Ooh la la, Lúthien...

[The Sixth Wizard]

One wonders what drove respectable elf women to discard their perfect immortality for the possibility of a hundred years with Men like Turin or Beren.

Guess they just had really long fingers...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

One wonders what drove respectable elf women to discard their perfect immortality for the possibility of a hundred years with Men like Turin or Beren.

It's been studied in various species. The female, in order to incorporate new genes into the tribe, will mate with the 'outsider.' There's also the cad-dad theory, which states that females like a cad now and then to just a plain old dad. And what could be plainer than a thousand-plus year old elf?

Luthien, obviously, knew that a hybrid would be more successful, and Beren was just so dashing, and if it didn't work out, he'd surely be dead in a hundred years or two.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

It's been studied in various species. The female, in order to incorporate new genes into the tribe, will mate with the 'outsider.' There's also the cad-dad theory, which states that females like a cad now and then to just a plain old dad. And what could be plainer than a thousand-plus year old elf?

Luthien, obviously, knew that a hybrid would be more successful, and Beren was just so dashing, and if it didn't work out, he'd surely be dead in a hundred years or two.

In Luthien's case, throw in a bit of rebellion, and I think you're right. Thingol wasn't the most liberal thinker in the Sil. He seemed to me a very strict father-figure, which made it easier for Luth to let her hair down. If it were the 60's, she'd be in Haight-Ashbury as a groupie for the Grateful Dead.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

In Luthien's case, throw in a bit of rebellion, and I think you're right. Thingol wasn't the most liberal thinker in the Sil. He seemed to me a very strict father-figure, which made it easier for Luth to let her hair down. If it were the 60's, she'd be in Haight-Ashbury as a groupie for the Grateful Dead.

Remember, she herself was a hybrid. Plus, she may have been not only looking to further add to the gene pool, but what better way to get dad's attention than to do the worst possible thing (besides hooking up with Melkor, which Thingol may have preferred over Beren)?

[Galadriel55]

Returning to the original question, though, I think that Tolkien didn't mean to hint anything sexual. The way I understood it, that moment was simply an embrace, nothing serious. You see similar things in other relationships that were entioned above - Faramir kissed Eowyn before marying her, and Sam most likely hugged Rosie. Aragorn and Arwen, being what they are, ost likely did not express their feelings in public, but there was also Arwen's dilemma of who to become - elf or human. I'm guessing that she didn't allow herself to physically express her love for Aragorn until she finally made the choice.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Returning to the original question, though, I think that Tolkien didn't mean to hint anything sexual. The way I understood it, that moment was simply an embrace, nothing serious.

Well, such things are all in the eye of the beholder; take, for example, these lines from the Lay of Leithian:

Originally Posted by Lay of Leithian Canto IV

In hour enchanted long ago
her arms around his neck did go,
and gently down she drew to rest
his weary head upon her breast.

To you this may be a chaste embrace, to me it's the most subtly erotic moment in all of Tolkien's works; in any case, I get a strong impression that there was nothing un-serious about that embrace.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

You see similar things in other relationships that were entioned above - Faramir kissed Eowyn before marying her, and Sam most likely hugged Rosie.

Yes, but all of these were mortal-mortal couples; the Elves took a slightly different stance in this matter. As several of the posters above us have pointed out, there simply was, by definition, no such thing as pre-marital sex for the Elves (relevant quote from Laws and Customs given by mark 12_30 in #3), since, in their eyes, it was the sexual act that made the marriage, not the ceremony (and speaking from personal experience, I feel that Tolkien had a good point here); so if Beren and Lúthien did it, they were from that moment on legally married in Elvish eyes, with or without Thingol's blessing.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Aragorn and Arwen, being what they are, ost likely did not express their feelings in public, but there was also Arwen's dilemma of who to become - elf or human. I'm guessing that she didn't allow herself to physically express her love for Aragorn until she finally made the choice.

I think you may be right in this case - for all the fuss that is made about Arwen's likeness to Lúthien, she wasn't that much like her ancestress in character. There's just no way Lúthien would have been content with watching over Beren from afar and embroidering banners. Even given that Aragorn first fell in love with Arwen as a twen and needed time to mature, he was well in his eighties, far travelled and battle-hardened at the time of LotR, and I think Lúthien, in Arwen's place, would have insisted on going with the Fellowship (or found a way to follow them, if daddy denied her).

[Galadriel55]

Yeah, Luthien was more foward in this sense than Arwen

[Mithalwen]

I think in the notes to LACE Tolkien makes it clear that they regaraded it as a matter of honour not to present Thingol with a fait accompli..

Even though, as many of you know, I could hardly like Luthien less, she is less passive than Arwen. There is a sense that she carves her destiny while Arwen born in her image lets fate unwind. Leads to all sorts of questions (which I can not necessarily answer) about the workings of fate and destiny in the books since Eowyn who could be seen as a instrument of destiny withregard to the witch-king, has to defy the de-facto paternal authority over her to fulfil the prophecy whereas is like some cloistered heroine in a pre-raphaelite painting waiting for external events to decide her fate.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

There's just no way Lúthien would have been content with watching over Beren from afar and embroidering banners... I think Lúthien, in Arwen's place, would have insisted on going with the Fellowship (or found a way to follow them, if daddy denied her).

Maybe, but there is another (I think) significant difference between the conditions surrounding Beren & Aragorn.

Beren had been maneuvered into accepting a "hopeless" (meaning almost everyone considered it hopeless) quest that was *INTENDED* to kill off Beren. Luthien desperately wanted to avoid that death and was willing to do practically anything to save Beren.

She was even willing, as I recall, to abandon Beleriand, her mother, her people, her father, etc and wander into the east with just Beren. It was Beren who refused that path for them.

Aragorn, on the other hand, remained high in the Favor of Elrond, and in his love. He was not "sent" on any "hopeless" quest aimed at his death far from help. Rather he was gladly and willingly engaged in a HEROIC effort to defeat Sauron and restore peace and hope to all peoples of the west. A task in which he had Elrond's whole-hearted support and aid (at least so far as Elves would aid anyone).

Also, Luthien was the daughter of a Maia and had various abilities which Arwen lacked (like the ability to sing Morgoth's whole court into slumber).

Arwen, in the books, is not reported to have much of any especial talents (at least where war is concerned). She wasn't the one who caused the Bruinen to rise - that was commanded by Elrond (it was only PJ who turned that into an Arwenian incantation). And even there, there is no suggestion that even ELROND could have caused just any river to rise - making that less useful in fighting Sauron in Mordor or Gondor.

And, finally, Beren's quest was (essentially) a one-man task (or two, with Luthien). Aragorn - once he got to the theater of action - was involved over and over in pitched battles. There is no suggestion in the books that Arwen was either an accomplished swordswoman (shieldmaiden?) or archer [or that Luthien was, for that matter - remember that she did NOT go on the final hunting of the wolf, when Beren was killed].

[Galadriel55]

It is also possible that Arwen was less passionate than Luthien and didn't want to give up everything she had for a man who is more than likely to die in one of the wars for the Ring. As I've said before, she probably still didn't make her choice yet.

[Bill Ferny]

Darn it! Why don’t I notice these threads when they are new? Oh well.

In reply to the opening post:

The Catholic Church is generally known for its continuous frowning upon pre-marital sex, and its harsh stance on birth control…

I’ll take this as constructive criticism. It’s a shame, really. Catholic moral teachings regarding sexual intercourse is a single grain of sand on the vast shore of Catholic doctrine and theology. We Catholics really have to do a better job of letting people know what the Catholic Church is all about. (In fact, I’ve found that Catholics are the least prudish Christians I know!)

I wouldn't be making such a big deal out of this if it wasn't for the way that some people treat Tolkien's work. They like it because it's "clean," and "moral," and "upstanding," and so on and so forth. And it is, for the most part, exactly that. A nice distraction from out otherwise dirty lives.

I understand what you are getting at. However, there are much more obvious ways of showing the non-Christian aspects of Tolkien’s mythology. For example, his treatment of fae/hroa… a far cry from a Christian anthropology; or his treatment of free will, the fallen world, sin, and redemption - his Pelagianism is worlds away from orthodox Christian belief. Your example of an “illicit” sexual affair between Beren and Lúthien is simply too vague from the written material.

And after everything is over and done with, and Lúthien is a mortal, nowhere is it mentioned that her parents bless her union with Beren, or that there even was an official wedding.

We hear of people getting married, so forth and so on, but never is an actual wedding described. “And Aragorn the King Elessar wedded Arwen Undómiel in the City of the Kings…” (RotK, VI, 5). That’s pretty brief on the description, kind of like a Tolkien battle scene, ey? The reason is, as Helen, points out by quoting HoME, the actual marriage was the sexual intercourse, not the ceremony. For Tolkien’s mythology, the romantic love between male and female constitutes the marriage. Believe it or not, but his isn’t too far from the Catholic notion of marriage. However, if marriage is determined by sexual intercourse only, then it is… well… Pelagian. Once again Tolkien proves his mythology is quite divergent from the Christianity that he practiced in real life.

Squatter,

I think that in many cases a great deal too much is made of Tolkien's Catholicism.

Agreed.

…and in some cases, horror of horrors, his writing diverged from the minor tenets of his faith.

On the contrary, his mythology diverged from many of the major tenets of his faith.

…and let's not be under any illusions about this, marriage is for the benefit of other people: to announce and solemnise a commitment which already exists in the eyes of the two people involved.

Don’t be too hasty. Whatever you might personally think about ritual and ceremony, for the Catholic both ritual and ceremony are outward signs of an unseen reality. A wedding is more than just a stage show, but the real presence of Christ. (It always comes down to belief in the real presence, after all.) This, though, is actually irrelevant for the present discussion, as there are no sacraments in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. In Middle Earth, any wedding ceremony would indeed be nothing more than a stage show.

Sex within marriage is tied very strongly to the concept behind the Roman church's attitude towards contraception, which can essentially be summed up as "No copulation without procreation", in deference to Genesis II 28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth", and given that this precludes both abortion and contraception, marriage is the most sensible and logical state in which to do one's multiplication.

I wonder how this can be? If all that people know about the Catholic Church is it’s moral teachings about sexual intercourse, how can said people not even know what the Catholic Church teaches about sexual intercourse? Once again, I’ll take this as constructive criticism, indicating that we Catholics really have to do a better job presenting our Church’s teachings.

Orual,

Well, the thing is that the only defining requirement for marriage in the Church (don't take my word on this, though, I'm no theologian) is mutual consent on behalf of the two parties being married. The actual ceremony is formality and officiality, "for the record" and all that.

The sacrament of marriage is in the mutual consent, finalized in the consummation (sexual intercourse). The primary ministers of the sacrament of marriage, from beginning to end, are the two people getting married. Not the priest! Kalimac. All kinds of sacramental marriages have nothing in the least to do with priests… What? Do you think we Catholics believe the only people in the world who are married are people who were married in the Catholic Church? Umm, no we don’t.

Thank you, Marigold Hedgeworth for looking up those quotes in the Catechism. However, the CotCC is often a little too brief for its own good, and there is much more to the ceremony than just adding communal validity to a marriage. The ceremony is part of the outward sign of the internal reality of marriage. It is the initial step in the ongoing sacrament of marriage. That sacrament, that internal reality, is, of course, the real presence of Christ, not just manifested in the consummation, but in the spouses lives together. The wedding ceremony takes place in the context of the Catholic mass, because the Eucharist is the center of the marriage relationship. Thus, for Catholics, marriage is a ritual, a very long ritual, one that married people participate in every moment that they are married, and one that starts with the wedding ceremony.

Lush,

If Beren and Lúthien were wedded in the fashion that Helen's quote from HoME describes, is it also not safe to assume that Arwen and Aragorn did the same thing?

Yes. There were no significant “religious” changes in Middle Earth prior to Aragorn’s and Arwen’s marriage.

I.e., that they were physically involved before the official marriage ceremony after the defeat of Sauron?

There is no indication from the text that they were. In fact it would have been rather difficult as they were separated during and after the war until Aragorn was crowned king.

But if they weren't, does Elrond have anything to do with that? And if he does, why?

Elrond both prophesied and imposed an injunction upon Aragorn and Arwen’s marriage, as Helen pointed out in her post. Arwen was not to be given to Aragorn unless he was the king of Gondor. In RotK, VI, 5 Elrond surrendered the sceptre, and laid the hand of his daughter in the hand of the king at the same time (and in the same sentience); there was intimate connection between him allowing Arwen to marry Aragorn, and Aragorn being king.

But does that also mean that Elrond, in all his wisdom, could not see true love (the kind described in HoME) right in front of him?

Perhaps, in all his wisdom, Elrond could see the price of true love. We often forget that love, no matter if its charitable or romantic, is at its root, has for its very essence, sacrifice. Love demands a price. Helen, I’m glad you added the following quote in your post: “greater love has no man than this: to lay down one's life for another.” There is no better definition.

[wispeight]

[QUOTE=Bill Ferny;42518]Darn it! Why don’t I notice these threads when they are new? Oh well.

In reply to the opening post:



I’ll take this as constructive criticism. It’s a shame, really. Catholic moral teachings regarding sexual intercourse is a single grain of sand on the vast shore of Catholic doctrine and theology. We Catholics really have to do a better job of letting people know what the Catholic Church is all about. (In fact, I’ve found that Catholics are the least prudish Christians I know!)



I understand what you are getting at. However, there are much more obvious ways of showing the non-Christian aspects of Tolkien’s mythology. For example, his treatment of fae/hroa… a far cry from a Christian anthropology; or his treatment of free will, the fallen world, sin, and redemption - his Pelagianism is worlds away from orthodox Christian belief. Your example of an “illicit” sexual affair between Beren and Lúthien is simply too vague from the written material.

We hear of people getting married, so forth and so on, but never is an actual wedding described. “And Aragorn the King Elessar wedded Arwen Undómiel in the City of the Kings…” (RotK, VI, 5). That’s pretty brief on the description, kind of like a Tolkien battle scene, ey? The reason is, as Helen, points out by quoting HoME, the actual marriage was the sexual intercourse, not the ceremony. For Tolkien’s mythology, the romantic love between male and female constitutes the marriage. Believe it or not, but his isn’t too far from the Catholic notion of marriage. However, if marriage is determined by sexual intercourse only, then it is… well… Pelagian. Once again Tolkien proves his mythology is quite divergent from the Christianity that he practiced in real life.

~~~
I don't have anything to say in regard to Catholics because I simply do not think of that religion. Not out of indifference, but simply focussed elsewhere. From what I have found written in regard to Palagius, I have noted that almost all historic written record concerning Palagius comes from his contemporary opponents. I find that he was concerned with WILL. Not 'will' that is concerned with every passion and desire concerning physical existence. Although I believe that gifts of Nature are not evil, even the seperation of humanity into male and female was a gift of Nature, at least, one might choose to look at it in this manner, and not be completely incorrect. Dang, I only wanted to give some small defense to Palagius and I'm lecturing instead. No, I'm being really brief, so I claim innocence to the charge of lecturing.

Each one of us have at our Heart of Being that WILL which is coeval to High Divinity. We are not seperate from it. Even when we fail at making a completely conscious accord and concord with That, it is still able, through interpermeability to guide us, and it is not so difficult to learn when to know this is happening. It is knowing what to listen to inside.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Hullo again, Bill. It's nice to cross posts with you again, even though to do so I must bear the public exposure of my mistakes.

Darn it! Why don’t I notice these threads when they are new? Oh well.

I share your frustration. You're clearly more qualified than a lot of us, myself most definitely included, to comment on doctrinal issues, and it's a great relief to have someone come in and clear up some of the theological mess that I've made. You have, as you are no doubt aware, exposed my shameless pontification on the subject of Catholicism: I am duly chastened and admonished, and thankful to be placed on the right track.

Truth to tell, I've re-read my post several times, and have always been unhappy with the section of it that you quoted: I feel unqualified to be talking about the Church's attitude to anything, but I wanted to try and make two points: firstly that Tolkien's writings weren't ruled by his religious beliefs anything like as much as many people believe, and secondly that what he appears to be driving at is that love and commitment are a great deal more important than any ceremony.

I should, perhaps, have made it clearer that my comments about marriage were indeed intended as an expression of my personal views, and that I was looking at it from a sociological rather than a religious point of view. Of course to a practicing Christian it is vital to make these declarations in the sight of God, so that the union can receive the divine blessing; but to society in general, particularly the chattering portion that delights in judging others and finding them wanting, it's a mere observation of the proprieties, which becomes less and less essential every day. You are quite right to say that this is irrelevant in Middle-earth, where religion is based a great deal more on personal piety than organised ceremony.

I stand corrected also that Tolkien's divergence from Catholic tenets was major rather than minor. I find it not a little ironic that one of my few attempts at caution in my discourse should have so damaged the accuracy of my comment. This only serves further to underline the point I was making that Tolkien was not consciously trying to write a Catholic work at all, but was an author who just happened to be a Catholic.

As for my dreadful howler over sex, marriage and Catholic doctrine, I am entirely to blame. Whether or not your church is projecting its image correctly is completely besides the point, which is that I posted without reading around the subject as I should have done, and am in great danger of causing very justifiable offence. I certainly intended no criticism, constructive or otherwise. I actually considered removing that part of my post entirely at one point, but let it bide in the hope that I might be right. Clearly I was not.

I can only extend my heartfelt apologies to anyone who was offended or misled by any of my errors, and particularly to you, Bill, as a very lucid and convincing spokesperson for your faith.

[Nuranar]

Don't forget eros, Nuranar, the third kind of love.

I didn't forget it, Lush. In the lexicon I searched for "love" and only found agape and phileo. Then I searched for eros, then erot, and finally in desperation ero and found no word for love.

Thus I am waiting for my father's reply. I'm beginning to surmise that none of the New Testament writers referred to that kind of love.

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Nuranar ]

[Lush]

Hm, the New Testament writers must have been a bunch of squares.

Kidding! Kidding! I am just kidding. I am not going to sit here and insult my own religion, as well as any other Christian who happens to come along. That's not my style.

Though religion, or Catholicism, to be more specific, was shamelessly used by yours truly to provide a context for all of my musings on sex in Tolkien's work, in terms of people's reaction to it. Was that heavy-handed and obtuse of me? You bet it was.

Nuranar, don't pay any attention to my comment on eros. I don't even remember posting it (it was Saturday night...). [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Bill Ferny]

Squatter

I was up a bit late last night, and came to the forum after a rather frustrating day of work. I apologize for what now seems to be a bit of a sarcastic post. I still think, though, that the Catholic Church needs to improve its PR skills, though [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] , and it certainly doesn’t need my sarcasm!

I do agree with you strongly that Tolkien’s Catholicism is often exaggerated. In regards to other aspects of his mythology, I’ve noticed that Tolkien’s Christian beliefs often take a back seat.

However, I’m afraid that in regards to the present thread, it can be seen that his attitude toward eros is a rather Catholic one, thus backfiring as far as Lush’s original argument is concerned. The Catholic mentality toward sexual intercourse involves a number of consistent themes that are present in Tolkien’s own treatment of the issue in his mythology. First, sexual intercourse is the consummation of marriage; second, eros should not be without agape; and third, sexual intercourse should be pleasurable. These are all themes that make up most Catholic moral teachings regarding sexual intercourse.

Aside, just to set the record straight in a nutshell: Catholic moral teaching does not say that sex is for procreation; rather, it teaches that procreation is one of many natural aspects of sexual intercourse, its importance in relation to the other aspects is determined by intent and circumstance. More often than not, procreation is not the first priority considered when making moral judgements. For example, the Church’s teaching regarding artificial means of contraception has as much, if not more, to do with bodily-ness as it does with procreation.

[Kalimac]

Um...Bill...I put it clumsily but I wasn't trying to imply that the priest had somehow superseded the two parties getting married. I don't know as much about the history of this sort of thing as I should, but I realize that ultimately all that's needed is that the two people make the vows and that consummation follows. (And NO, for everyone else - what I've been told is that while procreation is a natural byproduct of sex, it does not have to be the ONLY aim. That is, if you're infertile, or over-age, you can still, umm...)

All I meant was that the way things work now, you'll have a very hard time getting married in the Church without a priest officiating. You could make private vows and try to square things with them later on, but both with the legal aspect (signing the marriage license) and the religious aspect, it would be a real mess.

[Bill Ferny]

Kalimac

I was up a bit late last night, and came to the forum after a rather frustrating day of work. I apologize for what now seems to be a bit of a sarcastic post… [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

To be honest I didn’t read your post carefully enough last night… in my defense this was already an extremely long thread. After re-reading your post, I see what you are getting at. Marriage ceremony is not, of course, necessary for the recognition of a marriage. However, the Catholic emphasis on ritual gives the wedding a great amount of significance both as validation and, in regard to those who are Catholic, as indicating without any confusion the couple’s intent for sacramentality. The actual sacrament, however, still remains the couple’s life together.

What happens in Tolkien’s pre-Christian mythology? You lose the sacramental aspect. While this doesn’t negate ritual completely, it certainly takes the bite out of the wedding ceremony. Marriage, then is striped bare, so to speak… pun might have been intended, its hard to tell with my mind… or, in other words, the consummation alone is the only real indication of marriage. If you choose to look at this from Tolkien's religious beliefs its kind of like Tolkien took half of his Catholicism into consideration (but really, what choice would he have in a pre-Christian mythos?).

I, on the other hand, don't think that Tolkien approached this issue consciously considering his religious views about marriage, sexual intercourse, or love. Rather, I think what's really at work in this whole thing is a kind of mentality akin to the courtly romances of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. I see more courtly romance in Beren and Lúthien, Aragorn and Arwen (and Elrond?), than modern Catholic theology.

[Bêthberry]

Lush,

I want to compliment you on creating a thread which has proven very interesting. It also has one of the more meaningful discussions of religion in Tolkien--few personal axes to grind but much analysis.

Good job.

Bethberry

[Lush]

Bethberry,

I throw a half-baked idea dressed in pretty language out there, and the real intellectuals do the rest.

But thank you for your kind words.

And thanks to Bill for providing us with a clear-eyed Catholic perspective (and for now flaming me for being presumptuous, which, in my Orthodox arrogance, is something I am bound to do over and over again).

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Nuranar]

Not at all, Lush! I took no offense. On the contrary, I was pleased that someone had responded to my comments and pointed out the omission I had already found curious.

This is really incredible, though:

In the college class at church this morning, the college pastor spoke about being a disciple of Christ. ('By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' John 13:35) And he 'happened' to begin by explaining the three Greek words for love:

Eros is romantic love, or desire, or lust.
Phileo is friendship love, brotherly love, deep comradeship.
Agape is the love of God - 'Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us' (Ephesians 5:1-2).

Interestingly enough, agape never occurs in any secular Greek literature - the New Testament writers had to invent a word to adequately convey God's love for us. And as I was beginning to think, eros never shows up in the New Testament. I don't think the NT writers were squares [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] , but I do think that when they wrote of love they were speaking of the believers' relationships with God, with each other, and with the world.

Thus (to try to stay on topic - please forgive me for turning your topic into a Greek discussion!) the love of Beren and Luthien is I think both eros (not lustful, but romantic) and phileo. I still believe the love Paul writes of in I Corinthians is the deeper, greater abiding love of God that Christians are called to have.

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Nuranar ]

[Magician of Nathar]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, i rather think they aren't [above lust]. Remember Maglor?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must admit that even though I read the Silmarillion and I know who Maglor is (2nd son of Fëanor, he's even on the front of my copy of the Sil, for pity's sake) I have no idea what you're talking about.

--------------------

Ack!!!! So sorry, that's a typo. I meant Maeglin!! Sorry about it, I wan't in my right mind when I typed that!!!! [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[Dain]

I think any race that lives forever would have a much lower sex-drive, inasmuch as procreation is a way to achieve a sort of immortality. If you already had it, the desire for children would lessen, at least on an instinctual level. I picture elves as being so interested in everything around them that they could keep themselves busy for millenia until "the one" suddenly walked in. Patience must be in their blood. On the other hand, as a human, whenever a girl walks by, I get immensely distracted. Pretty much the same said of Dwarves (who live ~250 years): only about a third of men marry, and not all women marry, though there are fewer women than men, but many dwarves simply can't be distracted from their crafts to notice or pursue a mate. No wonder the race is dying out! Men and Hobbits, I think, procede in a way much more familiar to us.

Also, the setting and style of the book is one of a medieval legend, and so obviously the love mentioned is of the chivalrous and epic sort, like those good medieval romances (though, the only ones I can think of are Arthurian, and those are all a bit sketchy...). The style is one that does not talk about the details of the romances, but I'm sure if you were well versed in medieval romances you could pick up with phrases meant "then they had sex" and which phrases didn't. I haven't a clue, but I'm sure Tolkien would, and would have used similar "code" if he needed too. So if Tolkien seems not to mention it, maybe it's just a mixture of style and setting, and not prudishness, lack-of-interest or something like that. Even if he was sex-obsessed, I think his dedication to the story and the style would keep it out of the story. His an innocent world as far as love goes--Sam and Frodo, Gimli and Legolas, Aragorn and Arwen. I think that's rather nice, and not unbelievable, either.

Went on a bit there...I think it's late... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

And now I realize I didn't notice the 2nd page!

Rather, I think what's really at work in this whole thing is a kind of mentality akin to the courtly romances of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. I see more courtly romance in Beren and Lúthien, Aragorn and Arwen (and Elrond?), than modern Catholic theology.

Exactly what I was thinking/trying to say. Time for this Dwarf to sleep...

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[Mithalwen]

Since I have been directed here, I may as well shove in my ten pennorth....

I am fairly sure that there is a note in HoME to the Laws and Customs that raises the issue of Beren and Luthien and states that while it would have been legal for them to marry without the customary rituals other than the vow, it really was not "the done thing" and why go on the ludicrously dangerous quest if you are going to jump the gun anyway? So much simpler just to elope......

As for Tar-Palantir's comments - well Dain is right. While modern mores have moved so far that procreation is sidelined by recreation! It should be remembered sex drive is there to ensure our "selfish genes" are perpetuated.
And the shorter the life span, the more urgency there is to passing on your genes - I remember seeing a cartoon of two Mayflies - one says "What do you mean 'not tonight' - we only live one day!" Consequently it makes sense that elves would not have a high sex drive. Although most in the beginning, according to the laws and customs, did marry and presumably have children, by the time of LOTR - the elves were fading and the long years were taking their toll - also it was not Elvish practice to rear children in times of uncertainty so it would be less likely that there would be many elf children around at that time. It also says in the "laws" that crimes of lust were rare amongst elves - but obviously there are exceptions.


As for Maia - they are angelic spirits - and well has been discussed elsewhere Melian had to take an Elvish body in order to reproduce. Also with the "paired" Ainur - it is a spiritual rather than physical espousal. So I guess that Saruman and Gandalf, and indeed Sauron had no sex drive - I know that Morgoth lusted for Luthien but rape is more about power than sex and has nothing to do with love and I think it was similar to his desire for the Silmarils - the desire to possess something beautiful.

As for the hobbits - well it is pointed out that Frodo and Bilbo were very unusual in their bachelor status.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

So I guess that Saruman and Gandalf, and indeed Sauron had no sex drive

But Saruman and Gandalf were both embodied in human form and therefore subject to human physical needs and frailties. They had to eat, sleep etc. And Sauron took physical form throughout much of his existence in Middle-earth. So, while matters of the flesh may well have been of little interest to them (particularly Gandalf), I would certainly not class them as having been incapable ...

[Mithalwen]

Well, in theory.... but in practice ... maybe there weren't many takers for a bunch of grumpy old men

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, but what about Sauron's devilish charm?