.

In the Silmarillion there are many deeds worthy of punishment by Eru, especially by Morgoth, yet he never comes to punish them. Why would Eru make such an exception? Why does he count the trespasses of those who are supposed to rule Arda in his stead less than the trespasses of his Children that live in it? Would it not make more sense the other way around?

Originally Posted by skip

I don't think it is difficult to answer. I believe Tolkien made it quite clear that Eru is limitless or omnipotent in relation to his creation, Eä, and that he (is it he btw?) could have chosen to spare all those who were innocent with a thought only, had he wished to do so. The destruction of Numenor was no accident.

Well, whether he could have spared the innocents with a thought only is debatable. Seeing how long it took the Valar, even without the interruptions of Melkor, to build Arda, it might have been quite toilsome. That's why I get the impression that Eru didn't care about them enough to choose the scalpel over the broadsword.

Originally Posted by Legate

This is actually a good point, because it seems to me this far we managed to fall into the trap of Morgoth together with the Middle-Earthians and take death as something negative. While it's actually a Gift, for the Men. So we shouldn't maybe worry about the death of the "innocent" (?) inhabitants of Númenor too much.

This is certainly true, however, removing a person from life forcefully is considered to be evil. As I said in my last post, if indeed this was supposed to be a lesson, it was one of ambiguous content.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Well, calling it an "accident" was a little bit of an exaggeration itself, that's why I put the quote marks around it. My idea is not Eru saying "Oops, I guess that was a little too much to the right."

Of course, I was aware of it. That's why I said it's a little exaggeration also when I was writing my post.

In the Silmarillion there are many deeds worthy of punishment by Eru, especially by Morgoth, yet he never comes to punish them. Why would Eru make such an exception? Why does he count the trespasses of those who are supposed to rule Arda in his stead less than the trespasses of his Children that live in it? Would it not make more sense the other way around?

Actually, here we are back at what I said earlier about Manwë's prayer to Eru. Eru did not interfere when the Trees were destroyed, and in lots of other events of all-world importance. Curiously, the sending of Istari, as noted in UT, is said to be on account of Manwë, and Christopher notes that on the edge the Prof marked: "And perhaps he asked Eru for counsel?" In any case, what I want to point out here is that you actually don't usually see Eru acting in any direct, apparent way in the stories (not talking about HoME here, I don't know them, but even then, the tales in them are not among the "canonical" stuff). He rather makes the impression of somebody sitting "outside" and watching it all. But when he is specifically asked, he acts. But this happens really just a few times.
So, stemming from this, the destruction of Númenor, to me, doesn't look like the well-thought intervence of the omnipotent and omniscient creator, but rather the intervence of the omnipotent and omniscient creator who was asked by desperate King of Arda and heard his call. Something like "okay, you asked for it, so I will do it". And if I caricate it a little bit, he might have been saying: "All right, dear Manwë, I understand you. Yes, the course of the events is horrible, Men are going to violate Aman. I will remove the Undying Lands. *cough*itwilldestroynúmenorasitisontheedgeoftherif t*cough*" This is actually how I would imagine it.

[alatar]

Ah, so we finally get the answer. The lesson was pointed at Manwe! I'm not sure what the lesson is, whether that he should have called on Eru earlier to solve some issues, or that he, being King of Arda, should NOT have ever needed to call on Eru.

Regardless, if we are polling, I'm going with Manwe.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

Ah, so we finally get the answer. The lesson was pointed at Manwe! I'm not sure what the lesson is, whether that he should have called on Eru earlier to solve some issues, or that he, being King of Arda, should NOT have ever needed to call on Eru.

Regardless, if we are polling, I'm going with Manwe.

Well. But, and did you also consider the possibility that there simply was no lesson intended in these circumstances?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well. But, and did you also consider the possibility that there simply was no lesson intended in these circumstances?

Possibly, but as a 'learning creature,' I always look for survival patterns - i.e. what to do to avoid being stomped.

Lesson one - If Manwe sets aside his authority, run (don't walk) to the nearest submarine berthing facility, find one and set sail east as quickly as possible.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Legate

Eru, as far as I know, is addressed as "he" in the book

Actually, I wasn't trying to be clever. I just couldn't remember how Eru was adressed in the Silmarillion nor be bothered to look it up. You could however make the argument that Eru, in contrast to the Valar, in actuality was beyond any gender-description, being the One, although the Elves who wrote down the myth/history assumed he was a he, as they lived in a patriarchical society. But this is not a point I'd like to take any further.

Originally Posted by Legate

And also, in particular, if he, as you say, wanted the creation to be perfect and complete, why not make it himself and instead call some Ainur, who only made a mess.

I don't presume to know what Eru wanted, I just got this impression. Eru wanted to create a work of art, a beautiful creation, a perfect drama. He could have made everything perfect to begin with, but where's the fun in that? Like I said earlier, perfection loses much of it's gloss without the possibility of chaos, beauty is diminished without ugliness, the merit of being good is lost without the possibility of a fall, without a lower path. He wanted his children to discover prefection and goodness by themselves, not just lay it out for them ordered and ready.

This is also why I said that Eru cares little about the suffering of individual people. Eru always had full knowledge that millions or rather billions of good people would suffer horribly before his great drama would play out and end happily.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

While it certainly was a punishment to the Númenóreans, how can you tell that it was Eru's intention to punish them? This is more than just splitting hairs: Only if it was Eru's intention to punish them, it makes sense to ask who the lesson was directed at.In the Silmarillion there are many deeds worthy of punishment by Eru, especially by Morgoth, yet he never comes to punish them. Why would Eru make such an exception? Why does he count the trespasses of those who are supposed to rule Arda in his stead less than the trespasses of his Children that live in it? Would it not make more sense the other way around?

Why can I say it was Eru's intention to punish the Numenorians? Because the Numenorians were punished, that's why. Well, maybe I shouldn't be so cocksure, but I've hard time interpreting it any other way. Ar-Pharazon acted, Eru reacted, and like I thought we agreed on, Eru doesn't make mistakes. He wanted to destroy Numenor.

As to why he chose to punish the Numenorians but not any other people or individuals at any other time it's hard to say though. As I see it there's one unique thing about this episode. Men, as I remember having read somewhere, are supposed to be free to make their own fate beyond the Music, something which the elder children and even the Valar were not. Therefore, when Morgoth slew the trees, or when Feanor attacked and killed the Teleri, the events must (according to this interpretation) have been foretold in the Music and been a part of Eru's grand plan. Ar-Pharazon's attack on Aman need not have been so, and Eru could have felt the nessesity to act when he saw that his second children used this special freedom to make war upon Aman and his special friends the Ainur. Or perhaps he just did a favour for an old friend? But I agree with you that petty retaliation seems below Eru. There must be a message, a lesson to be learned. But here I'm stuck. I agree with Morth that this story is a wedding of the Biblical flood and the Atlantis-myth. But to be quite honest, I've a hard time figuring out what is to be learned from the biblical flood too, apart from the importance of sacrificing ritually clean beasts and follow best as you can God's every whim. Anyone?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

While it certainly was a punishment to the Númenóreans, how can you tell that it was Eru's intention to punish them? This is more than just splitting hairs: Only if it was Eru's intention to punish them, it makes sense to ask who the lesson was directed at.In the Silmarillion there are many deeds worthy of punishment by Eru, especially by Morgoth, yet he never comes to punish them. Why would Eru make such an exception? Why does he count the trespasses of those who are supposed to rule Arda in his stead less than the trespasses of his Children that live in it? Would it not make more sense the other way around?

Originally Posted by skip spence

Why can I say it was Eru's intention to punish the Numenorians? Because the Numenorians were punished, that's why. Well, maybe I shouldn't be so cocksure, but I've hard time interpreting it any other way. Ar-Pharazon acted, Eru reacted, and like I thought we agreed on, Eru doesn't make mistakes. He wanted to destroy Numenor.

As to why he chose to punish the Numenorians but not any other people or individuals at any other time it's hard to say though...

Numenor was the 'Land of the Gift' and Numenoreans were a chosen people, and, as is usual in most mythologies (the bible included), those who receive such gifts bear heavy responibilities in lieu of said gifts. Why were the Numenoreans punished? Simple, they squandered their gift, became overproud and sought to become gods themselves (or immortal in any case). As a parallel, look at the Israelites. They were Yahweh's chosen folk, but no race in the bible is more persecuted, more enslaved, and more likely to be forced from their lands and to wander aimlessly in a diaspora. The Numenoreans got off lightly if one considers their entire history.

Eru, in righteous indignation (and grouchy over having being woken up by an early morning emergency call from Manwe), smote the Numenoreans (both Ar-Pharazon's army and the sinners and King's men on the island) and took back the 'Land of the Gift'; however, he saved the Faithful who adhered to the old, reverential ways. The parallels to biblical accounts are obvious.

[Eönwë]

After some thought on the Manwë stumbles thread (And nice-ish sized post on there- maybe not long or explanatory enough, but it gets the point across), I think the lesson might be aimed at Ulmo. After all, he is too kind to his chosen people. Through Tuor, he created Numenor, and maybe Manwe wanted to show him that he shouldn't be too forgiving, otherwise his kindness would be abused, as in the case of Manwe himself with Melkor (or was he Morgoth by then?). Just another, less likely idea.

[Blokdog]

Originally Posted by Galorme

Well Eru is clearly not perfect, he may be careful and aloof, but he is clearly not perfect. Or if he is it suggests something somewhat darker. Because if Eru was perfect he could see that the men of Westinesse were turning to evil and could have taken somewhat a somewhat less horrific ruite, even something as simple as killing them painlessly. I don’t think it is Tolkein’s wish to portray Eru as perfect by any means. He even portrays him a big egocentric at times (“everything is for my greater glory”).

galorme, I disagree.
if you read the sil very carefully, you see that the valar knew long before that the numenoreans were turning to evil. see the conversation with tar-atanamir, when he, and his people, are warned for foolishness.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Blokdog

galorme, I disagree.
if you read the sil very carefully, you see that the valar knew long before that the numenoreans were turning to evil. see the conversation with tar-atanamir, when he, and his people, are warned for foolishness.

Blokdog, Welcome to the Downs!

I'm not sure what you mean in your post. Galorme noted that Eru isn't presented as being perfect, and you note that the Valar knew that the Númenóreans were turning to evil. I'm having trouble connecting those dots. Care to help?

[Blokdog]

Originally Posted by alatar

Blokdog, Welcome to the Downs!

I'm not sure what you mean in your post. Galorme noted that Eru isn't presented as being perfect, and you note that the Valar knew that the Númenóreans were turning to evil. I'm having trouble connecting those dots. Care to help?

well, I was a bit in a hurry, so I couldn't quite complete my post. in his post he states that eru wasn't perfect because he hadn't noticed that the numenoreans were turning to evil. i just wanted to make clear that if the valar, who were certainly not perfect, knew this, it's no use to say that eru wasn't perfect, only for the reason...

[Anárion Cúthalion]

Originally Posted by Galorme

"The fear of God". Now that sounds just plain evil. The idea that there is a higher power who will punish you if you do wrong is just sick. Don’t you love Christianity?

In case you haven't guessed I am letting some of my Atheist beliefs infuence me here a tad.

I'll grant you, his/her tone was a little off-putting, but, genuine 'fear' of God is more akin to very, very strong reverence. Humility, if you will. I think it was mostly the fault of the Numenorean Fleet and their King which sealed the fate of the whole nation on the home island; their hubris, their pride and vanity all conspired to bring them to a place where Sauron could bend them to his will. Or at least to where he could plant the seed of boldness that drove them to pursue what they were already thinking. The people on Numenor are fine now, where ever Eru wants them to be. The Fleet, on the other hand, is in a form of living (well, sleeping) hell until the proverbial sounding of the trumpet.

[Lalwendë]

There are some facts to be had on the history of Numenor which help. The first is that it wasn't a gift of Eru, but of the Valar. The rules about not setting foot on the shores of Valinor (technically, not leaving sight of the shores of Numenor) were also set by the Valar, and not Eru. It was also Manwe who called upon Eru to do something about Ar-Pharazon's expedition (possibly following Amandil's journey to Valinor to parley with the bosses?).

If you read the discussion between Amandil and Elendil (which I was going to put in a quote but it's maybe so long as to be a bit close to breaching copyright ) then there is a hint that Amandil, if he indeed got to Valinor (this is kept purposefully shady) asked Manwe to get rid of Numenor. Read it, I want to see what you guys think.

Here's a little, and the most intriging part:

Seek out the Faithful that are known still to be true, and let them join you in secret, if they are willing to go with you, and share in your design.'
'And what shall that design be?' said Elendil.
'To meddle not in the war, and to watch,' answered Amandil. 'Until I return I can say no more. But it is most like that you shall fly from the Land of the Star with no star to guide you; for that land is defiled. Then you shall lose all that you have loved, foretasting death in life, seeking a land of exile elsewhere. But east or west the Valar alone can say.'
Then Amandil said farewell to all his household, as one that is about to die. 'For,' said he, 'it may well prove that you will see me never again; and that I shall show you no such sign as Earendil showed long ago. But hold you ever in readiness, for the end of the world that we have known is now at hand.'

Reading on from there, the Valar clearly did all they could within their remit (not being permitted to meddle with Men) to stop the Numenoreans from their plans, even causing an earthquake, which just leaves Sauron looking even cooler to Ar-Pharazon and his mates in a fabulously diabolical scene where he defies lightning. So they called on Eru.

I find it hard to take that Eru would do this in order to teach Men a lesson, as those who were doing wrong were killed, along with a lot of innocents - not just in Numenor but also in Middle-earth as that too suffered huge floods and earthquakes - and who would there be to learn from this? Plus it would put Eru in the position of being an unpleasant figure. I'm quite happy to go along with Macalaure's idea that Eru did not intend to kill these people, just to change the shape of the world (which was something the Valar could not do).

In matter of fact, the perpetrators weren't really punished. Sauron got a fright and legged it from the ruins, while Ar-Pharazon and his Men are entombed in Valinor waiting for the final day, in a strong echo of Loki waiting for Ragnarok:

But Ar-Pharazon the King and the mortal warriors that had set foot upon the land of Aman were buried under falling hills: there it is said that they lie imprisoned in the Caves of the Forgotten, until the Last Battle and the Day of Doom.

Would Eru be so petty as to try a school teacher trick of keeping the whole class behind because one of them has been shooting spit balls? Hmmm...

[alatar]

Thanks for the great post, Lalwendë.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There are some facts to be had on the history of Numenor which help. The first is that it wasn't a gift of Eru, but of the Valar. The rules about not setting foot on the shores of Valinor (technically, not leaving sight of the shores of Numenor) were also set by the Valar, and not Eru. It was also Manwe who called upon Eru to do something about Ar-Pharazon's expedition (possibly following Amandil's journey to Valinor to parley with the bosses?).

I never saw it that way before. This is yet another blunder by the Valar. Seems that every time they intervene with lesser beings, those beings die. Thinking about it, maybe this is the way it is supposed to be, where Manwe et al are just greater versions of ourselves. We are all children of the One; some just have greater abilities/responsibilities, and when they make a mistake, the foundations of Arda shake. I guess that instead of seeing the Valar as perfect, we can see them as like us, trying to get it right but not always doing so.

Must be those lies of Melkor, making me think that they're all gods or something.

Reading on from there, the Valar clearly did all they could within their remit (not being permitted to meddle with Men) to stop the Numenoreans from their plans, even causing an earthquake, which just leaves Sauron looking even cooler to Ar-Pharazon and his mates in a fabulously diabolical scene where he defies lightning. So they called on Eru.

As you say, these beings may not be perfect and all-knowing as their PR makes it seem. Maybe Eru removed Aman from the world to protect US from them!

I find it hard to take that Eru would do this in order to teach Men a lesson, as those who were doing wrong were killed, along with a lot of innocents - not just in Numenor but also in Middle-earth as that too suffered huge floods and earthquakes - and who would there be to learn from this? Plus it would put Eru in the position of being an unpleasant figure.

It does put the One in a bad light. Why did the innocents die? Was there some reason they had to be sacrificed?

I'm quite happy to go along with Macalaure's idea that Eru did not intend to kill these people, just to change the shape of the world (which was something the Valar could not do).

Omniscient beings don't get the pleasure of saying, "Oops! Sorry."

In matter of fact, the perpetrators weren't really punished. Sauron got a fright and legged it from the ruins, while Ar-Pharazon and his Men are entombed in Valinor waiting for the final day, in a strong echo of Loki waiting for Ragnarok:

Do we have any direct evidence that Eru actually exists? Or is it all based on hearsay via the Valar? What if they, consciously or subconsciously, created this overbeing as a useful tool? When things get really bad, they can blame him. No one's the wiser.

Would Eru be so petty as to try a school teacher trick of keeping the whole class behind because one of them has been shooting spit balls? Hmmm...

One would hope not. But I thought that not all warriors were so entombed, but just those few that set foot to Aman with the King?

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

If you read the discussion between Amandil and Elendil (which I was going to put in a quote but it's maybe so long as to be a bit close to breaching copyright) then there is a hint that Amandil, if he indeed got to Valinor (this is kept purposefully shady) asked Manwe to get rid of Numenor. Read it, I want to see what you guys think.

Intriguing idea (), but there are other lines from the same passage that speak against it, I think.

If I thought that Manwe needed such a messenger, I would betray the king. For there is but one loyalty from which no man can be absolved in heart for any cause. But it is for mercy upon Men and their deliverance from Sauron the Deceiver that I would plead, since some at least have remained faithful.

I always saw Amandil's words to Elendil rather like a prophecy of some kind. Maybe it was because of this foreseeing that he felt the need to tell Manwe that not all Numenor had gone bad, and that it, or at least some of it, was still worth protecting.
When the Faithfuls are saved, the connection with Amandil's plea is stated again:

But whether or not it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwe hearkened to his prayer, by the grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day.

Actually, this is also something which belongs in with your "Facts about Númenor": It's very often overlooked that it was the Valar who saved the Faithfuls, and not Eru. The Faithfuls escaped because of Amandil's foresight and the sudden "great winds roaring from the west", which I suppose came from Manwe (and also because of Sauron's soldiers which forced Elendil to man the ships instead of just waiting in the harbour).

Originally Posted by alatar

Omniscient beings don't get the pleasure of saying, "Oops! Sorry."

But do they get the pleasure of saying, "Yeah, whatever."?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Actually, this is also something which belongs in with your "Facts about Númenor": It's very often overlooked that it was the Valar who saved the Faithfuls, and not Eru.

But wasn't it the Valar who called upon Eru? I think what they were saying was something like "We'll let these good people escape, and then we'll let Eru destroy Numenor however he wants."

[Macalaure]

Hmm... that interpretation seems to be valid, too. I would still say that "by the grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day." suggests a more direct involvement of the Valar with the rescue of the Faithfuls, though.

edit: note also that in the paragraphs following the Valar's plea - the ones that describe the imprisonment of Pharazôn's army, the removal of Aman, and the drowning of Númenor - there is no reference to the Valar at all.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Actually, this is also something which belongs in with your "Facts about Númenor": It's very often overlooked that it was the Valar who saved the Faithfuls, and not Eru. The Faithfuls escaped because of Amandil's foresight and the sudden "great winds roaring from the west", which I suppose came from Manwe (and also because of Sauron's soldiers which forced Elendil to man the ships instead of just waiting in the harbour).

I think you mean that it was the Faithful that saved the Faithful. If the Valar were involved, there'd be some floating island involved . Manwe's eastward wind was to slow the progress of Ar-Pharazon (or at least to give his rowers something to do). This same wind pushed the Faithful to safety; sure, but if they were still on Numenor, no wind would have pushed them across so far a sea.

But do they get the pleasure of saying, "Yeah, whatever."?

"My ways are not your ways, and I like drowning things."

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by alatar

I think you mean that it was the Faithful that saved the Faithful. If the Valar were involved, there'd be some floating island involved . Manwe's eastward wind was to slow the progress of Ar-Pharazon (or at least to give his rowers something to do). This same wind pushed the Faithful to safety; sure, but if they were still on Numenor, no wind would have pushed them across so far a sea.

Umm, but...

Thus the fleets of the Númenóreans moved against the menace of the West; and there was little wind,...
...
For a wind arose in the east and it wafted them away;

...the wind was still or even came out of the east. I agree, of course, that the decision to be on the ships instead of on Númenor saved them. Without the special wind, however, that would very likely not have been enough.

Originally Posted by alatar

"My ways are not your ways, and I like drowning things."

Exactly.

Well, my nice little theory stands and falls with what Eru was thinking, which is the case with every theory about the destruction of Númenor. Sadly, that's guesswork entirely.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I find it hard to take that Eru would do this in order to teach Men a lesson, as those who were doing wrong were killed, along with a lot of innocents - not just in Numenor but also in Middle-earth as that too suffered huge floods and earthquakes - and who would there be to learn from this? Plus it would put Eru in the position of being an unpleasant figure. I'm quite happy to go along with Macalaure's idea that Eru did not intend to kill these people, just to change the shape of the world (which was something the Valar could not do).

There was plenty of collateral damage by Yahweh in the bible. I mean really, actually count the amount of massacres Yahweh not only condoned, but ordered, and you will be amazed. God-sponsored genocide in the bible took no account of young or old, men, women, children or infants. The innocent fell with the guilty, unless they were the chosen, and in Tolkien's case the chosen were the Faithful, and they were spared.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In matter of fact, the perpetrators weren't really punished. Sauron got a fright and legged it from the ruins, while Ar-Pharazon and his Men are entombed in Valinor waiting for the final day, in a strong echo of Loki waiting for Ragnarok:...

Sauron cannot be technically killed, can he? So disembodying him was about all one could do. And I think the greatest mortal king of the Second Age being buried under a hill for eternity does have some poetic justice. I mean, it's almost merciful. In a Christian sense, Ar-Pharazon would have face the eternal torments of Hell in the same circumstance.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Would Eru be so petty as to try a school teacher trick of keeping the whole class behind because one of them has been shooting spit balls? Hmmm...

Again, taken in context with the biblical Yahweh, Eru comes off looking much less vengeful and spiteful...almost kindly, in a wrath of god, apocalyptic sense.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Would Eru be so petty as to try a school teacher trick of keeping the whole class behind because one of them has been shooting spit balls? Hmmm...

Perhaps the Numenorean people should never have existed at all; one could consider them a failed experiment on the part of the Valar, a phenomenon that defied went against too many facts of reality and that was, at its core, wrong. It had gone well at first, but eventually it became clear that Men were not meant to live in such privilege, so close to the Valar, with gifts of knowledge, strength, health, and the ability to die when they saw fit. It might seem callous or simplistic to just take the Numenoreans as a whole race, rather than on an individual basis, but this approach would be consistent with Tolkien's style of dealing with race in LOTR: he frequent relies on generalities. The Numenoreans had run their course, which really never should have been. In this light, Eru appears merciful for allowing a few of this problematic people group, this aberration, to continue.

(I've never thought about it this way before, and I haven't even entirely convinced myself yet - but I'm entertaining the notion.)

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Again, taken in context with the biblical Yahweh, Eru comes off looking much less vengeful and spiteful...almost kindly, in a wrath of god, apocalyptic sense.

It does seem that the biggest mention of "wrath" is the War of Wrath, which was a label the Elves gave to the mobilization of the Valar against Morgoth -- which, if I'm recalling correctly, didn't really sit terribly well with Eru; He would have preferred them to move against Melkor much sooner, and trust Him to protect the Eruhini rather than remove the Elves to Aman for safekeeping -- a move which ultimately led to not only the destruction of Beleriand, but the creation and downfall of Numenor. In the Akallabeth, it says:

Then Manwe upon the Mountain called upon Iluvatar, and for that time the Valar laid down their government of Arda. But Iluvatar showed forth his power and he changed the fashion of the world; and a great chasm opened in the sea between Numenor and the Deathless Lands, and the waters flowed down into it, and the noise and smoke of the cataracts went up into heaven, and the world was shaken...

There is no mention of wrath or punishment; in fact, there is no mention of whose idea this cataclysm was. Was it the Valar's, or Eru's? The whole "Numenor Project" was not terribly well conceived; it seems very much that the Valar, in attempting to reward the Edain, made another version of the same mistake they made with the Elves, allowing them to come close to something they then forbad them have. If they had learned about jealousy from Melkor and Feanor, they would have realized that this problem would almost inevitably arise among the Numenoreans. Sauron didn't cause them to yearn for immortality; he simply goaded them into an act he felt certain would bring about their complete destruction. It could be that the Valar, in setting aside their governance, asked for some kind of "final solution," without realizing the full implications of what they asked.

I also wonder just who wrote the account of the Akallabeth, particularly in regards to events in Aman (if we carry forward Tolkien's "conceit" of presuming these are actual historical documents). One can presume that Elendil and the other refugees were aware of the great wave and the inundation of the land, but who told the writer about the doings of the Valar? I can't imagine anyone in Middle-earth knew those particular details (unless Ulmo or Osse told them to Cirdan); is the document one peculiar to Elven historians in Aman?

Enquiring minds still want to know....

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

There is no mention of wrath or punishment; in fact, there is no mention of whose idea this cataclysm was. Was it the Valar's, or Eru's? The whole "Numenor Project" was not terribly well conceived; it seems very much that the Valar, in attempting to reward the Edain, made another version of the same mistake they made with the Elves, allowing them to come close to something they then forbad them have. If they had learned about jealousy from Melkor and Feanor, they would have realized that this problem would almost inevitably arise among the Numenoreans. Sauron didn't cause them to yearn for immortality; he simply goaded them into an act he felt certain would bring about their complete destruction. It could be that the Valar, in setting aside their governance, asked for some kind of "final solution," without realizing the full implications of what they asked.

This actually sounds quite good to me, or at least logical. You have to take into account that for Valar, the Children (be they Men or Elves) were still pretty much of an alien species, they knew very little about them, even after the few millenia of their existence, and even less about Men than about the Elves, of course. So the "Fëanor-mistake" you speak about would be actually pretty well explainable. Also, take into account that at least Manwë, and probably the other Valar too, from the large part, had very little idea about evil, I think it was mentioned somewhere that Manwë just couldn't get it how Melkor could have become the way he was (I think something like that is mentioned along the chaining of Melkor, although I am not sure whether that's the parcitular quote I have in mind). Anyway, the explanation of Valar's act as you outline it in the last sentence of the quote would once again make the most sense to me - what is clear to me is that Valar were desperate and did not know what to do anymore; that was the point beyond which they realised they couldn't reach. However, and that's the problem - to which we are returning all the time in this thread - is that I think it simply doesn't make sense, from our point of view (and neither of the solutions presented this far seemed 100% acceptable to me), that Valar sure didn't ask Eru to "do something" (or however they formulated it) which Eru would just do, destroying the Númenor as part of it - "collateral damage". Yes, it sounds the most sensible - but come on, don't you have the feeling that it's still weird? The crucial question is, don't tell me Eru couldn't have moved the rift a little bit more to the west or something like that (or created another to prevent the fall of Númenor). Don't tell me that you think it's like "okay, I take your resignation, Mr. Manwë. Btw, you fools placed Númenor at the worst spot in the sea, there's the great rift, look! - Splash!"
This is explainable only at the moment when we place, above omnipotent Eru, the even more omnipotent Tolkien, according to whose narrative purposes Eru must react. But as long as we wish to look from the in-Middle-Earth-perspective, we of course can't put any Tolkien into this. In that case, it feels more acceptable to me to simply say that "this is the way things go in M-E" and to say: the innocent people, men, women, children at Númenor had more than enough signs, from the knowledge about Aman and Sauron and Ban passed down to them by generations, through Elven counsels, to eagle-shaped clouds and lightnings. The lesson - "don't do that again once you come to Middle-Earth. Stop your Kings to go to Aman, to sacrifice people to Melkor, to listen to Saurons and stuff, if you have to. Or in the worst case, leave as far as you can from these wrongdoers, otherwise you may get caught in the wave." There was plenty time for those who were not totally corrupted to leave (the example of the Faithful shows that to save yourself was possible). It's a drastic, and quite merciless solution, but still, I would say, in the context of Middle-Earth more logical and easier to believe in than most of the speculation brought up by our postmodernistic minds. It's more medieval-ish, or ancient-ish, like the whole Middle-Earth is. Middle-Earth simply has its own rules, not ours, and these should be determined by what can we figure out from the story. Because, if you compare it, the tale of Tuor, who was sent to Gondolin also with a warning for the King, and maybe we could find some other similar tales, bears the same pattern. "Unheeded warning" is pretty cliché for this type of stories, so why couldn't it be also this case.

[alatar]

Nice posts!

I still think that Eru was allowing Manwe and the rest of the Valar make their own decisions and accept the consequences of the same. When Feanor left Aman, innocent blood was spilled, and this had an effect on all those present for all time.

Maybe Eru, much like Manwe in regards to Feanor, let Manwe take his own course in regards to the Edain, first in raising the Island of the Star, then later sinking it. Just as with Feanor's bad decisions, innocents die. Manwe's hands now are splattered with blood that won't be easy to wash off.

Manwe too is learning; let us hope to weather his mistakes.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It has been suggested to me that I don't post as often as some might like. Those who asked have only themselves to blame.

Often it seems to be forgotten just how closely Tolkien's narrative follows Plato's account of Atlantis in the Timaeus and Criteas. For the sake of comparison, the last portion of the latter work is given below.

Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis; and this he afterwards directed against our land for the following reasons, as tradition tells: For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them. By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power. Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows- [the remainder of the dialogue has been lost]

Plato Criteas, tr. Benjamin Jowett

The above translation is quoted in The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide (without its conclusion), and it certainly bears a striking resemblance to Tolkien's account of Númenor: a race is founded by the admixture of mortal and immortal blood and settled on a large island. For a time they are noble and virtuous, but the gradual dilution of the immortal part in them is mirrored in the decline of their society's moral standards. Eventually their impiety brings down a divinely engineered catastrophe upon them in which their island home is destroyed. Tolkien even named the Land of Gift Atalantë, 'The Downfallen', and referred to Númenor in his letters as 'the Atlantis-isle'. For me, though, there is a striking difference between Tolkien and Plato: their divergent approaches to the divine motive.

In Plato, Zeus explicitly states that his intention is to punish the Atlanteans so that their character will improve (slightly illogical, since they will probably not survive their lesson). Tolkien, on the other hand, never refers to punishment or even a lesson in any of his drafts of the Númenor material. In fact, in some versions of The Downfall of Númenor, Andor is not the only land to be destroyed in the cataclysm.

��§47 But those that are wisest in discernment aver that the fleets of the Nūmenōreans came indeed to Avallondē and encompassed it about, but the Avalāi made no sign. But Manawē being grieved sought the counsel at the last of Eru, and the Avalāi laid down their governance of Earth. And Eru overthrew its shape, and a great chasm was opened in the sea between Nūmenōr and Avallondē and the seas poured in, and into that abyss fell all the fleets of the Nūmenōreans and were swallowed in oblivion. But Avallondē and Nūmenōrē that stood on either side of the great rent were also destroyed; and they foundered and are no more. And the Avalāi thereafter had no local habitation on earth, nor is there any place more where memory of an earth without evil is preserved; and the Avalāi dwell in secret or have faded to shadows, and their power is minished.

The Drowning of Anadûnê (version 1), Sauron Defeated p.351

The above text was composed at a time when Tolkien was working on The Notion Club Papers, and pre-dates the Akallabêth by a considerable time. What strikes me as significant (other than the possibility that this is intended as a human rather than an Elvish tradition) is that both some portion of the Undying Lands and Númenor are destroyed in the reshaping of the earth. Had Tolkien left the story in this form it would have left us in no doubt about the incidental nature of Númenor's destruction, but this does raise another apparent contradiction: how can an omnipotent being cause collateral damage? This might be explained by the history of the text: in the earliest version of The Fall of Númenor, it is clearly the Valar, not Eru, who have reshaped the world.

����§8 But Ilúvatar gave power to the Gods, and they bent back the edges of the Middle-earth, and they made it into a globe, so that however far a man should sail he could never again reach the true West, but came back weary at last to the place of his beginning. Thus New Lands came into being beneath the Old World, and all were equally distant from the centre of the round earth; and there was flood and great confusion of waters, and seas covered what was once the dry, and lands appeared where there had been deep seas. Thus also the heavy air flowed round all the earth in that time, above the waters; and the springs of all waters were cut off from the stars.
§9 But Númenor being nigh upon the East to the great rift was utterly thrown down and overwhelmed in sea, and its glory perished.

The Fall of Númenor (version 1), The Lost Road, p.16

Tolkien says something very similar in one of his published letters.

Faced by this rebellion, of appalling folly and blasphemy, and also real peril (since the Númenóreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself) the Valar lay down their delegated power and appeal to God, and receive the power and permission to deal with the situation; the old world is broken and changed. A chasm is opened in the sea and Tar-Calion and his armada is engulfed. Númenor itself on the edge of the rift topples and vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Letters #131 (c. late 1951)

The agency involved, however, was to be changed not long afterwards. In 1954, Tolkien wrote about the events of the Akallabêth in another letter.

The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion - for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them with any 'divine' display of the powers they held over the physical world. They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred. At the moment that Arpharazôn set foot on the forbidden shore, a rift appeared: Númenor foundered and was utterly overwhelmed; the armada was swallowed up; and the Blessed Realm removed for ever from the circles of the physical world.

Letters #155 (September 1954)

Later still, he told Rhona Beare that "Sauron was first defeated by a 'miracle': a direct action of God the Creator, changing the fashion of the world, when appealed to by Manwë..." (Letters #211), so we can see a fairly rapid re-assessment of the whole story from an act of the Valar to the direct intervention of the creator. The Valar might be forgiven for their failure to foresee the extent of the damage this change in the earth's form would cause, but Tolkien has now replaced them as the prime agency with Eru himself, who ought to know what the outcome of his actions will be. Personally I feel that this causes a theological problem that could easily have been avoided, but since I ought to conclude this monster with some sort of opinion I will give one.

It seems to me that within the boundaries of Arda itself, Eru's powers were limited by the physical rules of his own creation. In the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, for example, Andreth cannot understand how the dream of the 'Men of the Old Hope' can be achieved.

'But they speak of Eru Himself entering into Arda... How could He the greater do this? Would it not shatter Arda, or indeed all Eä?'

Athrabeth (Morgoth's Ring p.322

In fact, Eru must become incarnate to do this, and Tolkien quite rightly shied away at the last from talking about the Crucifixion in his legends. However it does demonstrate that the limitless creator must limit himself in order to conform with the internal rules of his creation, and one of those rules is that enormous geological upheavals can cause islands to sink. As I said above, however, Tolkien had changed his mind enough for the theology of this situation to be unclear. Personally I think that narrative necessity demanded that Númenor be destroyed, because combining Plato's account and Tolkien's own dream of the wave was the whole point of the story. Once he had the dramatic situation on his hands - and had decided that Eru rather than the Valar should change the world - he was forced back on making the rebellion 'monstrous' and blasphemous, and the outcome of a Númenórean landing more perilous in order to avoid portraying Eru as a vengeful deity. No lesson appears to have been intended or received except by the reader.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Perhaps the Numenorean people should never have existed at all; one could consider them a failed experiment on the part of the Valar, a phenomenon that defied went against too many facts of reality and that was, at its core, wrong. It had gone well at first, but eventually it became clear that Men were not meant to live in such privilege, so close to the Valar, with gifts of knowledge, strength, health, and the ability to die when they saw fit. It might seem callous or simplistic to just take the Numenoreans as a whole race, rather than on an individual basis, but this approach would be consistent with Tolkien's style of dealing with race in LOTR: he frequent relies on generalities. The Numenoreans had run their course, which really never should have been. In this light, Eru appears merciful for allowing a few of this problematic people group, this aberration, to continue.

(I've never thought about it this way before, and I haven't even entirely convinced myself yet - but I'm entertaining the notion.)

This has made me think about the rights and wrongs of what the Valar did.

The Valar were quite cruel, providing Men with this island from which could be seen a tiny little glimpse of the Undying Lands, a place where the people are immortals. Not only that, but creating a place of near-perfection which only lacked that one ingredient which allowed the Men there to enjoy this paradise in eternity. Back in the 'real world', i.e. Middle-earth, life was still relatively gritty (even more so once the Edain upped sticks and abandoned the rest of the Men to their fate), but on Numenor it was great - just that they could only enjoy this 'jolly' of a life for a limited time.

Yet Eru had made Men in their nature mortals, and had made them that way because Eru saw their mortality as a gift. The Valar did not go against this, they could not change that, but they certainly tampered with it.

What happened in Numenor also gives you some background on why in later years the Elves tried to keep away from Men. It was quite possibly for the benefit of Men, not to torment them with this one thing they could not have.

I wouldn't say it was merciful for Eru to cause the cataclysm which sent Numenor to the watery depths, but it could certainly be argued that it was necessary for him to take the Undying Lands away from the sight of Men, for their own good.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This has made me think about the rights and wrongs of what the Valar did.

The Valar were quite cruel, providing Men with this island from which could be seen a tiny little glimpse of the Undying Lands, a place where the people are immortals.

I would say the Valar were as equally short-sighted when they dragged off the Eldar from Middle-earth and kept them in Valinor (ostensibly for their own good). Granted, they earnestly wished to help the Eldar, but breaking up families in Cuivienen (remember, not all Elves wished to leave), and then practically ignoring those who stayed behind for many generations seems a bit callous.

Then of course fencing in creative, energetic folk like the Noldor was bound to cause friction eventually, even without Morgoth butting in. How long before the mean constraints of Valinor, however beautiful, would act as a catalyst for more adventurous Elves to yearn for more freedom? Galadriel, while not agreeing with Feanor and his sons, certainly longed for greater kingdoms to rule. In addition, Elves, like their mortal counterparts at times, seemed to always seek for that which they lost.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I would say the Valar were as equally short-sighted when they dragged off the Eldar from Middle-earth and kept them in Valinor (ostensibly for their own good). Granted, they earnestly wished to help the Eldar, but breaking up families in Cuivienen (remember, not all Elves wished to leave), and then practically ignoring those who stayed behind for many generations seems a bit callous.

Then of course fencing in creative, energetic folk like the Noldor was bound to cause friction eventually, even without Morgoth butting in. How long before the mean constraints of Valinor, however beautiful, would act as a catalyst for more adventurous Elves to yearn for more freedom? Galadriel, while not agreeing with Feanor and his sons, certainly longed for greater kingdoms to rule. In addition, Elves, like their mortal counterparts at times, seemed to always seek for that which they lost.

This adds grist to my mill that Being An Elf Would Suck. As if it's not bad enough being tied to the earth with no hope of a rest, and also being tied to whatever cataclysmic fate Eru has in store, the Valar come along like school prefects and stop you from venting your creative urges to the full through all the ages of your existence.

Would I have wanted to be one of the Moriquendi? Too right. I'd have tolerated Orc raids over beautiful boredom any day.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This adds grist to my mill that Being An Elf Would Suck.

Perhaps this explains the seeming death wish of some Elves -- a vainglory straddling the line of utter madness. I guess that's the point where Elves turn 'fey'. I mean, really, what was Fingolfin thinking going up against Morgoth? Was it necessary from a strategic standpoint? Did it serve any purpose whatsoever? It seems immortality may cause a distinct urge to gamble with one's life, or rather, a disregard or fearlessness of consequences.

[Morthoron]

So let it not be forgotten:
Ham did the begetting,
and Canaan was misbegotten.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Perhaps this explains the seeming death wish of some Elves -- a vainglory straddling the line of utter madness. I guess that's the point where Elves turn 'fey'. I mean, really, what was Fingolfin thinking going up against Morgoth? Was it necessary from a strategic standpoint? Did it serve any purpose whatsoever? It seems immortality may cause a distinct urge to gamble with one's life, or rather, a disregard or fearlessness of consequences.

Even so, there would be no guarantees once you had entered the Halls of Mandos. You may stay there or you may return to your/another life, but there is no way of telling. It's very different to the fate of Men who may turn fey in the belief (if they have it) that after death they would once again be with their loved ones so there is nothing to be lost.

Though after endless years seeing destruction and horror, especially in Beleriand while Morgoth was at large, I'm sure some Elves must have just snapped and lost it and literally threw themselves into battle. And who knows what went through the minds of the Noldor after they had stormed out of Valinor, lost kin on the Helcaraxe or the Kinslaying, maybe regretted their choice to leave?

[Morthoron]

Interesting that the word 'fey' has its root in the term faery itself (French, I believe, as in Morgan la Fey), thereby insinuating an instability in the Elvish (or, more properly, Sidhe) set in a classical sense. Reading something like W.B. Yeats' or Crofton Croker's folklore of Ireland, it's certainly reasonable to believe that faery-folk are unreasonable and more than a bit daft. They are certainly not a stable race in any case (which is reiterated for modern readers in Mr. Norrell and Jonathan Strange).

I wonder if Tolkien perhaps gleaned a bit of the Elvish feyness from 19th century English and Irish writers. I know he didn't care much for Gaelic mythology (Usnach, Cu Chullain, Redbranch, etc.), but Faery feyness abounds in more current Irish folklore (say, within the last 2 or 3 centuries), and in older tales Tolkien was more partial to, as in the Welsh Mabinogion and the Arthurian cycle as well (The Green Knight was not the most stable character, was he?). I haven't read any George MacDonald in the last 2 decades, but I seem to remember a great bit of feyness permeating his novels.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Even so, there would be no guarantees once you had entered the Halls of Mandos. You may stay there or you may return to your/another life, but there is no way of telling. It's very different to the fate of Men who may turn fey in the belief (if they have it) that after death they would once again be with their loved ones so there is nothing to be lost.

I have to note one thing which just kind of popped up at me here when reading this. From the theological point of view, the Fate of Men is actually of all the mythology something where Tolkien went probably the closest to the Christian message, particularly as given by the Resurrection. All the images of Valinor, Elves etc. are just "simple" things, and a view from indeed a mythology, which also Tolkien made fit into the mythologic world itself. But here is the difference: the Elves remain there, but the fate of Men is to head out into something uncertain. Yet when they rely on that message that it's going to be fine, however not exactly certain what's going to be there, they have this promise that their death is not the last instance where all hope would be lost. So if they believe this thing, resp. person who told them that (now I am not entirely sure if Eru is that much of a reliably-looking one, but whatever - actually, it's more like that Eru is not much looking like anything, at least from my point of view, so that's a bit on a different level), I think by removing all the other mythological colorite etc. this is pretty much the closest to the "bare core" of the Easter message.

I am now speaking from the point of view of the Silmarillion, UT and such, I don't know if there's anything more in HoME or such (which could make it more or on the other hand less fitting). But that's how I see it.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Legate

I have to note one thing which just kind of popped up at me here when reading this. From the theological point of view, the Fate of Men is actually of all the mythology something where Tolkien went probably the closest to the Christian message, particularly as given by the Resurrection. All the images of Valinor, Elves etc. are just "simple" things, and a view from indeed a mythology, which also Tolkien made fit into the mythologic world itself.

If you think about it, Men would be better off accepting their fate in a very real psychological sense. Denying death is not a healthy thing to do, as it comes to us all one day, and this idea has been explored over and over again by Artists. Even were Tolkien an out-an-out atheist it would make perfect logical sense for Men in his creation to be better off if they accept the inevitability of death - indeed that's one of the messages of Pullman's HDM and he has beliefs quite opposite to Tolkien's.

It is interesting how Tolkien though, of all people, counterbalances this with an examination of a race both immortal and bound to the fabric of the earth. I can't explain that.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Interesting that the word 'fey' has its root in the term faery itself (French, I believe, as in Morgan la Fey), thereby insinuating an instability in the Elvish (or, more properly, Sidhe) set in a classical sense. Reading something like W.B. Yeats' or Crofton Croker's folklore of Ireland, it's certainly reasonable to believe that faery-folk are unreasonable and more than a bit daft. They are certainly not a stable race in any case (which is reiterated for modern readers in Mr. Norrell and Jonathan Strange).

I wonder if Tolkien perhaps gleaned a bit of the Elvish feyness from 19th century English and Irish writers. I know he didn't care much for Gaelic mythology (Usnach, Cu Chullain, Redbranch, etc.), but Faery feyness abounds in more current Irish folklore (say, within the last 2 or 3 centuries), and in older tales Tolkien was more partial to, as in the Welsh Mabinogion and the Arthurian cycle as well (The Green Knight was not the most stable character, was he?). I haven't read any George MacDonald in the last 2 decades, but I seem to remember a great bit of feyness permeating his novels.

Good observation! And if you think about Tolkien's Elves, laying aside the sensible ones like Elrond (who also is a particular friend to Men), you are correct, they are not exactly perfect and are tinged with more than a little lunacy. Witness the issues with Eol, his wife, his son, his brother-in-law; Galadriel's power lust; Feanor's temper; the defensiveness of Thingol and of Thranduil.

When Men like Eomer and Boromir express a certain amount of fear about Lothlorien they are only echoing the feelings of people in the real world when told a place was inhabited by fairies - they were and are (in Tolkien's work) pretty perilous and unpredictable beings.


Incidentally, what did you make of Jonathan Strange in the end?