Divine Action

biotrom

Member
Hey, Corey. Thank you so much for this livestream. It's a bright spot in my week! I wanted to make this small observation during class last night, but I wasn't in a convenient place to type then.

You've often argued that the action of the Valar and the action of Iluvatar probably cannot be differentiated from the perspective of a resident of Middle Earth. Last night it was said to be a distinction without a difference. The very presence of the Istari is a case in point. And as such, in some sense every action of Gandalf could also be considered an action of Iluvatar.

I'm not disputing your argument, but I think you could paint a fuller picture if you would account for why we keep asking the question. What is it that leads readers to keep asking whether an event is attributable to the Valar or to Iluvatar?

I would suggest that it's our observation of the means of an action that leads us to inquire about the agent. Specifically, if we can observe the means we automatically attribute it to the Valar. If eagles swoop in, Manwe. If a river or a dream is involved, Ulmo. If stars give hope, Varda. But if we can't observe the means, then we jump to Iluvatar because we have no other explanation. Bilbo placing his hand upon the ring in the dark, for instance.

What should we do with this habit? Do we have justification for connecting a Vala or Iluvatar to an event, or should we work against this habit and correct ourselves every time we make an assumption?
 
Hi biotrom,

I do not think that Eru (or Iluvatar, or Eru Iluvatar) exists in TLOTR. The Valar exist (though our knowledge of them at the time of the council of Elrond is scant). I don't think Manwe exists, nor Ulmo, nor Varda. The only Valar we know are Elbereth and 'The Elder King' at this point. And, a first time reader, arriving at the point of the Council of Elrond would not (as far as I can recall) have encountered the word 'Valar' at all.

As far as I can remember, the only hint we get at the possible existence of a Deity beyond or above the Valar that we get in TLOTR is not until Appendix A, "When Ar-Pharazon set foot upon the shores of Aman the Blessed, the Valar laid down their Guardianship and called upon the One, and the world was changed."

From the perspective of the first time reader, the question of whether action was by Valar or Iluvater, is moot. The first time reader is unlikely to attribute action to either. Providence is the unseen actor which the first time reader may suspect by the time of the Council of Elrond. They may guess that Providence is provided by Elbereth, or the Elder King, but they would have very little evidence on which to base this assumption, and no evidence of any power higher.

From the perspective of TLOTR as a whole, the question of 'Iluvatar or Valar', is also a pretty fruitless question. First, Iluvatar does not exist. Second, 'The One' who does exist in the appendices, has no further information revealed about him. So, although we know that it is possible (in the case of Numenor) for the Valar to not act, but call upon 'The One' to act, it is very hard to draw conclusions from one data point and little background knowledge.

So, for the question even to arise, our perspective has to be from the Silmarillion or other CT stuff. I don't think we should use these sources as 'facts' about the world of TLOTR or as aids in interpreting TLOTR as a work of art.
 
There are a lot of references to ICYCI -- "If chance you call it". (Maybe those references themselves are just chance.o_O) Seeming-chance may refer to the Valar acting, and certainly dropping the E-bomb brings in some actor outside nature, in the sense of either Aquinas "beyond the order commonly observed" or Hume's "transgression" sense.

But the seeming-chance here seems beyond a power associated with stars or a power associated with the sea or some other creature. So it would perhaps be more accurate to say that there are no explicit references to the name Eru, but that the concept is repeatedly drawn in narratively (by a narrator we know is sympathetic to the concept). It is also notable that "Eru" is a direct translation of "the One" from the appendices. The "evidence" a hobbit could have of a power beyond Elbereth would be the same ones we argue about today, of Aquinas's argument for the necessity of an unmoved mover, etc.

So we're back to the good question by @biotrom, and thus back to the ancient question of whether there are miracles (Hume argues there are not, and Augustine is strangely quite close to that), if there are why, and then why everything isn't a miracle (the idea that there are no laws of nature; every event is an unmediated act by God).

And finally, if you take the position that some things are miracles, and some things are not miracles (a position that for a long while was thought to be common sense), it's natural to ask why sometimes the agency of whoever is behind the seeming-chance is fully mediated and sometimes not, and how to tell the difference between coincidence and a plan, and how differentiating those two is so complicated given e.g. Aquinas' SCG 3.67 and his commentary on Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias.

Narratively, it is richest to work within the story and the layers of cause and effect and story telling; and only to follow the narrator outside these layers when the narrator suggests it (although one can also keep the big picture in mind, reaching into the story from outside). So to constantly have recourse to "the One" within the story reminds me of that Saturday Night Live episode where Sally Fields, I think it was, incessantly says a prayer for every small thing, like that the dishwasher will work, and Jesus comes down and says, hey, let's hold the prayers for things bigger than household appliances, you're wearing me out.
 
These sorts of questions are always tricky--and of course, how an individual reader chooses to engage will (and should) vary. The matter is further complicated by the fact that, even if we assume the residents of Middle Earth could follow either 1) a Platonic line of reasoning to a Demiurge, and from there to a Gnostic belief in angels, or 2) a Thomistic line of reasoning to God, and from Him to the necessary existence of angels, I don't see how they can follow those (or similar) roads to reach Valar with distinct spheres of influence, who intervene according to that "flavor".

(Which is, of course, not to say that peoples could not conceive of gods that way--as many pagan belief systems obviously did so. Just that Tolkien gives us very, very little to demonstrate any belief system in Middle Earth that functions in this manner.)
 
Going back to the original question about how we know whether actions might have been taken by the Valar, there was discussion in the class that the 'Wind from the Sea' on the Pelennor Fields, or the 'Wind from the West' from the destruction of Saruman, might be the best examples of actions attributable to the Valar.

Nope.

Indisputably the best example of Valar action we have in TLOTR is, "The Silmaril as lantern light and banner bright with living flame to gleam thereon by Elbereth herself was set, who thither came and wings immortal made for him, and laid on him undying doom, to sail the shoreless skies and come behind the Sun and light of Moon."

Three direct actions: setting the Silmaril; making wings immortal; laying on Earendil the undying doom. All by Elbereth, who, if we have read all of TLOTR including the appendices, we must understand as one of the Valar. Pretty powerful Valar stuff! Especially the 'laying on of undying doom', which, if you buy in to the Silmarillion Theology, is getting pretty close to stepping into Eru territory, as Earendil is half Man, and Men are not supposed to be 'undying' in Silmarillion Theology. (Not so simple, it seems, in TLOTR.)

The second best example we have is in the Appendices, where, "The Valar laid down their Guardianship and called upon the One, and the world was changed."

In both these examples, actions are directly attributed to the Valar (and I believe these are the only two occasions where this is true).

The third best example is probably Gandalf saying, "naked I was sent back - for a brief time." to Aragorn, Legolas and Gimil in Fangorn. 'Sent back' implies a sender, and certainly for the first-time reader, the likely 'sender' is one of the Valar (as any power higher than the Valar is as yet unknown). Someone who had read the Appendices might wonder whether it was the Valar or the One, who sent Gandalf back. However, no need to speculate about the mysterious One. We know from Appendix B, that the Wizards, "Came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron." 'Sent', presumably by the Valar (indeed, quite possibly Valar themselves (Maiar do not exist in TLOTR)). Those who have once been 'sent', can certainly be 'sent back' by the original 'senders'.

Here, the action (of 'sending') is not directly attributable to the Valar, but the repeat reader (maybe even the first-time reader) should have little difficulty making the assumption.

I do think the 'Wind from the Sea', and the 'Wind from the West' can be (should be) read as Valar actions by the repeat reader of TLOTR without relying on Silmarillion stuff. However, the connection between 'Wind' and 'Manwe' would not exist, as Manwe does not exist in TLOTR.
 
I think that the mystery of the Powers of the world helps with the approachability and relatability of the work. As told, it supports the perspective of a documentary camera crew (in most places) - present for the action, but not participating in the action - whereas an always omniscient perspective would rob much of the drama (e.g. the Battle of the Pelennor Fields) in order to give details that aren't really needed. The light touches of information presented during the narrative, but gained after the events of the narrative, help with the frame conceit of this being a translation of an ancient work written by the protagonist(s) after the fact.

Ultimately, within the work of TLotR, does it matter who it is that sends the Wind from the West? Isn't it more important that it was in fact sent, not just a fortuitous weather event?
Similarly with 'it was rolled down the River to the Sea.', does a reader of the works published only within JRRT's lifetime have a framework to meaningfully distinguish between an external will (Valar, Eru, or other) driving the rolling of the ring, and the currents of the river over a very long time? Granted, the latter explanation is dubious, but what evidence is there within this published work to support an alternate explanation? I think the lack of evidence is what leads many (most?) of us to essentially ignore the 'was' when reading that line, at least the first time.
 
I think Prof C was talking about action actually occurring in the tale, not a tale within a tale. Although either is a reasonable interpretation of C’s comments. But “nope” regarding the Wind from the West seems a bit overeager in tossing out a very interesting narrative moment: it is certainly quite a shocking difference to witness a miracle compared to hearing of one (even if one believes the hearing), and so interpreting the question as an actual experience of the extraordinary is a rich one, whatever C meant.

Also, I think it is a mixing of terms to say that “Manwë doesn’t exist in LoTR,” compared to saying that Manwë is not referred to. There are presumably birds in the Eryn Vorn, although they are not referred to.

Also, in the later post by Anthony, I simply cannot agree more with your first paragraph. Trying to build a theology narratively into LoTR would have likely been disastrous (although perhaps JRRT would have surprised us; certainly the Silmarillion is surprisingly evocative despite opening with an entire cosmology; or perhaps not “despite” but “because of,” since S and LoTR are trying to do such different things).
 
Last edited:
Hi DolorousStroke,

Interesting distinction between 'Manwe doesn't exist in TLOTR", and "Manwe is not referred to".

If you say "Manwe is not referred to in TLOTR", that implies that Manwe exists, but is not mentioned in the work. I think the relevant question then is which perspective is being adopted? Manwe might well have 'existed' in JRRT's imagination, and for some of his close associates (CT or Inklings members) when TLOTR was written. The perspective I am interested in, however, is the perspective of the reader. TLOTR was published in 1954-1955. The Silmarillion was published in 1977. For 23 years, from the perspective of readers of TLOTR, Manwe did not exist.

If we are adopting the perspective of those readers (or just looking at TLOTR as a work of art on its own) then Manwe does not exist in TLOTR.
 
For me, it's always been more pleasurable to embed myself wholly in the fiction, and believe that things exist in-world and for characters that no reader can ever know about. So, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that Manwe exists in TLOTR, and yet that a reader in 1960 could not possibly have known that. Characters and environments exist in themselves, and not just in our reading about them. So, Gandalf and Saruman can make reference to a thing I know nothing about--and could do, even if the Silmarillion was never published. However, it is simultaneously true that Manwe isn't explicated in TLOTR, and in fact I think it's basically impossible to infer his existence based on what we do have.

But as ever, reader preference will vary.

And @DolorousStroke's point below is a good one. Modern first time readers now, growing up in an environment saturated by TLOTR genre influence, must have a very different experience than someone reading in 1955. We can think of infinite variables. So, I think the "first time reader" lens is an essential heuristic, but I think we also have to acknowledge its limits and nuances.
 
Last edited:
Good point, Flammifer; I am a bit pirouetting on a pin here, I suppose. Another pirouette: what sort of first time reader? One who is reading in 1955, or one who is reading in 1977? For the former reader, Manwë does not exist in LoTR; for the latter Manwë exists but is not referred to.
 
Hi DolorousStroke,

I would rather say that after 1977 Manwe exists in The Silmarillion, but is not necessarily relevant to TLOTR.

The history here is interesting. In 1977 most LOTR fans raced to read The Silmarillion, and were eager to delve into the lore, answer questions and mysteries, and link The Silmarillion and TLOTR into one coherent world.

After a while, though, (perhaps aided by the publication of 'The History of Middle Earth') it became more and more apparent that 'The Silmarillion' as published did not represent a near completed work by JRRT which just needed a few finishing touches by CT to be published as a coherent background work to TLOTR. It became more apparent, that JRRT did not publish 'The Silmarillion' not because he died just before he had finalized it. Rather, JRRT had failed to successfully integrate the worlds of 'The Silmarillion' and TLOTR. He did not publish because he was not happy with what he had come up with in 'The Silmarillion', not because he died just before finishing. If JRRT had been able to come up with some presentation of Silmarillion material which he was happy with co-existing with TLOTR (which he wasn't), then it probably would have been something very different than The Silmarillion which CT published.

(Note: In 1977, if first reading The Silmarillion, it would have been quite difficult to deduce that JRRT was never happy with a final version of The Silmarillion. Although, on re-reading CT's introduction later, there are perhaps hints of this. It is never clear. In fact, the impression from the introduction is that only the last parts of the book (from the death of Turin Turambar onwards) had not been 'finally' revised by JRRT. "In this work the concluding chapters (from the death of Turin Turambar) introduced peculiar difficulties, in that they had remained unchanged for many years, and were in some respects in serious disharmony with more developed conceptions in other parts of the book." That sounds a lot like 'JRRT had finished the whole Silmarillion except the last bit, which I had to edit to make it fit'. However, as more JRRT and CT stuff was published, it became clear that JRRT had not produced a finished work except for the last bit. In fact, he never produced a 'final version' which successfully reconciled and retconned The Silmarillion with TLOTR.)

So, that leads to readers who have read both TLOTR and The Silmarillion dividing into two perspectives. Let's call these Category 3a and Category 3b.

Category 3a readers are likely to take The Silmarillion as canon, and as valid backstory to TLOTR.

Category 3b readers, while they may love The Silmarillion as a work of art on it's own, do not consider it canon, and do not believe it is a valid definitive backstory to TLOTR.

The perspective of these readers might be that Manwe exists in The Silmarillion, but does not exist in TLOTR.

Of course, things are not so black and white, and there are many shades of grey between Cat 3a and Cat 3b.

I think that the more you study Tolkien stuff, the harder it gets to consider 'The Silmarillion' as canon, and the better you think it to ignore CT stuff when reading TLOTR.

Reasons briefly are:

1. Tolkien never was happy with The Silmarillion as he had produced it, and never published.

2. CT made some choices in publishing, which he later regretted, particularly the elimination of back story, which makes The Silmarillion read more Biblical, Divine, and Authoritative than most of JRRTs earlier versions.

3. The veiled history and theology of TLOTR world, and the build up of partial revelations and clues is an element of the artistry of LOTR which is damaged (or ignored) if The Silmarillion is taken as canon.

4. JRRT's own comments and criticism in 'Beowulf - The Monsters and the Critics' and in 'On Fairy Stories' would seem to argue against, 'mining books (Beowulf) more as a quarry of fact and fancy than studying them as works of art'.
 
Last edited:
To be short about it because I don't have a lot of time,

There's a philosophical argument about how much ownership of a work the author has once it's released. If we (category 3a readers) read the Silmarillion as-presented-to-us as canonical, then that is what it is. The ghost of Tolkien could pop out and shout BOO at us, but once we have consumed it, it is ours as much as his.
 
Well, of course we can choose to regard The Silmarillion as canon if we want to. I just think it is a mistake.
 
This seems to be an extension of the discussion about what level of knowledge we should assume when discussing motivations within the story as written. As I said somewhere else, I have a hard time remembering my pure first-time experience, but I did have a full decade of multiple re-readings with only the Appendix knowledge. Simply from Faramir's pre-dinner 'prayer,' it is clear that there is something in Middle-earth that "will ever be." This implies some sort of eternal being('s). We learned in the Shire that there is an Elbereth whom the Elves invoke, and in Bilbo's poem Elbereth make "wings immortal" for Earendil. Along with the references to Bilbo being "meant" to find the Ring, and Gandalf being sent back, it was always clear to me that there was a higher power taking an interest in Middle-earth. But not too obviously. I think I thought nearly all the weather notes of grace were signs of that interest...including not only the wind from the sea at Pelennor, but the wind from the north that clears away the rain over Edoras at the healing of Theoden, the last rays of the sun that light yellow flowers on the head of the fallen king, and the clear sky over Mordor allowing a star to shine down.

I am sure, however, that Manwe, Ulmo, Aule, Garda, Yavanna, Nienna and the rest were solidly in Tolkien's mind. He tried to get his publisher to publish The Silmarillion along with LotR, as he felt that the later work wouldn't fully make sense without the earlier. Even though it wasn't finished. Not to mention that he'd been living with the Ainulindale since WW1.
 
I am sure, however, that Manwe, Ulmo, Aule, Garda, Yavanna, Nienna and the rest were solidly in Tolkien's mind. He tried to get his publisher to publish The Silmarillion along with LotR, as he felt that the later work wouldn't fully make sense without the earlier. Even though it wasn't finished. Not to mention that he'd been living with the Ainulindale since WW1.

I'd also point out that a brief search of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien reveals several references to Eru and the Valar throughout the 50's to people who wrote questions to him. We may debate, if we wish, on how much weight to put on his answers, but I think it quite clear by how he invokes them that he considered them part of the story, even if unmentioned in the text.
 
Back
Top