A Deeper Paradox of Middle Earth History

Flammifer

Well-Known Member
I agree with Corey, that a paradox of Middle Earth History is that we, the readers, know more Middle Earth history (even if we have only read TLOTR, and especially if we have read Christopher Tolkien’s stuff) than most of the inhabitants of Middle Earth.

I think, however, that there is a deeper paradox, especially in Elvish History.

Here is a partial and preliminary explanation (of a very complex set of ideas) which I wonder if Corey, or others in the class could help to develop further?

Why does Elvish History (in the Silmarillion primarily, but reflected into TLOTR) reveal so little about how Elves perceive the relationship of themselves to the world? The Elvish purpose? The proper way for Elves to behave in the world?

By contrast, the Old Testament, on which I think The Silmarillion is heavily modeled, is replete with, and obsessed by archetypal stories designed to Illuminate the relation of Humans to the world, the purpose of Humans, the proper way for Humans to behave in the world, both as individuals and as a society (generally the people of Israel).

It is somewhat curious, that Tolkien, who once said in a letter that TLOTR was an allegory of death and immortality, should not have probed the nature of his immortals further.

The Silmarillion and The Old Testament are very similar in structure. Both start with a creation story, and then proceed to a history of the created. In both, the history is sketchy in it’s broad outline, but concentrates on specific stories about individuals or society. Both are perceived to have the same complex derivation, from oral tales, refined and honed over vast stretches of time, written down by a variety of reporters in different periods, edited, and collected together by different editors at different times, and then translated (and re-translated) and re-presented to us.

However, despite the similarities, there are profound differences in the structure. I will cover a couple of these differences that occur early on, as, I think they illustrate the paradox, that The Silmarillion illuminates the nature of Elves far less clearly than The Old Testament describes the nature of Men.

The Old Testament starts with the Creation, and then follows the story of Adam and Eve, in which, by eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, humans become ‘conscious’ of time, of suffering in the world, of their own mortality, and, aware of their vulnerability, and thus, simultaneously aware of how to hurt others, and thus do evil. Immediately following this story of humans gaining consciousness (which we, alone among animals, did, at some point in evolution), is the story of Cain and Abel, which is the story of the first committed evil. People have discovered agriculture. They have to ‘sacrifice’ or ‘invest’ by working and giving up things in the present to gain things in the future (in a much more deliberate and burdensome way than their wandering hunter/gatherer ancestors did). Cain and Abel both sacrifice. Abel prospers much more than Cain. The story does not reveal whether Abel is more competent than Cain, or just more fortunate, but the whole thing does not seem ‘fair’ to Cain. He gives in to envy and jealousy, and murders Abel.

Those second and third stories in The Old Testament tell us a lot about the human condition.

These Bible stories are not paralleled in The Silmarillion. The Silmarillion opens with the histories of the creation, in which the rebellion of Melkor features prominently, and then a lengthy account of the conflicts of the Valar and Melkor before the Elves appear. This is a very similar story to the Christian legend of ‘The War in Heaven’ (though in The Silmarillion, the war occurs mostly in Arda, rather than in Heaven). However, ‘The War in Heaven’ does not appear in The Old Testament. (It appears only briefly in The Bible, in ‘Revelations’, in The New Testament, though it is told many times in other sources.) In fact, ‘Satan’ as a fallen angel, does not really feature in Judaism. The word ‘satan’ (adversary) is often used to refer to ordinary human adversaries. Although there are various references to Satan that imply a supernatural being, most Talmudic Jewish scholars maintain that ‘satan’ is a metaphor for ‘yetzer hara’ (evil inclination – something present in men, not external). Furthermore, the evil motivations of Melkor and of Satan (at least as depicted in ‘Faust’) are different. Melkor wants to dominate and rule creation. Beelzebub wants to destroy it all.

In The Old Testament, the knowledge of evil, and the embodiment of the ability to commit evil is in men. In The Silmarillion the knowledge of evil, and the embodiment of the ability to commit evil is in Melkor. Even the Valar seem to have had an incomplete and naïve knowledge of evil. When Manwe pardoned Melkor from captivity (which allowed him to ally with Ungoliant, destroy the two trees, steal the Silmarils, kill Finwe, escape to Middle Earth, re-build his power, and cause immense suffering), it is said that “it seemed to Manwe that the evil of Melkor was cured. For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it.” As with the Valar, so it seems with the Elves. They had not fallen, and had perhaps less knowledge of good and evil than even the Valar?

The trajectory of the Elves in The Silmarillion is the opposite to that of Men in The Old Testament. Men were expelled from the Garden of Eden into Middle Earth. The Eldar were summoned out of Middle Earth into the Garden of Eden. Yet some of the Elves fell into evil. Did they fall when they listened to Melkor and were corrupted by him with fear of the coming of Men and suspicion of the Valar? Did they fall when Feanor drew his sword upon Fingolfin? Did they fall when Feanor refused to break his Silmarils to re-kindle the two trees? Did they fall when Feanor broke his banishment? Did they fall when Feanor and his sons swore their ‘terrible oath’? Did they fall when Feanor rejected the counsel of Manwe and led the Noldor out of Valinor? They certainly fell at the kinslaying at Aquilonde. Not just most of the Noldor, but most of the Teleri as well. For just as Feanor would kill to acquire the ships needed to pursue his Silmarils, so the Teleri would kill to possess their ships. Both used evil means to pursue the same sinful desires of pride and possessiveness. (Though The Silmarillion certainly blames the Noldor and seems to pretty much absolve the Teleri. Why?)

It seems that the exiled Eldar are either forgiven, or redeemed through suffering. Almost all are allowed to return to Elvenhome after the defeat of Morgoth in the War of Wrath. The ‘Doom of the Noldor’ spoken by Mandos seems to have been rescinded, though it is unclear if it was also rescinded for all of those who were in his Halls (we know that it was rescinded for Glorfindel).

We know something about the Condition of Elves. They are not fallen originally. They do not know evil. But, they can be corrupted and come to know evil and do evil (even devote themselves fairly comprehensively to evil if Orcs are corrupted Elves). Once fallen, Elves, it seems, should properly behave in the same manner as fallen men; bear their suffering, resist evil, act for good in the world. There are quite a few stories in the Silmarillion that illustrate how Elves can fall, what they should not do, how they should properly act once fallen, and indications that they can and will be forgiven and return to grace if they do. There is not much indication of what happens if they don’t act properly. Stuck in the Halls of Mandos until the end of the world?

What is missing from The Silmarillion is stories that give many clues to the Condition of unfallen Elves such as the Vanyar, and some of the Noldor and Teleri. What is their role in the World? Although they seem to exist mostly as innocents in the Garden of Eden, they do form part of the host of the Valar, and fight and presumably kill, in the War of Wrath. How should they properly behave and contribute in the world. Then, most mysteriously, what is the condition of the Grey Elves and Dark Elves? Have they remained unfallen? What does it mean for them to remain in Middle Earth and fade? When they die, don’t they show up in the Halls of Mandos and thence re-incarnate and live in Elvenhome? Can they still travel to Elvenhome via the straight path?

The paradox of the History of the Elves, is that it does not reveal much about most of the Elves. It is a history of those Elves (a minority?) who have been corrupted and fallen into evil. There is little curiosity about, and little account of, those who did not. Thus, if Tolkien meant to deal with death and immortality, we are missing a lot of comprehension about immortality. We learn something about those Elves who have fallen and been corrupted into evil, but those are the Elves whose condition is most like Men (all of whom have the knowledge of good and evil, and will all tend to fall into at least some evil) (all of whom must contend with a life of suffering and death, whereas most Elves will not). We don’t learn much about the condition of the unfallen immortals, who are least like Men, and thus could reveal the greatest contrasts between mortal and immortal conscious creations.

Pretty obviously, I don’t have this all worked out very well yet. It is complex.

Does anyone know of any writing comparing and contrasting the Old Testament to the Silmarillion?

Does anyone know of any writing on interpreting the Elvish Condition, or Elvish Morality?

All feedback welcome.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest two explanations to answer your broadest scope questions:

In-world reason -
The Silmarillion is the documentation, by Mortals, of the stories of the Elves as told to them by those fallen Elves or their descendants. The Mortals can't write down the stories they haven't heard, and they can't interview Elves that they haven't met. This gives the Silmarillion a narrower scope than one might like, but you might as well ask why the Old Testament doesn't document the happenings of the time in what is now South America.

Out-of-world reason -
Tolkien was a man, not an Elf, and he didn't have any actually immortal beings to interview to try formulating answers to these things. Being a Catholic he believed that all men are fallen and therefore would be ill-equipped to relate any non-fallen experience.
While a human can document the mechanics of Avian flight, they can't document the experience nor interview a bird to get their perspective. Even if you could interview a bird, your perspective might be so far removed from that or a bird that any answer given would be meaningless.
 
Hi Anthony,

I agree with both your suppositions on why the Silmarillion might not cover the things I wish it had covered. I have considered both of them in the past. However, they do not totally satisfy me.

Supposition 1: Yes, the Old Testament concentrated on the history of the Israelites, and not on others. But the implication was that the study of one people, and one society (especially God's chosen people and chosen society - not that that fact did them much good, as their history was a constant repetition of the fall, and, as far as I can see, the main point is that the Israelites never blamed God, or Nature, or fate, or anything else except their own failings for the fact that their society constantly failed or was conquered, and they just picked themselves up and determined to try again, better this time.) was good enough to reveal universal human truths.

The history of the Elves, as told from the perspective of the fallen Elves, does not seem to me to be comprehensive enough to reveal universal Elvish truths. Thus it reveals either a lack of sufficient Elvish curiosity, or, a rather too self centered focus on the part of it's authors and editors.

On your second point: Sure. It is undoubtedly fiendishly difficult for a mortal to construct the Immortal Condition, or the Immortal Morality. Still, if one of Tolkien's purposes (which he stated) was to explore the themes of death and immortality, I wish he had tried harder on the immortality element.

On the other hand, I am not at all sure that exploration of 'death and immortality' was actually a key objective of Tolkien. I rather suspect that his real objective was to explore the Human condition of mortality when exposed to the reality of immortality in the same world at the same time. Which is a somewhat different thing.
 
Hi Anthony,

I agree with both your suppositions on why the Silmarillion might not cover the things I wish it had covered. I have considered both of them in the past. However, they do not totally satisfy me.

Supposition 1: Yes, the Old Testament concentrated on the history of the Israelites, and not on others. But the implication was that the study of one people, and one society (especially God's chosen people and chosen society - not that that fact did them much good, as their history was a constant repetition of the fall, and, as far as I can see, the main point is that the Israelites never blamed God, or Nature, or fate, or anything else except their own failings for the fact that their society constantly failed or was conquered, and they just picked themselves up and determined to try again, better this time.) was good enough to reveal universal human truths.

I can't accept that the Old Testament was written with the purpose of standing as truth for all humans, rather than just the Israelites, even if it has been considered as such by later readers. It may be that the scope of time it covers (and some editorial work over the millennia) has produced a generally applicable work.

The history of the Elves, as told from the perspective of the fallen Elves, does not seem to me to be comprehensive enough to reveal universal Elvish truths. Thus it reveals either a lack of sufficient Elvish curiosity, or, a rather too self centered focus on the part of it's authors and editors.
A third option, as I stated before, is a lack of opportunity. There are far fewer Elves to begin with, as generations not needed to prevent extinction, and so while a century worth of historians can examine the actions of millions of humans, it seems that there might be fewer than a million Elves in all of Arda's history. This smaller sample size might make the winnowing process more difficult, if not impossible.
Compounding this is the fact that the authors and editors are mostly, if not entirely, mortal.
If an editor encounters something that is true of Elves, and they think the understand, but they misconstrue, might edit it 'for clarity' while removing that truth.

On your second point: Sure. It is undoubtedly fiendishly difficult for a mortal to construct the Immortal Condition, or the Immortal Morality. Still, if one of Tolkien's purposes (which he stated) was to explore the themes of death and immortality, I wish he had tried harder on the immortality element.

On the other hand, I am not at all sure that exploration of 'death and immortality' was actually a key objective of Tolkien. I rather suspect that his real objective was to explore the Human condition of mortality when exposed to the reality of immortality in the same world at the same time. Which is a somewhat different thing.

Maybe it is the difference between 'death and immortality' and 'death; and immortality'.
 
Hi Anthony,

All your points are good. Another point that I have thought of, but you have not mentioned, is the same point that Corey made in talking about his first paradox of the History of Middle Earth, which was that some of the oral history embodied in the Silmarillion was the oral history of still living eye witnesses. It is possible that their memory was still too 'real' to allow the stories in the Silmarillion to be properly boiled down into Archetypal Stories, and they remained overly specific for the purposes of plumbing the Elvish Condition.

I dismissed that, on the consideration that you and I, when telling stories, even of our own past, do select the stories for moral relevance, and edit them down so that they tend to carry a moral, or a more universal idea. However, Elvish memory works differently to our own (at least some evidence for that, though not very clear), so, perhaps Elvish History would not tend towards Archetypes as readily as our own stories would?
 
Another point occurs to me about all this. Of course, Tolkien never did finish the Silmarillion and publish it. Christopher did.

I suspect that Tolkien did not publish because he was not satisfied. If he had ever published, we might have a very different Silmarillion than the one we do.

My guess is that to publish, Tolkien would either have worked out more of the metaphysical nature of his immortals, or would have cut out vast tracts of the metaphysics and mythological elements in the Silmarillion and stuck more to the stories of the Elves and Men struggling against Morgoth in Middle Earth.
 
The idea of morality tales or cautionary tales are to tell the listener how one's life ought to be lived. Elves are, in general, very hesitant to tell others what to do.

So, I think the non-elven proverb, "Go not to the Elves for advice, for they will tell you both 'yes' and 'no'" is relevant here. It means this lack of 'you should do this' is inherent in elvish culture, and noticed and remarked upon by outsiders.

Elrond thought that Frodo was pre-ordained to take on the quest of destroying the Ring (possibly by Eru himself), and that doing so was imperative to the saving of Middle-earth from Sauron's dominion. He...refused to make eye contact with Frodo, so that he could not be seen to be influencing Frodo's choice in any way. It was only after Frodo spoke up and accepted the Quest as his own that Elrond was willing to weigh in and reveal what he thought about the matter.

Domination of the wills of others is considered gravely disordered by elves. Perhaps that is reflected in their choice of story material.

Flammifer, "Morgoth's Ring" speaks to Melkor's motivations, and at the end of the day he was more nihilistic - if it couldn't be his way, he wanted it destroyed. Sauron was more focused on ordering everything according to his own will, and did not share Melkor's view.
 
Back
Top