Imagine no religion

[garm]

- this book is interesting for several reasons - first, it's the last book published by Tolkien in his lifetime. It's also (mainly) a book of sheet-music, being musical settings to some of Tolkien's poems by Donald Swann. And it's also noteworthy for the set of notes by Tolkien at the rear of the book, on his poems A Elbereth Gilthoniel and Namarie. Tolkien writes:

"As a 'divine' or 'angelic' person Varda/Elbereth could be said to be 'looking afar from heaven'... She was often thought of, or depicted, as standing on a great height looking towards Middle-earth... and listening to the cries for aid of Elves (and Men) in peril or grief. Frodo and Sam both invoke her in moments of extreme peril. The Elves sing hymns to her. (These and other references to religion in _The Lord of the Rings_ are frequently overlooked)."

And writing of the palantir in the Tower Hills, Tolkien has this to say:

"The High Elves...journeyed to the Tower Hills at intervals to look afar at Eressea... and the shores of Valinor... the hymn [A Elbereth Gilthoniel] is one appropriate to Elves who have just returned from such a pilgrimage. No doubt Gildor and his companions, since they were going eastwards, wer Elves living in or near Rivendell returning from the palantir of the Tower Hills. On such visits they were sometimes rewarded by a vision, clear but remote, of Elbereth, as a majestic figure, shining white, standing upon the mountain Oilolosse..."

So, we have Elves and Men (and hobbits) praying to Elbereth, and Elves going on a pilgrimage to the Tower Hills. As Tolkien says: things like this seem often to be overlooked.

[Inziladun]

I quite like this thread, and feel some excellent observations were made.

Something has occurred to me which could explain the lack of organised worship of Eru in Middle-earth.

In our world, worship of God is codified and structured in various ways. Christians, Jews, and Muslims each have a book in which is written laws they are to live by, and the manner in which they are to worship God the Creator. The Bible, the Pentateuch, and the Quran are considered to be divinely inspired texts, and thus are to be absolutely obeyed.

The denizens of Middle-earth have no such divine guidebook. As has been noted elsewhere on this thread, the knowledge of Eru and his angelic governors, the Valar, is traditional, handed down from the Elves who saw the Valar in person, then to the Edain. The latter, as Númenóreans, presumably instructed the "dark" Men of Middle-earth.

Since Eru apparently saw no need to issue any such book of instructions, I feel the proxy-worship through the Valar must have been acceptable to him. Obey the Valar and follow the good promptings they (or Eru himself) put into their hearts, and they were glorifying Eru.

That leads back to Númenor, however. They alone, as far as the reader is told, had a practise of organised worship to Eru.

[On the Meneltarma] no tool or weapon had ever been borne; and there none might speak any word, save the King only. Thrice only in each year the King spoke, offering prayer for the coming year at the Erukyermë in the first days of spring, praise of Eru Ilúvatar at the Erulaitalë in midsummer, and thanksgiving to him at the Eruhantalë at the end of autumn.At these times the king ascended the mountain on foot followed by a great concourse of the people, clad in white and garlanded, but silent.

UT A Description of Númenor

Why did the Númenóreans do that? Was it an idea that simply occurred to them? After all, the Edain alone, out of all the other races, had a land specifically made for them. Perhaps they recognised the incredible way they had been blessed, and knowing Eru alone had caused it to be, wanted to worship him "personally". I like the idea of that, since they were apparently the only ones in the history of Arda to worship Eru in that way.

The UT essay does go on to say, though, that when people approached the summit of the Meneltarma:

....at once three eagles would appear and alight upon three rocks near to the western edge; but at the times of the Three Prayers they did not descend, remaining in the sky and hovering above the people. They were called the Witnesses of Manwë, and they were believed to be sent by him from Aman to keep watch upon the Holy Mountain and upon all the land.

If the Three Prayers were the invention of Númenor, without "instruction', one might ask why Manwë felt the need to "keep watch" on the Meneltarma. I don't really think such "witnesses" were really needed for Manwë to know what went on in Middle-earth: he pretty much saw what he wanted to see. So the eagles were probably just a reminder to the Númenóreans that the Valar were still there, and aware of what they did.

Now for symbolism. The eagles set down on the western side of the summit. That's pretty well in keeping with the motif throughout the books that west=good. What of the three rocks, though? Three eagles, three rocks, and three prayers. One might think it a nod by the author to the Holy Trinity. For an in-story explanation, though, perhaps those things are symbolic of the Three Themes of Ilúvatar?

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I've always felt grateful to Professor Tolkien for largely keeping his own personal religious -- i.e., animist -- beliefs out of his published literary creations. Perhaps this reflects the rigorous criticism that he regularly solicited and received from his great friend and colleague, the atheist C. S. Lewis. At any rate, and as numerous others have noted, Tolkien's studied ambiguity towards -- if not indifference to -- religious practices in his fictional Middle-earth make this fantasy world more universal and acceptable in its appeal, particularly since historic religious traditions -- especially the Single Spook variety -- tend mostly to function as atavistic amplifiers of tribal xenophobia, more often than not engendering fear and loathing of the dreaded "OTHER" than any sort of benign impulse towards human brotherhood. Religion in Middle-earth would only have made bad things worse, so kudos to Professor Tolkien for letting the good things get along well enough -- as they usually do -- without this unnecessary encumbrance.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I've always felt grateful to Professor Tolkien for largely keeping his own personal religious -- i.e., animist -- beliefs out of his published literary creations.

Last time I checked, he was a Catholic. But I think I get what you mean by animist - if you're trying to extrapolate his personal beliefs from his work, traces of animism can certainly be found there (e.g. Old Man Willow, Caradhras...); but that may be largely inherent in the mythological form he chose, and I'd be wary to simply label the man himself as an animist based on that.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Perhaps this reflects the rigorous criticism that he regularly solicited and received from his great friend and colleague, the atheist C. S. Lewis.

... whom Tollers converted back to Christianity. Just saying.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

At any rate, and as numerous others have noted, Tolkien's studied ambiguity towards -- if not indifference to -- religious practices in his fictional Middle-earth make this fantasy world more universal and acceptable in its appeal, particularly since historic religious traditions -- especially the Single Spook variety -- tend mostly to function as atavistic amplifiers of tribal xenophobia, more often than not engendering fear and loathing of the dreaded "OTHER" than any sort of benign impulse towards human brotherhood. Religion in Middle-earth would only have made bad things worse, so kudos to Professor Tolkien for letting the good things get along well enough -- as they usually do -- without this unnecessary encumbrance.

Oh boy. Talk about a mumak in a porcelain shop. Not that I entirely disagree, but wording it like that may lead to ... interesting responses.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

First, from The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion, by Sir James George Frazer (1922):

The very beasts associate the ideas of things that are like each other or that have been found together in their experience; and they could hardly survive for a day if they ceased to do so. But who attributes to the animals a belief that the phenomena of nature are worked by a multitude of invisible animals or by one enormous and prodigiously strong animal behind the scenes? It is probably no injustice to the brutes to assume that the honor of devising a theory of this latter sort must be reserved for human reason.

Second, just to clear up a point of terminology, I followed the supplied link to the Wikipedia definition of "Animism," where I found:

According to religious scholar Robert Segal, Sir Edward Tylor saw all religions, "modern and primitive alike," as forms of animism.

I agree completely with this usage of the more comprehensive term "Animist" in preference to the parochial and sectarian manifestations of received religious rituals that many people unconsciously assume when they -- loosely -- use the term "religious." "Catholic" or "Druid" makes no significant difference -- just a minor theological squabble about the number of invisible animist spooks involved. I don't think I need to further belabor the point.

More importantly, as opposed to the "one enormous and prodigiously strong animal" school of animism, rather than the "multitude of invisible animals" school -- sometimes referred to as Monotheistic Animism vs Polytheistic Animism -- Professor Tolkien opted -- in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- for the creation of a "Magical" world instead of an Animist or "religious" one. According to Frazer's monumental study, both the magician and the priest claim to believe in unseen animal -- or animated -- spirits (One or several) who they claim make the observable world work as it does. Both claim to believe that the magician and the priest can sway these animal spirits -- or spooks -- to make things turn out the way the magician or the priest want. They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual grovelling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination. I leave it to the interested reader of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings to determine which form of animist behavior best describes Tolkien's Middle-earth: Magical or Religious.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

More importantly, as opposed to the "one enormous and prodigiously strong animal" school of animism, rather than the "multitude of invisible animals" school -- sometimes referred to as Monotheistic Animism vs Polytheistic Animism -- Professor Tolkien opted -- in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- for the creation of a "Magical" world instead of an Animist or "religious" one. According to Frazer's monumental study, both the magician and the priest claim to believe in unseen animal -- or animated -- spirits (One or several) who they claim make the observable world work as it does. Both claim to believe that the magician and the priest can sway these animal spirits -- or spooks -- to make things turn out the way the magician or the priest want. They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual groveling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination. I leave it to the interested reader of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings to determine which form of animist behavior best describes Tolkien's Middle-earth: Magical or Religious.

Is 'all of the above' a valid answer? We have Eru. We have Fangorn and trees with souls. Animals speak and can be spoken to. Legolas reports the rocks of Hollin remember elves of ages past. Even if part of the spirit of Eru doesn't echo in everything, arguably a part of the spirit of Morgoth might. Simply saying 'everything has a soul' might easily start a discussion as to the nature of souls in Tolkien's world. Such a discussion would be inconclusive I expect. Anyway, one might argue that elements of monotheism, pantheism and animalism are present.

I would also suggest that both forms of magic exist. If one has a potent enough fea, one can draw on one's own strength and do stuff. Gandalf, as a maia, has such strength. Aragorn, in his healing and his prophecy, has such strength as well though how he manifests it is limited. There are times when various characters speak the names of the Valar in supplication.

The word I might use to describe Tolkien's world with respect to magic and religion would be 'complicated.'

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

According to Frazer's monumental study, both the magician and the priest claim to believe in unseen animal -- or animated -- spirits (One or several) who they claim make the observable world work as it does. Both claim to believe that the magician and the priest can sway these animal spirits -- or spooks -- to make things turn out the way the magician or the priest want. They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual grovelling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination. I leave it to the interested reader of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings to determine which form of animist behavior best describes Tolkien's Middle-earth: Magical or Religious.

Going by those parameters, it doesn't appear that LOTR fits the bill for "Magical" or "Religious".

You say that "the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments".
Where in the books is that found? "Spells" are used by people who either, as Gandalf, have an innate ability to affect the physical environment, or, like the Witch-king, have so submerged themselves in the identity of those with innate power that they are able to "borrow" it. Spells are used in the books to affect the physical environment and further the cause of the caster, but I know of no instance in which they are used to "compel, or coerce" a higher power to do one's bidding.

Then, on the "religious" side, you say "the priest believes that only his ritual grovelling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe."
Likewise, I see no instance of that. The original premise of this thread was in fact that it is difficult to find any organised, ritualistic divine worship in the books. The sole exception is, as has been noted, the Númenóreans and their "Satanistic" Morgoth-cult. Crying to Elbereth for help in times of need may be considered a prayer, but there is no ritual involved, and it is done by anyone who feels the need for it, like Frodo and Sam. There is no priest to serve as an intermediary between the Middle-earth denizen and the Valar. The Valar themselves are intermediaries between the Children and the Creator.

As blantyr said, "complicated" does seem to be the watchword here.

[Pitchwife]

First, about the Frazer quote and a bit off topic, I suspect animals (at least domesticated ones) don't need to speculate about gods or spirits because they have us; and no doubt they quite often think that the gods must be crazy.

Second,

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I agree completely with this usage of the more comprehensive term "Animist" in preference to the parochial and sectarian manifestations of received religious rituals that many people unconsciously assume when they -- loosely -- use the term "religious."

Well, I don't, mainly because if you say all religions are animistic, you make the words animist and religious synonyms, and thus one of them redundant - unless you mean that there are also forms of animism that are not religious; and it seems you do mean that when you say:

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals

But only a few lines above you said:

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Professor Tolkien opted -- in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- for the creation of a "Magical" world instead of an Animist or "religious" one.

- again using animist=religious as synonymous and opposed to magical.
See why I prefer to use the term in a narrow sense?

Third, no need for the bolding. We can all read and recognize a distinction without having it shoved in our faces.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Going by those parameters, it doesn't appear that LOTR fits the bill for "Magical" or "Religious".

Which, if I understood him right, is more or less what TMT was originally saying before he entangled himself in the intricacies of terminology.

About the eagles - I think you may be right that they were sent more for the Númenóreans benefit than the Valar's. Remember the Three Houses of the Edain originally were dissenters from Morgoth worship (as per Adanel's Tale in the Athrabeth); the Valar may have feared that their descendants might relapse if left to themselves (and surprise, they did!), so they felt a need to remind the Númenóreans "We're watching you." And I think it's no coincidence that the last warning omen from the West in the days of Ar-Pharazôn was a cloud of eagles - "The eagles of the Lords of the West are at hand!", no longer as witnesses, but in wrath.

[Almesiva Moonshadow]

No religion means no cruch on Sunday so...YAAAAY!

[blantyr]

They might not have priests, but there are a lot of cultures in Middle Earth with minstrels and songs. When Frodo and Sam woke in Ithilin, one of the first major tasks was writing the tale of nine fingered Frodo and the Ring of doom. When Frodo stopped in Rivendell, there was the Hall of Fire. When the Fellowship reached Lorien they had the elves singing songs of the late Mithrandir. Even in the Wild between Bree and Rivendell, Sam knew a few verses telling the story of Gil Galad.

I'd suggest that histories are told in song. Part of the role of the song is to illustrate good and evil. What choices must a hero face, and what have been the consequences in the past?

There is a large difference between a minstrel and a priest. Yet, if there is some universal agreement on the nature of good and evil, a tradition of story telling in song, in keeping alive lessons learned from past mistakes, might well be present.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

At any rate, and as numerous others have noted, Tolkien's studied ambiguity towards -- if not indifference to -- religious practices in his fictional Middle-earth make this fantasy world more universal and acceptable in its appeal, particularly since historic religious traditions -- especially the Single Spook variety -- tend mostly to function as atavistic amplifiers of tribal xenophobia, more often than not engendering fear and loathing of the dreaded "OTHER" than any sort of benign impulse towards human brotherhood.

I don't believe you could call Tolkien "indifferent" on the subject. How do you explain the overt worship of Eru, the Prime Creator by the Númenóreans? Or the fact that, according to the UT essay Cirion and Eorl, Cirion named Eru in witness to the oaths taken by him and Eorl, and that

[Cirion's] oath astounded those who heard it, and filled them with awe, and was alone (over and above the venerable tomb) sufficient to hallow the place where it was spoken.

Footnote 44

Why did naming Eru in the oath "hallow" the spot, unless the god himself heard the oath, and approved?

As to the last bit of your quote, all I'm going to say is that I do not agree with the basic premise, but that is not a discussion for this forum.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Religion in Middle-earth would only have made bad things worse, so kudos to Professor Tolkien for letting the good things get along well enough -- as they usually do -- without this unnecessary encumbrance.

I daresay there are some readers who see the workings of 'religion' in the books, whether you do or not, and for them that is one of the 'good things' in itself.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I don't believe you could call Tolkien "indifferent" on the subject. How do you explain the overt worship of Eru, the Prime Creator by the Númenóreans? Or the fact that, according to the UT essay Cirion and Eorl, Cirion named Eru in witness to the oaths taken by him and Eorl, and that...

I daresay there are some readers who see the workings of 'religion' in the books, whether you do or not, and for them that is one of the 'good things' in itself.

I second this. If waving a staff or speaking a word of command are techniques to gather or focus 'magic', uttering the name of a Valar seems a valid technique as well. I see the hymns sung to Elbereth as prayer, and not vain ones. I see the inclusion of a Valar's name in a prophecy or curse as a way of raising the stakes.

Yet, I do note there are few if any characters that might be described well as 'priests.' One might on occasion invoke a Valar's name in supplication, but there doesn't seem to be a clerical hierarchy of representatives claiming to speak for the Valar or advocate for their will.

We might want to say that there are few to no religious institutions in comparison to historical cultures, but that the Valar are somewhat akin to Gods and that prayer is not a futile exercise.