Have ye then no hope?

[Evisse the Blue]

I am of the opinion that Tolkien is more than a fantasy writer - that is, he can do so much more than create languages, histories and places and populate them with fantastic creatures. At times he uses his characters to tell us a bit about the mysteries of human nature. However, this thread is not to discuss psychological depth in Tolkien's works ( there is a thread in the Books forum that has attempted that) so bear with me.

I am interested if you can tell me, from your own experience, whether you ever experienced the feeling labeled by Tolkien as "Estel'. If so, in what situation? And what were the consequences?

Let's clarify the terminology first (in Tolkien's words) :

Looking up: An expectation of good, which though uncertain, has some foundation in what is known.

Trust (estel): It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and first being.

For those of you who saw the movie Signs (directed by M Night Shamalayan), there is a similar distinction made in a conversation between Mel Gibson's character and his brother, in a situation of crisis and uncertainty: there are some people who see signs, and for them coincidences have a meaning; and others, for whom there is a fifty-fifty chance that things will go right, or wrong.

I'd like to hear your opinions, even if you do not have a situation to share, and even if you never felt something like this. All speculations are welcome. If you can think of a better definition for 'Estel', feel free to challenge mine.

Thank you.

[The Barrow-Wight]

This looks like a good subject *if* we keep our answers related to the theme of this site - Tolkien and Middle-earth. This topic, as written, invites you to share your opinions and personal experiences, but it is important that we do not drift off into varied philosophical discussions of hope, trust, etc. As with everything we do on the Downs, please keep your answers within our long-established boundaries.

Thanks,

[mark12_30]

Evisse the Blue ,

Challenging question! And it took me a bit of time to think how I might respond. I decided to look at the the challenges facing Aragorn and Arwen, and look at their "hopeful" responses to those challenges.

For instance, a simple example is that while Aragorn was off on the Ring Quest and Arwen was waiting at home, watching over him, she made for him a banner. That has met some derision on this board, but let's think about it for a minute. While her fiancee was a scruffy wanderer in the wilderness with nothing but a lineage, a sword, and lots & lots of enemies, she made him a (large) banner with the insignia of Gondor on it. She was standing in the hope that he would:

a. Survive (against terrifying odds)
b. Win ( against terrifying odds)
c. Be accepted as king (on the basis of his sword and his genes...)

Looking at it like that, the banner seems presumptious. Wouldn't a careful person have waited? See how the chips fall? She didn't. She made the doggone banner-- out of Mithril, no less.

That's hope. Hope that he won't just die; hope that he'll win the war; hope that the Ringbearer will get through behind all enemy lines, and that when he does, somehow it will all work out (her father , I think, knew how hard it would be to destroy the ring, just as Gandalf did, so I imagine Arwen knew too.)

"Either all hope cometh, or our hope's end."

Now... have I ever been through anything quite like that? Well, uh, not exactly... but it's sure food for thought.

[Evisse the Blue]

"Either all hope cometh, or our hope's end."

Yes, it's sort of a fifty-fifty chance, isn't it?
That was a very good example, mark12_30, thank you!
Now take for instance Sam: he's an optimist by nature, sometimes really naive in his optimism: I mean, he really has a childish expectance that all will turn out alright, even in the depths of Mordor. But to my mind, his optimism is very different from the 'Elvish' way of 'trusting' (i.e. Arwen's hope). So what sets Estel apart from other sorts of unfounded hope? And is Estel ever proven wrong?

Oh- about that 'personal experience' bit: I realize how this may turn into an off-topic chat, probably making most of you wisely stay away from this thread. So if anyone has any opinions about this that they'd like to share, but which are not strictly Tolkien-related please PM me, because I'm really interested in this. Thanks!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Evisse

And is Estel ever proven wrong?

I don't think it can be, as it's not based on evidence - that would be amdir. Estel, as I understand it, is something like religious faith - Tolkien translates it as 'trust'. I'd think estel could only be proved wrong if the victory of evil was to be complete in the end - which it couldn't really be, as evil is not (imo) an equal & opposite force in Middle Earth, but a perversion/corruption of good. Eru remains dominant & in theory must win out in the end.

Could Eru be corrupted? If so, then estel would prove false. But what would corrupt Eru into betraying His own nature? I think estel, based as it is ultimately on faith & trust in Eru cannot be proven wrong as long as Eru remains Eru - & He has no real reason not to!

[HerenIstarion]

Eru remains dominant & in theory must win out in the end

It seems there is a bit of more sadness for the elves (as Tolkien is picturing the World before Christ). Their Estel is more groundless - they may be sure (in fact, they are sure) that Eru will win in the end, but they are not sure what will happen to themselves. They simply do not know what is beyond the world, in which they are destined to live as long it lasts, but beyond that? The Estel of the elves resides in hope (without evidence), that when Eru wins, he does not eliminate them - i.e. that they are not created to merely die out in the end. But they have no knowedge

I believe, to give their Estel a little bit of ground, not to confirm them as being beyond salvation (as they are picutred as good pagans) the whole of Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth was written.

As opposed to, say, men of the 7th age, which have Gospels - literally translated as "Good Tidings".

[davem]

And yet, if:

Trust (estel): It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from 'our nature and first being'.

is correct, & estel has its basis in 'our nature and first being', then if Elves have the capacity for estel, isn't that some kind of 'guarantee' of their ultimate happiness, in that they are not separate from Arda. If Arda is renewed (as opposed to destroyed & replaced by something else) then they too must also be renewed. If Arda was replaced by something else in which they were to have no part, then they would not have the experience of estel, as the ultimate hope from which it arises would not be related to the world of which they are a part.

In other words, there must be some reason for the Elves estel which relates to them as beings in this world.

Unless I'm completely wrong (I'm only just managing to follow my own reasoning here!)

[The Saucepan Man]

Taken to its extreme, though, this concept of "estel" seems to me to be a bit of a cop-out. An Elf might as well say: "Well there's no point in opposing the Dark Lord. He won't win in the end." Or does the concept involve an idea that the their trust will ultimately only prove true if they uphold the ideals of He who they trust in? In other words, one cannot have trust without responsibility.

And yet, doesn't that give rise to a parodox? If individuals have to take responsibility for upholding that which they trust in, then there must be a theoretical possibility that they will, en masse, either avoid that responsibility or fail in their efforts to uphold it, in which case "Good" will not prevail. But, if they trust that Eru will never allow that to happen, then why bother assuming the responsibility in the first place?

[HerenIstarion]

"Well there's no point in opposing the Dark Lord. He won't win in the end."

That's why, I believe, Tolkien hints at Evil as outside force too, not to let such paradoxes arise, for one thing.

On the other hand, if to be Good means to follow some inherent standard put there by Eru, than such an idea on behalf of an elf would be dereliction of duty, i.e. becoming Evil oneself.

theoretical possibility that they will, en masse, either avoid that responsibility or fail in their efforts to uphold it, in which case "Good" will not prevail

And for such cases there is direct intervention, if I may be so bold as to utter the word, reserved. Numenor, per instance.

[The Saucepan Man]

And for such cases there is direct intervention ...

Yet the possibility of direct intervention surely, in theory at least, renders obsolete the need for individual responsibility. Unless there is a co-equal force of Evil which can neutralise or oppose direct intervention for Good ...

[HerenIstarion]

Yet the possibility of direct intervention surely, in theory at least, renders obsolete the need for individual responsibility

Does it? For one thing, nobody knows beforehand if such an intervention is going to happen, and when. For another, it may be easily mistaken for the natural event, as it works usually along natural patterns. For the third, those to derelict their duty and avoid responsibility may be in for some tough time once (and if) such an intervention is afoot.

[The Saucepan Man]

But, asuming that some individuals are able to recognise direct intervention for what it is (and the Elves certainly seem to have done so in their tales of the Downfall of Numenor), then they can rest assured in the knowledge that, whatever they do (or don't do), Eru will prevail in the end.

[HerenIstarion]

Than the motivation may be whether they themselves do wish to participate in the victory? For as they chose to stand aside in battle, they will be left aside in victory.

That is, Eru will prevail whatever anyone does, but which end of it will come to the doer, depends on doer, so to say.

[davem]

Isn't it also about being true to your nature, living out the life you were created to live? This brings in Shippey's definition of wraiths as things which are 'twisted'. If you live out your nature you will find peace & meaning in your life, if you don't you will suffer, be 'twisted out of shape'.

So its not about choosing to do nothing & leave it all to Eru - any choice you make, any action you perform (whether in an actual war or not) will lead towards manifesting either Arda Marred or Arda Unmarred - (actually, towards manifesting yourself marred or yourself unmarred).

[Evisse the Blue]

Hang on, I may have started from a wrong supposition here - so help me correct it. The meaning of Estel implies hope for the fate of the world as a whole (as in the ultimate fate of Arda, or of Elves), not the fate of individual Elves, Men, etc? Because that's what I meant when I asked 'Can Estel ever be proven wrong?' I meant can anybody have the faith, the unfounded hope that things would work out well for them, and have their hope crushed? (Take Mark12_30's example of Arwen's hope for Aragorn surviving and being made king. What if Aragorn were to die in battle and Arwen's banner be left to remain as a testimony of her foolish hope?) The fact that Eru would prevail in the end is a bitter comfort for generations of defeated individuals. It makes sense then that Elves, who are very spiritual creatures feel Estel, while hobbits, and even men, settle for a more grounded sort of optimism.

[Mad Baggins]

I believe anyone can have the faith that things will prevail for them. Take the example of Eowyn on the battlefield beside her dying uncle. She was hoping with all her might that he would pull through, even though a wee voice in her heart was saying that he wouldn't. Her hope was crushed when Theoden died in her arms. If I may, Eowyn was experiencing 'Estel' on the battlefield while Theoden was wounded, but it was ultimately ended when the last of his life ebbed away. In my theory Estel can, if rarely, be proven wrong.