The Third Theme

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Aiwendil & Legate for the clarifications. What is then interesting to me is that towards the end of the song, there are two themes in competition, so to speak, the loud and brash theme, and the deep and profound and beautiful one.

Below follows much speculation:

Whether the Elves are part of both the 2nd and 3rd or just the 3rd matters little to me. In my mind it boils down to this:

(1) First Theme: Reality
(2) Melkor's discord: Evil
----> result, discord
(3) Second Theme: Powers introduced to contend with the Evil
---- > in the end Melkor has the mastery
(4) Third Theme: soft and sweet, unquenchable, takes to itself power and profundity.
--- > two musics utterly at variance: loud and brash :versus: deep and wide and beautiful & slow and blended with immeasurable sorrow - - - > most triumphant notes of the loud brash vain theme are taken and woven into the other's solemn pattern.

Whereas the Second theme fights against the discord in a Good versus Evil formula, seemingly on Evil's terms (that of power), the Third theme seeks the good while suffering evil, and evil cannot overcome it. The italicized theme is a particularly Christian notion. It is exhibited throughout LotR in Frodo, for example, the more he suffers, by which he learns greater wisdom and becomes capable of greater compassion.

It is also seen in Beren and Luthien. Out of love she sacrifices everything for Beren. Arwen does the same for Elessar. Frodo does it for the whole Shire, and really for all Middle Earth.

Finrod Felagund does it to save Beren. By contrast, Thingol is an exemplar of the Second Theme in his failure to put love above honor in regard to Beren and Luthien.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Whereas the Second theme fights against the discord in a Good versus Evil formula, seemingly on Evil's terms (that of power), the Third theme seeks the good while suffering evil, and evil cannot overcome it. The italicized theme is a particularly Christian notion. It is exhibited throughout LotR in Frodo, for example, the more he suffers, by which he learns greater wisdom and becomes capable of greater compassion.

I would definitely second this, and I completely agree.

It is the subject of the whole story of the Valar in particular, all this "use of power or not?" aka the questions raised after the attack on Utumno and the waning interference in latter Ages (of course, it is also a topic of the Ring story, but there I think it speaks more concretely about power in the meaning "power as control of something", whereas Valar's, and Elves', is the "power to contest" or "resistance by power", not necessarily wanting to conquer, but just to protect by power - of course, the whole point of the Ring story is about the unwillingness of the successful contester to give up what was lended to him or what he had conquered). For the sake of being "fair", it should be pointed out that the Second theme is not labeled as something wrong - it is merely something that does not provide the final victory. That comes only with the Third theme, and, it should be noted, only with the Children being, as perceived by the Valar, "things other than themselves, strange and free" (emphasis, of course, on the latter - now see in the light of the whole "power to control"-debate).

Originally Posted by elempi

It is also seen in Beren and Luthien. Out of love she sacrifices everything for Beren. Arwen does the same for Elessar. Frodo does it for the whole Shire, and really for all Middle Earth.

Well, since you mentioned this, I think, even though the Elven ladies' sacrifice is considerable, the one of the Men is also there, and maybe not so much lesser, given the scope of their rather short life. Beren sacrifices everything for Lúthien by going to Angband, if that is what it takes. Likewise, Aragorn also sacrificed much for Arwen (I think that was a sort of "circular" thing - while he at the same point sacrificed his possible happiness - or the possible immediate happiness - for the sake of Middle-Earth's fate, which of course however concerned even his and Arwen's possible future). And, of course, Frodo has his friends, especially Sam, who truly sacrifices himself for Frodo, all the way to Mordor!

These (especially with the two former, compared to the fact that their counterparts gave up immortal life) may seem somewhat like lesser sacrifices, but sacrifices they are nonetheless... anyway, the theme of sacrifice is just something quite crucial, and sacrifice is of course only a radical form of thinking of others instead of just for oneself... I think all the main heroes here had this quality.

Originally Posted by elempi

Finrod Felagund does it to save Beren. By contrast, Thingol is an exemplar of the Second Theme in his failure to put love above honor in regard to Beren and Luthien.

Totally. I think that is a quite good point.

But still, I think - and would like to point out once again, for emphasising it - that the Second Theme should not be equated with failure. That would certainly be against the spirit of that narration, so to say, and not true to it. Second Theme is simply an attempt to contest Melkor, and rightful one, because of course, Melkor needs to be contested! This noble thought in itself should not be disqualified. It is simply so that the turn - the surprising turn, showing the unexpectedness of Ilúvatar's plans with Eä, as pointed out there - is in the fact that the final victory comes from totally elsewhere, and that the things which cannot be really broken are those "hardened" by sorrow and enduring of suffering, as we read there.

[littlemanpoet]

You make excellent points, Legate. Perhaps it is going too far to equate the Second Theme with Thingol's failure to choose love over honor; for a failure it is, one he recognizes in the end.

It seems to me, however, that the Second Theme is perhaps analogous to the Law of the bible's Old Testament and the Third theme is thus analogous to the New Commandment of the bible's New Testament: Honor and Law and such can only reach so high; it is Love that conquers a multitude of evils, casts out fear, suffers many wrongs, etc.

So yes, whereas the Second Theme is not evil, but good, yet it is not enough with which to fight Evil. It can be overwhelmed, it can be mastered, as Tolkien puts it. The Third Theme is the greater and cannot be overcome by Evil, because the Third Theme appears to be essentially about, as you say, Legate, putting others before oneself --> sacrifice --> Love.

[leapofberen]

Before it gets too far long, my apologies. Going back to the original question, in my haste I think I confused the Themes of the First Music with the Second Music that (if I remember rightly) Men will play a part in, but it was not specified if the Eldar or even the Valar will participate though the Eldar believe Eru will not abandon them.

I agree with the line of thinking in the posts...my thoughts (conjecturing here) are that Eru seems to have tied himself forever to the Children in a way that he did not tie himself even to the Valar; rather the Valar forever tied themselves to the world for their love of the Children. The Children were something of an enigma even to the Valar, and up through the end of the Third Age I think we see what appears to be their apparent dis-involvement because they are not "seeing" prophetically as clearly as they once did, perhaps because the Themes of the Music are being fulfilled. As the age of Men approaches, it seems they become less and less involved. So like the Elves, who are destined to fade, the Valar essentially "fade" as well, as they and the Elves now reside (mostly) in the uttermost West. So comes the age of Men.

The Beren/Luthien them here is an excellent point in that Beren gave up his life for Luthien and Luthien for him, I suppose, in a way that (following with the Christian theme) does seem to foreshadow the eventual Incarnation alluded to by Finrod Felagund. That is, Eru, having forever tied himself to the Children out of love must go to all ends to eventually save them, even tying himself to mortality through death and resurrection (as Luthien tied herself to Beren, I suppose.) And that tie, specifically to men, seems to be:

1) mysterious and troublesome to even the Valar and the Eldar (at least I get that feeling in reading the Silmarillion.) It would be appropriate that Finrod Felagund would seem to understand the most about the future of Men (the possible incarnation of Eru) as he is the most compassionate and loving towards Men from the very beginning.

2) that mortals, though weak, seem to hold the key to defeating evil...ultimately, the Hobbits best demonstrate the power to overcome evil with good, the weak overcoming the strong. Where the might of the Noldor could not defeat Morgoth, nor even the Valar (fully) as it seems Morgoth "dispersed his power into the very matter of Arda," along come the Hobbits who ultimately defeat the last of Morgoth's incarnate print on Middle Earth. It does seem to foreshadow the Christian theme of God binding himself to Man (via the Incarnation) and defeating evil, not through power, but through the weakness of death (becoming mortal, weak.)

I know much of this is conjecture, but just writing out what I began to see in Tolkien's stories recently...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

...and defeating evil, not through power, but through the weakness of death (becoming mortal, weak.)

I have to disagree. I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

Moreover, there are different types of weaknesses. There is a difference in being physically weak and weak inside.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I have to disagree. I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

I think it is not simply "down-to-earthness", and the word "simplicity" can be misleading as well - it could be interpreted the way that the hobbits were able to overcome Sauron simply because they were stupid enough to misuse the Ring, in such a case, Saruman and all those who scorn Hobbits would have been right about them being simpletons - but I think they weren't; and, in many ways, the important aspect of the hobbits, which made Bilbo and Frodo (and Sam) able to withstand the lure of the Ring, was their humility (you can use the word "down-to-earthness" and "simplicity", but with the added specification or explanation that what it means is not stupidity, but humility - humility which, of course, to those who lust for power might seem like stupidity, as it did to Sauron, and thus proved to be his undoing...). It was the humility in which the hobbits didn't wish more than what they had, in which they didn't want to control, to hoard (with the exception of the Sackville-Bagginses and their like), to spread their own domain in expense of the others... That is what I believe is their true "advantage" over the others.

In other words, it isn't so that the Hobbits would be so stupid not to understand power (as some might interpretate the terms G55 used): they do, and it showed itself to Samwise when he put the Ring on in Mordor. He wasn't so "down-to-earth" that he wouldn't be tempted. The point is that he was tempted, but refused it - because of his humility, because he understood that it wouldn't do any good and because he was able to withstand the illusions of grandeur.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

Originally Posted by Legate

It was the humility in which the hobbits didn't wish more than what they had, in which they didn't want to control, to hoard (with the exception of the Sackville-Bagginses and their like), to spread their own domain in expense of the others...

I think it's a mistake to think that Hobbits as a group (ethnic or what have you) have a natural un-tendency to evil, or have a predisposition to humility. Their relative size doesn't necessarily lend itself to that. There are more exceptions than the Sackville-Bagginses. Tolkien goes out of his way to contrast Sam to a group of other Hobbits early in LotR. Hobbits are typically small-minded in the worst way. Sméagol was a forebear to Hobbits. The mill owner was a particularly unpleasant and unscrupulous character. The name "Proudfeet" speaks for itself. Tolkien purposely characterized Hobbits as typically human with all the foibles one finds among them.

So it was the humility, determination, and big-heartedness of these four quite special Hobbits that helped to bring about the destruction of the evil of Sauron.