Rainbows in Valinor

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I must admit that the hypothetical science behind the question makes my brain hurt, at least until I've had a pint or three of 1420.

However, I was tangentially curious as to whether or not rainbows actually appear in the books. I seem to remember at least one reference to one created in ground water, but not in the sky. I'm due for a reread before long anyway...

... huh. I think you're right. Beleriand has the Rainbow Cleft, so named because the sea-spray forms rainbows. Legolas talks about rainbows on the falls of Nimrodel, and Frodo sees them over Rauros. The Ents manage to make one during the drowning of Isengard, and... that's it, as far as I can see. The only reference to a rainbow that's not explicitly linked to water spray or steam is the House of the Heavenly Arch in Gondolin.

You know, there might be a religious justification for the omission. The Bible described the first rainbow as being set after Noah's flood, as a sign that it won't happen again. Given that Tolkien said the Third Age was six thousand years ago, and given that he doesn't describe a Great Flood anything like the Noachian one anywhere in the Legendarium, it's possible he thought of everything as taking place in a literal antediluvian setting. Therefore, there couldn't be any rainbows in the sky, because Iluvatar hadn't yet set the first one.

Would that be reading too much Catholicism into the books? Maybe. But he definitely had Finrod and Andreth discuss the birth of Jesus, so the idea that he imagined the Legendarium to have a specific, Biblical time and place isn't beyond all reason. The space between Adam and Noah is pretty vague; it's basically all passed over in Genesis 5.

... and it's also territory which was rich pickings for the biblical apocrypha. There are all sorts of tales of demons and half-angels bobbing around in the antediluvian period. I'm sure Tolkien didn't need inspiration from the likes of the Book of Enoch (which, I must note, is completely insane), but he may have seen it as license to inject his own subcreation into the same timeframe.

This does lead to the conclusion that everything we know from Middle-earth - Minas Tirith, the Shire, the Line of Kings and the Hobbits - was all wiped out in the Flood. That's a bit grim, and directly contradicts the Prologue. But maybe Tolkien held a more local view of the Flood - it's not like he was averse to wiping out the wicked with them himself!

Originally Posted by Inziladun

PS- Rainbows In Valinor is a great name for a New Age musician (assuming the Estate would approve).

On this point I agree wholeheartedly. ^_^

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The Bible described the first rainbow as being set after Noah's flood, as a sign that it won't happen again. Given that Tolkien said the Third Age was six thousand years ago, and given that he doesn't describe a Great Flood anything like the Noachian one anywhere in the Legendarium

Unless he saw the Noah legend as a worn-down memory of the Fall of Numenor. Or perhaps a dim memory of the destruction of Beleriand.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Unless he saw the Noah legend as a worn-down memory of the Fall of Numenor. Or perhaps a dim memory of the destruction of Beleriand.

Which is perfectly plausible. Though it wouldn't explain why there are three rainbows in LotR, and all of them are in water spray, not rain. Which may not need an explanation, but then there's no reason to consider the Flood myth in the first place...

I think the Flood = Beleriand notion makes more sense than the Flood = Numenor one, given that Numenor = Atlantis, which has its own drowning. But the Drowning of Beleriand isn't presented as a punishment, while Noah's Flood is. Would Tolkien deliberately negate a Biblical Act of God? Perhaps (the Bible describes the creation of the Sun and Moon, which totally doesn't match the Middle-earth version), but I think he'd be more delicate than that.

hS

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I think the Flood = Beleriand notion makes more sense than the Flood = Numenor one, given that Numenor = Atlantis, which has its own drowning. But the Drowning of Beleriand isn't presented as a punishment, while Noah's Flood is. Would Tolkien deliberately negate a Biblical Act of God? Perhaps (the Bible describes the creation of the Sun and Moon, which totally doesn't match the Middle-earth version), but I think he'd be more delicate than that.

With Númenor though, we do have the Flood as being the result of wickedness on the part of the vast majority of men. And there were also the protected faithful few, guarded from the destruction meted to everyone else. And Elendil's followers and Noah's family were all saved by ships.