Strangers in strange lands?

[Flammifer]

Some questions on Elrond’s comment, “and the two kindreds (Elves and Men) are estranged.”

Now, I know that it is difficult sometimes to address some of the Meta questions in TLOTR in this class, which (admirably) focuses on a word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph study of the text. The differences in perspective are vast. However, sometimes the word-by-word seems to collide with the big picture, and this comment seems like one of those times.

Why are the two kindreds estranged?

Elrond seemingly offers an immediately preceding explanation, “for Men multiply and the firstborn decrease”. This must baffle at least Frodo, Sam and Boromir amongst the council (and perhaps the first time reader as well). Frodo and Sam have just journeyed from the Shire to Rivendell. Along the way they have seen many ruined and deserted barrows, dikes, stoneworks, towers, walls, old roads, all indicating that many Men once lived in these lands that are now a wilderness. Men, the Hobbits must think, are surely declining, not multiplying? Boromir comes from Minas Tirith. We will learn, when Pippin arrives there, that “it was in truth falling year by year into decay; and already it lacked half the men that could have dwelt there”. Not only does Minas Tirith have half the population it was built for, but two great cities of Gondor, Minas Ithil and Osgiliath, as well as the whole of the lands of Ithilien are depopulated. Boromir also must think that Men are declining rather than multiplying.

Only Gloin, Gimli and Legolas, thinking of the growth of Dale and Laketown and the Beornings, might not be surprised by Elrond’s claim.
Elrond’s assertion as to why the two kindred are estranged, though likely true over vast sweeps of time (the Elves are ‘sailing, sailing’ after all, and have been since long before Men appeared), nevertheless seems baffling right now in the West of Middle Earth.

So, why are the two kindreds estranged?

Well, they have been estranged for a long time.

As soon as the Valar were aware that Elves had come to Middle Earth (not very soon), they came to guide them and direct them to a haven in Valinor. The Elves were to be shepherded from Middle Earth to the Garden of Eden.

The Valar were even later come to the awareness of Men in Middle Earth (never send an Eagle to do a job a Vala should have done), but they sent no aid nor counsel nor guide. Nor did they summon them to anywhere.

I suspect that Elves were innocent (unfallen) without the knowledge of good and evil. They were wholly good. Though they could be (and some were) corrupted into evil by Morgoth.

For evidence of the unfallen nature of Elves, I rely on several things:

1. When Manwe freed Melkor it was because, “it seemed to Manwe that the evil of Melkor was cured. For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it”. If Manwe can be free from evil, then so could Elves be. I had previously considered that the archetypal meaning of the story of Adam and Eve, and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, was an explanation of how attaining consciousness and the ability to comprehend vulnerability, suffering, and the future, necessarily brought about a comprehension of evil. But, I think Tolkien may have had a different interpretation.​

​

2. The Elves are brought from Middle Earth into the Garden of Eden. A direct opposite trajectory from Men, who (in the Adam and Eve story) are expelled from the Garden of Eden into Middle Earth. As Adam and Eve were expelled for eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I assume that Elves were welcomed into the Garden because they did not have the knowledge of good and evil.​

​

3. Though the Elves had lived for long ages in Valinor, it was not until Melkor slew Finwe, that any of the Eldar had been slain in Aman. In the Old Testament, it is not nearly so long (indeed it is the very next story after Adam and Eve) before Cain murders Abel. I take this as indirect evidence that Elves do not ‘know’ evil.​

So, I think that Elves are unfallen in Tolkien’s world.

I think that Men are fallen. The evidence for Men being fallen in Arda is slim, but I take the section in the chapter ‘Of Men’ in ‘The Silmarillion’; “Men have feared the Valar, rather than loved them, and have not understood the purposes of the Powers, being at variance with them, and at strife with the world.” As the best evidence that Men have fallen. “At strife with the world”, is a pretty good description of why Cain murders Abel. He does it in anger against God, and the ‘unfairness’ of existence.

What of Numenor? Was the fall of Numenor the fall of Men? I don’t think so. The Valar do make Numenor, as a sort of pseudo Garden of Eden for the Edain, but its fall I think is Tolkien conflating the next two archetypal stories in The Old Testament, ‘The Flood’, and ‘The Tower of Babel’ into one. Men try to reach heaven (by tower or by ship). Eru Illuvitar, in his best ‘wrathful God of the Old Testament’ moment, destroys the Men by flood, scattering the few ‘good’ survivors back to, and across the face of, Middle Earth.

What is Tolkien’s interpretation of the fall of Man? I think that Tolkien’s reading of the story of Adam and Eve is not that consciousness creates the knowledge of good and evil, but that it is consciousness combined with the knowledge of one’s own brief span in the world, and inevitable death, which creates the knowledge of good and evil. Conscious, but immortal, beings do not know evil in themselves. They may suffer, but time will cure many ills. Things might not be ‘fair’ or ‘just’ now, but the swings will eventually be offset by the roundabouts. Not so for Men. The brief span, and mortality of Men means that their consciousness thoroughly comprehends resentment, spite, envy, anger, and malice.

Tolkien said in a letter that TLOTR might be a parable of immortality and death. I think his main point here is his thought that it is the conscious knowledge of death which creates the knowledge of good and evil, and that conscious immortals can be unfallen, and not inevitably harbor evil within themselves. Is Tolkien exploring the similarities and differences between fallen and unfallen conscious beings, made in the image of God?

To continue that thinking. Men and Elves are perpetually ‘estranged’, as Men find conscious beings who don’t know evil strange, and Elves find conscious beings who do know evil strange. I think the Valar probably also find Men strange, for the same reason.

So, although some Men and some Elves have been allies, friends, even lovers, I think they have always been ‘estranged’.

The Valar thought that the innocence of the Elves should be protected (against corruption by Melkor, but also possibly against corruption by Men – though I can’t think of a story of Men corrupting Elves, can anyone?) by whisking them out of Middle Earth and into Valinor (didn’t work so well as they innocently set Melkor free in Valinor amongst the Elves to work his corruption). On the other hand, the Valar seem baffled by Men.

Best to keep the two ‘strange’ kindred separate, seems to have been the conclusion of the Valar?

 

[Beech27]

There's a ton in letter 131 to Milton Waldman that's relevant to your post, I think. Specific to the fall, Tolkien says: So, proceeding, the Elves have a fall, before their "history" can become storial. (The first fall of Man, for reasons explained, nowhere appears--Men do not come on the stage until all that is long past, and there is only a rumour that for a while they fell under the domination of the Enemy and that some Repented.) But the main body of the tale, the Silmarillion proper, is about the fall of the most gifted kindred of the Elves, their exile from Valinor (a kind of Paradise, the home of the Gods) in the furthest West, their re-entry into Middle-earth, the land of their birth but under the rule of the Enemy, and their strife with him, the power of Evil still visibly incarnate.

This is the letter I think you're referencing, in which he says the whole legendarium is concerned with the Fall, Mortality, and the Machine.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Beech,

Thanks for the info.

I think that the 'fall' of some few Elves happens, but it happens to only a small minority of Elves (prompted by the corruption of Melkor, of course).

In TLOTR, my reading is that the only Elf we encounter who has fallen is Galadriel. I think she has the knowledge of good and evil. When she says to Frodo, "I pass the test. I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel," I think it was a tough test for her. Being, "beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth. All shall love me and despair!" was pretty tempting for Galadriel. She desired rule and adventure and power. Wandering through Elvenhome picnicking on the grass was not really her desire. I'm pretty sure that she knew that she was capable of evil, and did not find it easy to resist.

I don't think that's the letter I was thinking of though. I think someone asked Tolkien whether TLOTR was an allegory of the atomic bomb, and his answer was no, but that it was a reflection on death and immortality.

 

[JJ48]

I'm not sure I agree that Elves--in Middle-earth, at least--are unfallen. What evidence is there for this? And what would this mean for Elrond, who has both "unfallen" Elves and Men in his ancestry? Is he fallen or unfallen?

As to estrangement itself, I would point out that Gandalf also points out, in Book 1, Chapter 2, "The strength of the Elves to resist him was greater long ago; and not all Men were estranged from them." The context is the Last Alliance, when Men were undoubtedly fallen, and yet were not (according to Gandalf) all estranged. For this reason, I don't think estrangement can be referring to the difference between fallen and unfallen, unless Gandalf and Elrond are using the word to mean two completely different things.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48,

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that not all Men have always been 'alienated' from Elves, nor all Elves from Men. There have been notable alliances, friendships, and marriages. However, I suspect that even in those cases, each species found the other 'strange'. (Sometimes interestingly strange, intriguingly strange, wondrously strange, but strange.)

The most obvious difference, and thus 'strangeness' is the difference between mortal and immortal. However, under my supposition, that Tolkien also conceived that conscious but immortal beings could remain unfallen, whereas conscious but mortal beings could not, that adds another dimension of 'strangeness' between Men and Elves.

This is well illustrated by Arwen's words to Aragorn on his deathbed in Appendix A; "Not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men, it is bitter to receive." I think that this is the moment when Arwen understands the Fall of Man, and realizes that she is fallen herself. The thought that existence is 'bitter', is almost the definition of The Fall, and leads rapidly to the knowledge that the potentially following emotions of resentment, alienation, anger, envy, revenge, could easily lead one into evil.

Your thoughts on Elrond are very interesting. Is he fallen or unfallen? In all his actions, he appears unfallen (that is, he appears to have no inclination to Evil within himself). Unlike Galadriel, we never see Elrond tempted to take, or use the Ring. Or, indeed, to be inclined to any other evil, resentful, vengeful, or malicious motivations. It could be that he became 'unfallen' when he chose to be of the kindred of the Elves?

On the other hand, Elrond might have been wise enough, and moral enough, to be fallen, but able to firmly reject and deny the evil within himself, and act only for the good. That is certainly possible (though difficult) for Men. Aragorn is a pretty good example.

 

[JJ48]

I think there's a big difference between being estranged from each other and simply finding each other strange. Most couples I know find each other strange at times, but most of these same couples are also not estranged. Estrangement has to do with lack of closeness in relationship, not dissimilarity of mannerisms.

Concerning Elves, Galadriel may be an example of one who has fallen, but I don't think we can extract from this that some Elves are fallen and some unfallen, simply because we don't see other the other primary Elves acting the same way. As you pointed out, there are Men like Aragorn and Faramir. Do they prove that some Men are unfallen, simply because they do not act fallen "onstage", as it were?

I think your second supposition about Elrond hits nearer the mark, and likely holds for most Elves. In Christian doctrine, there is a concept called Sanctification, which is basically the process of growing and improving in one's faith, and continues throughout one's life. Someone who is more mature in their faith will generally be more successful in resisting temptation than someone who is far less mature.

I think Elves might work a similar way, and if we can see a large change in character in a man over the course of his life, how much more so in an elf over the course of millennia? Add to that the fact that when they're young, they're being brought up by elves who are already quite mature, and it becomes less odd that most of them turn out pretty good, despite still being fallen.

Regarding Elrond's apparent lack of temptation by the Ring, I would just point out that Aragorn also doesn't appear tempted, yet he is still fallen. Not all temptations tempt everyone equally, and the fact that Elrond is not shown tempted is not proof that he has never been tempted.

 

[Flammifer]

As I understand it, being fallen is not the same as being evil. My understanding is that being 'fallen' is to 'know' evil. That is, to know that one has impulses to evil, and can contemplate doing evil, and can do evil. So, yes, the 'fallen' can resist and try hard not to do evil, and succeed (sometimes), but, they still understand evil intimately, because they understand it within themselves.

The unfallen (like Manwe), can observe evil, and deplore evil, but they don't really 'understand' evil (they might have some sort of observational and rational understanding, but they do not have internal knowledge of the compulsion or temptation to evil).

So, Elrond might be fallen, but wise enough and moral enough, and strong enough to understand the impulses to evil within, and never let them get a grip. Or he might be unfallen, and have no real evil impulses within himself. We just don't know.

On one of your other points; I think there is plenty of evidence that the Elves who remain in Elvenhome are unfallen. The comparison of Men being expelled from the Garden of Eden once they had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, whereas the Elves are shepherded into the Garden of Eden by the Valar, leads me to believe that the Elves did not have knowledge of Good and Evil.

Does that apply to the Elves who remained in Middle Earth? Does it apply to the Elves who returned to Middle Earth? Trickier questions. I think that Elves can fall. Feanor does. Many of the Noldor who participate in the Kinslaying do.

Judging by my reading of the story of Feanor, it seems that for an Elf to Fall is a somewhat baffling process for the Elf. Feanor does things that are evil (or tending towards evil) but he does not think they are evil. It takes him a long time (if ever) to recognize that the knowledge of evil has grown within him. His sons also know that they have done evil, and come to know that they have evil within them. They have little or no clue how to behave in those circumstances, or avoid doing evil, or to recover and achieve any redemption.

I suspect that the Elves who never left Middle Earth are still mostly unfallen. Though they may face a greater possibility to be corrupted and to fall than those in Valinor (at least, if the Valar had not released Melkor amongst the Elves in Valinor enabling him to corrupt them).

The Valar, it seems to me, also thought so. That's why they tried to get all the Elves to come to Valinor (and presumably all will eventually - via the Halls of Mandos).

Which leads right on to your last point. Are Elves and Men 'estranged'? I would say yes. From the beginning. Deliberately so by the Valar, who try to keep them separate. Interestingly, also so by Morgoth, who tries to stir up dissension and suspicion between them. We know that a danger to Men associating too closely with Elves is the growth of envy and resentment against the immortality of Elves - hence the downfall of Numenor. I struggle to think of examples of the dangers to Elves of associating too closely with Men, but suspect there may be some.

As far as I can see, there have been very close relationships between some Men (even groups of Men) and some Elves (and groups of Elves). But, those have become more and more rare and unusual over time. Even when the first generation of the Edain to meet the Elves was still alive, the Silmarillion says, "But after a time the Elf-kings, seeing that it was not good for Elves and Men to dwell mingled together without order, and that Men needed lords of their own kind, set regions apart where men could live their own lives." So, very early after the meeting of the Edain and the Noldor, estrangement had set in.

 

[JJ48]

Judging by my reading of the story of Feanor, it seems that for an Elf to Fall is a somewhat baffling process for the Elf. Feanor does things that are evil (or tending towards evil) but he does not think they are evil. It takes him a long time (if ever) to recognize that the knowledge of evil has grown within him. His sons also know that they have done evil, and come to know that they have evil within them. They have little or no clue how to behave in those circumstances, or avoid doing evil, or to recover and achieve any redemption.

Isn't this true of humans, too (particularly in real life)? How many evil despots go around every day thinking, "You know, what I'm doing is absolutely evil!"? And how many people, if they can be made to see the evil of their acts, find it easy to stop and know exactly what they should do to turn things around? What I'm getting at is that Feanor's actions and thoughts could just as easily have been a Man's, so I don't think we can use it as evidence of Elves being unfallen.

The Valar, it seems to me, also thought so. That's why they tried to get all the Elves to come to Valinor (and presumably all will eventually - via the Halls of Mandos).

Maybe, though when I read about the Valar's decision to call the Elves over, it sounds to me like their concern is primarily the physical safety of the Elves from evil without, not fear that they will wind up with evil within.

Which leads right on to your last point. Are Elves and Men 'estranged'? I would say yes. From the beginning.

So again, what do we do with Gandalf's statement that, "not all Men were estranged from them," at the time of the Last Alliance? If estrangement is due to one race being fallen and the other unfallen, how are we to understand Gandalf's words? Are we to understand that some Men were unfallen, or is he only referring to the relationship between Men and fallen Elves (which would mean there were a LOT of fallen Elves, and that the later estrangement meant something else)?

I think this discussion is really involves two separate questions: 1. Are Elves unfallen? 2. If they are, is that what makes them estranged from Men?

For the first question, I don't think so, but I could see how some could argue otherwise. For the second question, however, in light of Gandalf's words, I don't see how it could be.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

I think there's a big difference between being estranged from each other and simply finding each other strange. Most couples I know find each other strange at times, but most of these same couples are also not estranged. Estrangement has to do with lack of closeness in relationship, not dissimilarity of mannerisms.

In fact, estranged and alienated are synonyms. Estranged means 'no longer close' rather than 'never been close'

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Isn't this true of humans, too (particularly in real life)? How many evil despots go around every day thinking, "You know, what I'm doing is absolutely evil!"? And how many people, if they can be made to see the evil of their acts, find it easy to stop and know exactly what they should do to turn things around? What I'm getting at is that Feanor's actions and thoughts could just as easily have been a Man's, so I don't think we can use it as evidence of Elves being unfallen.



Maybe, though when I read about the Valar's decision to call the Elves over, it sounds to me like their concern is primarily the physical safety of the Elves from evil without, not fear that they will wind up with evil within.



So again, what do we do with Gandalf's statement that, "not all Men were estranged from them," at the time of the Last Alliance? If estrangement is due to one race being fallen and the other unfallen, how are we to understand Gandalf's words? Are we to understand that some Men were unfallen, or is he only referring to the relationship between Men and fallen Elves (which would mean there were a LOT of fallen Elves, and that the later estrangement meant something else)?

I think this discussion is really involves two separate questions: 1. Are Elves unfallen? 2. If they are, is that what makes them estranged from Men?

For the first question, I don't think so, but I could see how some could argue otherwise. For the second question, however, in light of Gandalf's words, I don't see how it could be.

My sense is that the Elves and Men becoming estranged has far more to do with communication between the races than fallen or unfallen status.
When the Edain met the Elves they communicated frequently and even coordinated their efforts; at the same time there were other Men that did not.

Over time this has reduced to the point where now not just the Eorlingas (and possibly Dunlendings) are suspicious of Elves, but even the descendants of the Numenoreans in Gondor are too, and the Men of Bree (descended from the same ancestors as the Dunlendings) seem to be unaware of the Elves' existence.

At the time of the War of the Ring it seems the remaining communication between Men and Elves appears to be restricted to:
Aragorn with remaining Elves of Eriador, Lothlorien, and Wood-elves - familial, almost familial, and respectful (respectively)
Other Dunedain with remaining Elves of Eriador - less close than historically
Beornings with Wood-elves - neighbours but not close
Dale-men with Wood-elves - neighbours with primarily trading relationship
Rohirrim with Elves of Lothlorien - suspicion combined with superstition

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Anthony,

On your question of whether Men act the same as Feanor when they start doing evil? I would say, not quite the same. Fallen Men, it seems to me, have a 'conscience'. They know when they are doing evil. This is the basis of the Catholic doctrine of confession. Before confession, one should examine ones conscience to identify the sins and evils one has done. Of course, Men can and do ignore their conscience and do all sorts of evil, occasionally being a tyrannical dictator, but, more often, things like being meaner than necessary to one's spouse and children. Cain, realizes right away that he has done evil. My hypothesis is that unfallen Elves (like Feanor) do not have a conscience. They do not 'know' evil, so they cannot recognize it within themselves. Of course, they might observe rationally that they have done something that did not turn out so well, but it takes a while for Feanor to 'fall' and then 'know' the evil within himself. My interpretation of Tokien's depiction of the 'fall' of Feanor, and his sons, and others (most notably Galadriel) is that he is trying to describe how immortal, unfallen, conscious beings can fall. (Difficult. Because, my interpretation is that in Tolkien's conception, it is the knowledge of their own limited lifespan and death which causes Men to fall). The Elves are immortal. So, how do they come to 'fall'? I think (tentatively) that Tolkien's conception is that the knowledge of futility replaces for immortal Elves, the knowledge of death for mortal men, as causal in their 'fall'. As they realize that their objectives and desires are futile, so they begin to realize that they can and have committed evil in pursuit of them (and might still commit more evil in that pursuit, futile though it be) and thus 'fall' (rage against a universe that makes their 'just' desires futile, despair that their existence is meaningless as their desires cannot be achieved. Rage, against God and creation). (That's a pretty new hypothesis, so please test it).

I think the whole decision of the Valar to call the Elves to Valinor (and not to call the Men) is very strange. If the Elves were called for their physical safety, as you suggest, then why not protect the Men as well when they appear? Why not do a better marketing and promotional job on the Elves, so that more of them actually make the trip to Valinor? As often in TLOTR, I think spiritual reasons are the driver, not material reasons. I don't think the Elves are brought to Elvenhome so much to protect them physically (the Elves who stay behind survive just fine), as to protect them spiritually, specifically to protect their unfallen state. The obvious reversal of the story of the Garden of Eden, also leads me to believe that, as Men were expelled from the Garden because they 'fell', Elves must be invited into the Garden because they are 'unfallen'. I think the Valar believe it is important to preserve some beings in Arda in the 'unfallen' state. So, no point in bringing Men to Valinor, as they are already fallen. No need to bring all the Elves to Valinor, We have enough.

Gandalf's statement that not all Men are estranged from Elves is undoubtedly true. But, Elves and Men became 'estranged' (not living together) before the first generation of Edain to have met the Eldar had died. Men and Elves were 'estranged' by the design of the Valar, by the machinations of Morgoth, and by their own volition, from the beginning. That's why I find Elrond's statement, "and the two kindreds are estranged", odd. Not for it's content (which has always been true), but for its context, which seems to imply that the estrangement is more recent and due to changing demographics.

 

[JJ48]

Cain, realizes right away that he has done evil. My hypothesis is that unfallen Elves (like Feanor) do not have a conscience. They do not 'know' evil, so they cannot recognize it within themselves.

Cain did, but I don't think having been born fallen or having been fallen for some time is a prerequisite. Adam and Eve were created unfallen, and yet they realized they had done wrong pretty quickly. The very act of doing evil brought about knowledge of evil through experience.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that the very fact that Feanor can't realize he's wrong is a strong indicator that he's already fallen and has been for some time. We can see that he's suffered from an excess of pride for a while.

I think the whole decision of the Valar to call the Elves to Valinor (and not to call the Men) is very strange. If the Elves were called for their physical safety, as you suggest, then why not protect the Men as well when they appear? Why not do a better marketing and promotional job on the Elves, so that more of them actually make the trip to Valinor? As often in TLOTR, I think spiritual reasons are the driver, not material reasons. I don't think the Elves are brought to Elvenhome so much to protect them physically (the Elves who stay behind survive just fine), as to protect them spiritually, specifically to protect their unfallen state. The obvious reversal of the story of the Garden of Eden, also leads me to believe that, as Men were expelled from the Garden because they 'fell', Elves must be invited into the Garden because they are 'unfallen'. I think the Valar believe it is important to preserve some beings in Arda in the 'unfallen' state. So, no point in bringing Men to Valinor, as they are already fallen. No need to bring all the Elves to Valinor, We have enough.

What is your basis for this? The Valar discuss it in the text of The Silmarillion, and their reasoning concerns wanting to keep the Elves from suffering at the hands of Morgoth. They invited all the Elves to come, but some didn't. I don't think they left some behind because they already had enough, but rather because they weren't going to force them. And those who stayed behind weren't completely safe, either.

Men, it seems, were not invited at least in part because the Valar realized that even the bringing of Elves to Valinor maybe wasn't the greatest idea.

Gandalf's statement that not all Men are estranged from Elves is undoubtedly true. But, Elves and Men became 'estranged' (not living together) before the first generation of Edain to have met the Eldar had died. Men and Elves were 'estranged' by the design of the Valar, by the machinations of Morgoth, and by their own volition, from the beginning. That's why I find Elrond's statement, "and the two kindreds are estranged", odd. Not for it's content (which has always been true), but for its context, which seems to imply that the estrangement is more recent and due to changing demographics.

If the text is consistently treating the estrangement as a rather recent development, why try to force a reading that they have been estranged from the beginning? Again, the two kindred being different and strange to one another doesn't mean they are estranged.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48,

Your reading of the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall of Man is different from mine. I am reading this story as an Archetype, not as literal. Even if I was reading the story as literal, however, I would disagree that Adam and Eve did anything evil. Disobedience is not evil. Curiosity is not evil. If Adam and Eve had promised not to eat the fruit, and then did, breaking a promise might have been evil, but they did not.

I think that the church calling the Fall 'Original Sin', is confusing. Adam and Eve (in my opinion) did not sin. I see this story as an Archetype of the consequences of Men becoming conscious. At some point in the evolution of humans, our ancestors were like all other animals, not truly 'conscious'. Then, somehow, consciousness evolved. In this reading, the Fall of Man is a fall into consciousness, into time, into history. When Men became conscious, they became aware of their own brief existence, the suffering in the world, and their inevitable death. When they became conscious, they fell out of the Garden of Eden (animals do not know evil), and into the knowledge of good and evil (because they became aware of future consequences and of suffering).

Because Elves do not die, and do not live for such a brief span. Because they are immortal. I think that Tolkien conceived that they can avoid the knowledge of evil (pride, envy, despair, rage, nihilism) and be unfallen. Feanor not recognizing that he is doing evil for quite some time, is strong evidence that he is unfallen. The definition of 'fallen' is to have the knowledge of good and evil. If Feanor had had the knowledge of evil, he would have recognized it much sooner. Boromir, for example, recognized it right away. (And confessed. And was redeemed.)

I agree that the Valar called the Elves to Valinor to protect them from Melkor. But what was the Melkorian threat they were protecting them from? I think it was a spiritual threat, not a physical threat. I think it was the threat that Melkor might corrupt them and cause them to Fall. Not the threat that Melkor might do them physical harm. After all, if Melkor killed Elves in Middle Earth, they would just whisk back to the Halls of Mandos, and emerge in Valinor. No need to round them up and ferry them there. If we go with the (disputed) theory that Melkor created Orcs by corrupting Elves, then the fears of the Valar for the spiritual corruption of the Elves outside of Valinor would have been very real.

I don't think I am trying to 'force' a reading that Men and Elves were estranged from the beginning. I think that is self evident. I am questioning why Elrond brings it up when he does, in the context.

 

[JJ48]

Hi JJ48,

Your reading of the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall of Man is different from mine. I am reading this story as an Archetype, not as literal. Even if I was reading the story as literal, however, I would disagree that Adam and Eve did anything evil. Disobedience is not evil. Curiosity is not evil. If Adam and Eve had promised not to eat the fruit, and then did, breaking a promise might have been evil, but they did not.

I think that the church calling the Fall 'Original Sin', is confusing. Adam and Eve (in my opinion) did not sin.

How are you defining sin if not as "disobeying God"?

I don't think I am trying to 'force' a reading that Men and Elves were estranged from the beginning. I think that is self evident. I am questioning why Elrond brings it up when he does, in the context.

Do you have any evidence for this from the text? It may be self-evident to you, but to me, everything in the text seems to contradict it.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48,

Now, my theology on the subject of Sin is not extensive. However, I do not consider disobedience to be a sin. If it were, then every two year old would be quite sinful. In fact, disobedience can be a virtue, even a great virtue, when disobeying an immoral order, for example. Disobedience is not listed among the usual Biblical categories of sins, such as 'the seven deadly sins' the 'sins against the Holy Ghost', or the 'sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance'.

Now, does that apply to disobeying God? Well, I am really reading this story as an Archetype, not literally, so I am not reading 'God' as personified, but as symbolic of the created universe. The universe has evolved animals which are not conscious. Then, at some point Men evolve(?) consciousness. Well, there seem to be consequences to consciousness. One of those consequences is knowledge of good and evil.

The first thing that happens after Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, is, "and the eyes of them both were opened", which I take to represent the dawning of consciousness. Once Men become conscious, they become aware of their own suffering and death and the concept of the future, and the passage of time. That awareness, confers an awareness of how the future might be altered by causing the suffering or death of other Men. That's part of the knowledge of Evil. (The other part is that knowledge of suffering and death might cause the emotions of despair and nihilism and rage, which can give impulse to evil.)

Now, if you recall the story, God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, not just because they had gained the knowledge of good and evil, but also, "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."

I think Tolkien's concept of his immortal Elves, is that they do live forever, and that this is why they can be conscious and yet unfallen.

On your second point: I am not sure what in the text contradicts that Men and Elves have been estranged since the beginning? Now, in just the text of TLOTR that we have read so far, it is not clear how estranged they are, nor how long they have been estranged, as we do not know so much history so far. So, as first time readers, we might not know much about how long Men and Elves have been estranged. However, even in what we have read so far, there are some clues. In 'The Shadow of the Past' Gandalf tells Frodo (speaking of the Battle of the Last Alliance), "The strength of the Elves to resist him was greater long ago; and not all Men were estranged from them". This implies that most Men were estranged from Elves. We know from Gildor Inglorien's Elbereth poem, and from Sam's 'sailing, sailing', that the Elves have a home across the sea. We know from Bilbo's Earendil poem, that Men are not allowed there. We know that Men and Elves do not live in the same towns or cities or societies. They do not have the same rulers. We have a pretty good idea that they and Men are 'estranged'. I grant that we do not have as good an idea, nor know exactly how ancient this estrangement is, if we have not read more of the lore.

 

[JJ48]

Now, my theology on the subject of Sin is not extensive. However, I do not consider disobedience to be a sin. If it were, then every two year old would be quite sinful. In fact, disobedience can be a virtue, even a great virtue, when disobeying an immoral order, for example. Disobedience is not listed among the usual Biblical categories of sins, such as 'the seven deadly sins' the 'sins against the Holy Ghost', or the 'sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance'.

I'll just touch on this briefly, as a full discussion would be a completely different topic. First of all, I explicitly said "disobeying God," not just disobedience. Though, since we're supposed to honor our parents and recognize their authority over us, I think most Christian theologians would agree that two-year-olds often behave sinfully, and may even point to this as evidence of Man being born with a sin-nature. As to why disobedience is not listed explicitly, it is because disobedience to God is not merely a sin, but rather, the very definition of what sin is! Saint Augustine defined sin as, "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God."

On your second point: I am not sure what in the text contradicts that Men and Elves have been estranged since the beginning? Now, in just the text of TLOTR that we have read so far, it is not clear how estranged they are, nor how long they have been estranged, as we do not know so much history so far. So, as first time readers, we might not know much about how long Men and Elves have been estranged. However, even in what we have read so far, there are some clues. In 'The Shadow of the Past' Gandalf tells Frodo (speaking of the Battle of the Last Alliance), "The strength of the Elves to resist him was greater long ago; and not all Men were estranged from them". This implies that most Men were estranged from Elves. We know from Gildor Inglorien's Elbereth poem, and from Sam's 'sailing, sailing', that the Elves have a home across the sea. We know from Bilbo's Earendil poem, that Men are not allowed there. We know that Men and Elves do not live in the same towns or cities or societies. They do not have the same rulers. We have a pretty good idea that they and Men are 'estranged'. I grant that we do not have as good an idea, nor know exactly how ancient this estrangement is, if we have not read more of the lore.

Looking back, I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought estrangement was a purely recent phenomenon. I don't disagree that there have always been some Men estranged from Elves to some extent. Where I disagree is that this is because of some fundamental fallen/unfallen difference. This view, I think, is quite clearly contradicted by the text when it refers to some Men not being estranged from Elves. Regardless of how many Men were estranged from Elves at the time of the Last Alliance, what do we do with those who weren't? If we're to understand the text as "Elves were unfallen and Men were fallen, and therefore the two were estranged," what does it even mean for some Men not to be estranged from Elves?

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Flammifer,

You state that the estrangement began before the deaths of the first generation of the Edain; In reference to the Last Alliance, Gandalf states that at the time of the Last Alliance not all Men were estranged from Elves, and Elrond states that the two kindreds are now estranged.
This clearly indicates that whilst the estrangement began before the Last Alliance, it did not reach completion until after.
Even so, this seems to be slight hyperbole on the part of Elrond as his human foster son (and descendant of his twin brother) is at this council, is a frequent visitor to Rivendell (from an Elvish perspective at least), and has already been given to understand that he can marry Arwen should he reunite the North and South Kingdoms; This from the Elf who has the best claim to the title of High King of the Noldor.

I respectfully submit that you have found what appears (to you) to be a loose thread and have picked at it until you believe you have unravelled something significant. I follow your reasoning but disagree with your conclusions.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48.

On your first point, I am interpreting the Adam and Eve story philosophically and archetypically, not literally, so I am not sure that 'God' is actually (rather than metaphorically) involved.

Your second point is interesting. What does it mean for some Men not to be estranged from Elves? Well, we can look at three Men who married Elves: Beren, Tuor, Aragorn, and say that they seem to be the sort of Men who mastered evil, and, though they knew it in themselves, allowed it no grip nor hold. They could live in harmony with unfallen Elves successfully. In contrast, we can look at Turin, who also lived with the Elves (twice), and was loved by an Elf, Finduilas, though he did not love her. But Turin had not mastered the evil in his heart. He was proud and wrathful. No good came to the Elves from Turin Turambar. So, I think non-estrangement between Men and Elves is dangerous for Elves as well as for Men. But, it can work if the Men are wise enough and strong enough to master their own knowledge of evil and work for the good.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Anthony,

I am really less interested in the 'loose thread' of Elrond's comment (though I do think it odd) than I am in the overall relationship between Men and Elves, between Mortality and Immortality, especially in the context of a Tolkien statement that TLOTR could be seen as a study in death and immortality.

I have been trying to figure out what Tolkien meant by this? Why he said it? And, what exactly TLOTR is saying about death and immortality.

My thoughts have been developing through writing a series of posts on this forum, through the responses to those posts, and through the classes. The current hypothesis I am exploring is that Tolkien conceived the Elves as unfallen conscious beings (not all of them), and Men as fallen conscious beings.

So far, this seems like an interesting hypothesis. It does rely for evidence more on 'The Silmarillion' than I would like (not totally trusting that work as canon), but I think there is some evidence from TLOTR. I have not been able to break this hypothesis so far, and it seems to me to be holding as a pretty good supposition.

I think, when reading TLOTR, one has to wonder, what are the differences between Men and Elves? Why is Tolkien so enamored of Elves? Why are Tolkien's Elves so different from the Elves of Medieval Faerie stories (and where are they similar). Why make Elves immortal? Why give Elves a home of their own separate from Middle Earth? Why give Elves a privileged relationship with the Valar? What does all this mean for Men in Tolkien's world?

So far, I find the hypothesis that Elves are unfallen (mostly) to contrast with fallen Men, to be the best idea I have come up with to explain what Tolkien was portraying.

I don't think that I have reached the end of thinking about this though.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Why are the two kindreds estranged?

Elrond seemingly offers an immediately preceding explanation, “for Men multiply and the firstborn decrease”. This must baffle at least Frodo, Sam and Boromir amongst the council (and perhaps the first time reader as well). Frodo and Sam have just journeyed from the Shire to Rivendell. Along the way they have seen many ruined and deserted barrows, dikes, stoneworks, towers, walls, old roads, all indicating that many Men once lived in these lands that are now a wilderness. Men, the Hobbits must think, are surely declining, not multiplying? Boromir comes from Minas Tirith. We will learn, when Pippin arrives there, that “it was in truth falling year by year into decay; and already it lacked half the men that could have dwelt there”. Not only does Minas Tirith have half the population it was built for, but two great cities of Gondor, Minas Ithil and Osgiliath, as well as the whole of the lands of Ithilien are depopulated. Boromir also must think that Men are declining rather than multiplying.

Only Gloin, Gimli and Legolas, thinking of the growth of Dale and Laketown and the Beornings, might not be surprised by Elrond’s claim.
Elrond’s assertion as to why the two kindred are estranged, though likely true over vast sweeps of time (the Elves are ‘sailing, sailing’ after all, and have been since long before Men appeared), nevertheless seems baffling right now in the West of Middle Earth.

Your scope is perhaps too narrow when assessing whether Men are multiplying; In the East the numbers of Men appear to be swelling, leading to the large armies able to march long distances to the call of Mordor. A large army eats a lot and produces no food. It must be supported by a large food producing base. There are additional logisitical problems with carrying food long distances that can be mitigated either by generally reducing rations (not good for morale) or by choosing not to feed those who weaken along the way.

All of this combines to suggest that Mordor can call upon the resources of a vast empire in the South and East, populated mostly by Men. Orcs breed faster, eat lower quality food, and can be dominated more readily by Sauron, but the Men still make up a significant portion of his armies.

Consider that among Sauron's armies that actually assault Minas Tirith there are men from Harad, Rhun, and Khand, with an army from Umbar eliminated by Aragorn's Oathbreaker force. Yet there are still sufficient military forces available to Sauron to send Easterlings against Dale and Erebor, Mirkwood, and Lothlorien, and have a large enough army in reserve in Mordor to overwhelm the survivors of the assault on Minas Tirith. Of course, an Emperor that wants to maintain their hold on the empire never strips a territory of all troops, so there would be garrisons in major centres throughout the South and East.
These are the multiplying Men.