Why did JRRT never publish The Silmarillion?

[Odola]

I do not characterize 'The Silmarillion' as 'a Bible'. I compared 'The Silmarillion' to mythologies, including The Old Testament. I could also contrast it.

'The Silmarillion' compares to The Bible (and other myth and legend cycles) in that it is a history and a chronicle. Not just a history of Earth / Arda, but a history of events in heaven as well.

It contrasts with these myth cycles in that (in frame) it is not formed from oral story tradition, or inspirations and visions, but from accurate accounts by eye witnesses (or semi-accurate, as in frame, the accounts came from the Sindar in Beleriand predominantly, and might have not fully reflected the Noldorian interpretation of events there.).

'The Silmarillion' is a history and a chronicle, which stops and lingers around the persons and stories of key characters and significant events. In this aspect it is very similar to many well known cycles of myth and legend.

Where it differs from the cycles we know, is that it is not as vague and interpretable as those. They all can be interpreted as full of the errors and contradictions inheirent in oral traditions being recorded by multiple different authors, and, interpreted as fact or metaphor or anywhere in between, due to the dubious and indeterminate nature of the sources (unless holding that divinity intervenes to make the whole chronicle accurate regardless). "The Silmarillion', in frame, has to be interpreted as considerably more accurate and literal.

The other main difference between 'The Silmarillion' and 'The Old Testament' is that whereas The Old Testament has stories illustrative of the Human Condition, and suggestive (or instructive) as to how Humans should behave, 'The Silmarillion' stories are illustrative of the Elvish Condition, with suggestions as to how Elves should behave.

Of course, as we learn in 'The Nature of Middle Earth', one reason why JRRT never published 'The Silmarillion' is that he seems to have concluded that 'The Silmarillion' in the state that Christopher Tolkien published it, was insufficient in illustrating the Elvish Condition, as JRRT concluded that he himself did not sufficiently understand the Elvish Condition to be able to illustrate it well. Hence all the math and thought given to understanding the life cycle of Elves, their perception of time, their relationship between Fea and Hroa, etc. etc. whcih never had been constructed when JRRT wrote (translated) those parts of the chronicle and history which Christopher later published.

It would have been easier if he did not insists on those myths being written down directly from elvish mouth but used the Numenorian scribes to write them down ages ago as they have understood them and then had Bilbo just translate them from records in Elrond's library. Then it would have been filtered though the human lense already and he would not have to try so hard to understand the Elvish inner perspective on things.

 

[Flammifer]

It would have been easier if he did not insists on those myths being written down directly from elvish mouth but used the Numenorian scribes to write them down ages ago as they have understood them and then had Bilbo just translate them from records in Elrond's library. Then it would have been filtered though the human lense already and he would not have to try so hard to understand the Elvish inner perspective on things.

Hi Odola,

I think I recall from some stuff in 'The History of Middle-earth' that JRRT toyed with exactly the frame suggestion that you propose. Probably for exactly the same reasons that you suggest.

Whether he would have eventually gone for that frame, is unknown. (I don't think it is at all clear how JRRT would have chosen to present his 'Silmarillion' material if he had ever really tried to assemble it in a 'final' state for publication. Besides choices as to frame, would he have presented the material as 'history', 'chronicle', 'myths and legends' or collection of 'novelistic stories', or some combination of all? Would he have presented the Ainulindale, Valaquenta, Quenta Silmarillion, Akallabeth, and Of The Rings of Power and the Third Age, all in the same publication, all with the same frame, all in the same style? Or would they have been different?)

However, JRRT does not seem to have spent much time dwelling on such a frame. Instead, he did spend large amounts of time and effort trying to understand the Elvish inner perspective.

It became the Elves, and their nature, which really interested him. It seems that he felt he really had to resolve that in order for 'The Silmarillion' to really become what he wanted it to be?

 

[Odola]

Hi Odola,

I think I recall from some stuff in 'The History of Middle-earth' that JRRT toyed with exactly the frame suggestion that you propose. Probably for exactly the same reasons that you suggest.

Whether he would have eventually gone for that frame, is unknown. (I don't think it is at all clear how JRRT would have chosen to present his 'Silmarillion' material if he had ever really tried to assemble it in a 'final' state for publication. Besides choices as to frame, would he have presented the material as 'history', 'chronicle', 'myths and legends' or collection of 'novelistic stories', or some combination of all? Would he have presented the Ainulindale, Valaquenta, Quenta Silmarillion, Akallabeth, and Of The Rings of Power and the Third Age, all in the same publication, all with the same frame, all in the same style? Or would they have been different?)

However, JRRT does not seem to have spent much time dwelling on such a frame. Instead, he did spend large amounts of time and effort trying to understand the Elvish inner perspective.

It became the Elves, and their nature, which really interested him. It seems that he felt he really had to resolve that in order for 'The Silmarillion' to really become what he wanted it to be?

No necessary to be able to publish it, but to make it make sense to himself imho.
He seemed to start finding greater enjoyement in worldbuilding itself than "just" tellng a story, which has been his starting point.

 

[Flammifer]

No necessary to be able to publish it, but to make it make sense to himself imho.
He seemed to start finding greater enjoyement in worldbuilding itself than "just" tellng a story, which has been his starting point.

Maybe Odola,

It could be that JRRT just became fascinated with the details of Elvish existance, Middle-earth geography, generally world-building, as you say, and that became more absorbing to him than fashioning his Silmarillion lore into a form which pleased him, and which he wanted to publish?

It is curious that JRRT was very keen to get 'The Silmarillion' published when it was not possible, but not keen at all when it would have been easy.

Still, I am not convinced that it was a sudden passion for world=building which over-rode JRRT's desire to publish 'The Silmarillion'. Most of his 'world-building' seemed motivated by the urge to answer questions or solve problems brought up by trying to better understand TLOTR and his Silmarillion legends, and to reconcile them to one another.

My hypothesis is that this proved very difficult. They were too separate, and too different to make synergy easy. Yet, at the same time, they were too connected and too integrated to make separation possible.

I think that if JRRT had come up with an integration which he was happy with, he would have published it (had he survived so long). Such an integration would have required many changes from 'The Silmarillion' which Christopher published. It would be much more difficult to change TLOTR, as it had been published (though JRRT managed this with 'The Hobbit'.)

Some of JRRT's later world-building still does not fit well with TLOTR. Take for example his thoughts on mind to mind communication from the chapter 'Osanwe-Kenta', in 'The Nature of Middle-earth'. Here JRRT writes (in 1959 or 1960), "For distance itself offers no impediment whatever to osanwe (mind to mind communication)". Yet, Corey has asserted many times that Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf cannot, in TLOTR, communicate mind to mind over long distances - which, I think is the most valid interpretation of TLOTR.
This is only one example. There are many.

My supposition is that the combination of too difficult to reconcile TLOTR with The Silmarillion and both with our world, together with a reluctance to modify his beloved Silmarillion as much as might have been necessary, are probably why JRRT never publised a 'Silmarillion' of his own.

 

[Odola]

Maybe Odola,

It could be that JRRT just became fascinated with the details of Elvish existance, Middle-earth geography, generally world-building, as you say, and that became more absorbing to him than fashioning his Silmarillion lore into a form which pleased him, and which he wanted to publish?

It is curious that JRRT was very keen to get 'The Silmarillion' published when it was not possible, but not keen at all when it would have been easy.

Still, I am not convinced that it was a sudden passion for world=building which over-rode JRRT's desire to publish 'The Silmarillion'. Most of his 'world-building' seemed motivated by the urge to answer questions or solve problems brought up by trying to better understand TLOTR and his Silmarillion legends, and to reconcile them to one another.

My hypothesis is that this proved very difficult. They were too separate, and too different to make synergy easy. Yet, at the same time, they were too connected and too integrated to make separation possible.

I think that if JRRT had come up with an integration which he was happy with, he would have published it (had he survived so long). Such an integration would have required many changes from 'The Silmarillion' which Christopher published. It would be much more difficult to change TLOTR, as it had been published (though JRRT managed this with 'The Hobbit'.)

Some of JRRT's later world-building still does not fit well with TLOTR. Take for example his thoughts on mind to mind communication from the chapter 'Osanwe-Kenta', in 'The Nature of Middle-earth'. Here JRRT writes (in 1959 or 1960), "For distance itself offers no impediment whatever to osanwe (mind to mind communication)". Yet, Corey has asserted many times that Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf cannot, in TLOTR, communicate mind to mind over long distances - which, I think is the most valid interpretation of TLOTR.
This is only one example. There are many.

My supposition is that the combination of too difficult to reconcile TLOTR with The Silmarillion and both with our world, together with a reluctance to modify his beloved Silmarillion as much as might have been necessary, are probably why JRRT never publised a 'Silmarillion' of his own.

Actually I recently thought about the effect of distance in mind-reading. It might be that the distance itself is not a problem but the allignment of the minds communicating. At different locations the "speakers" often are in totally different situations and as a result in different moods. It is easier to allign when you are all together in the same situation imho. So it would be not the distance per se but the correlated factors which make it more difficult over huge distances.

 

[Haerangil]

That's a nice rationalisation.

 

[Timdalf]

I should probably not utter a word about all this as I cannot get through "The Silmarillion" of 1977. And I have not studied HOMe sufficiently, having only dipped into it here and there and listened sporadically to Prof Corey's discussions of it. Finally, I do not yet have a copy of "The Nature of Middle-earth". I have copies of all the rest. And I do not pretend to understand Boethius "Consolation". That said I have some deep suspicions as to why JRRT never finished the Silmarillion... that is, the whole legendarium. And I raise these issues also only as providing some context to the discussion, not because I have hardened conclusions about the issue of WTNFS... Why Tolkien Never Finished the Silmarillion.... My context simple to state, but has far reaching implications. That context is Orthodox Christian patrology to the degree I understand it. Namely, that there is a very solid bond between mortality and sin (aka The Fall). We die because we are corrupted physically and in soul by having become as a race separated from God, Who is life. Because we are mortal (fear death) we sin. This is a vicious circle. The cure of our mortality and corruption is the infusion of the Divine Nature into ours, if we let it, and work on it. That happens through the Incarnation and Resurrection of the God-man. This has nothing to do with the Anselm Vicarious Satisfaction Theory of Redemption which is classic RC and Prot dogma. It is not a transactional, a bribery deal with God the Father by the suffering of the Son, esp. on the Cross. The paying off of the Justice determined God by the Son. The Cross in the Orthodox Fathers is, was impossible death of Life Himself overcoming human mortality and corruption. It is an ontological transformation of human nature itself not a legalistic, juridical payment (to whom... the devil? God forbid! the Father? how does the injustice of deicide achieve that, even if we consider such a basically blasphemous concept of God Who is love. not an offended righteous only Judge).... Our race is fallen because the fountainhead of our human race fell (from communion with God) and is restored by the recapitulation (reheading, literally) of our race in Christ. This restores our free will if it has gotten lost in subservience to our vices (the passions), which we let ourselves become prey to.. PS: For those who ask, this is the point, the resolution, the goal of the OT... It is coherent despite differing genres.... OK, what has this to do with the Silmarillion? Very simple. The basic premise of the Silmarillion, no matter which version, edition, or revision one chooses, is that the Elves have longevity because they are not "fallen" yet they are indeed obviously fallen! Away from Valinor, in the Kinslaying, with the rebellion of Feanor, etc. Some have claimed they have no free will, being subservient to The Music. If that were true, their story would be not only irrelevant but boring. I see in the musings, so far, of "The Nature of Middle-earth" Tolkien's attempts to deal with this fundamental impossibility... in the aging, the whole complex of the problematics of Elvish nature and its history. In a nutshell, he is confronting the problem of a fallen race enduring no ontological consequences to their fallenness. This is akin to his futile attempt to reconcile modern science and his Elvish cosmology. These are not solvable problems without having to reject the entire uniqueness of the legendarium. Maybe I have this all wrong, but I offer it as a possible explanation: that he intuited these problems as being inherent (whether one accepts RC theology of the Fall or not... which is more about inherited guilt (a logical impossibility, by the way) than about an ontological transformation, salvation, resurrection of the human race). Perhaps he intuited (or learned of) the problematics of the RC doctrine... The "thought experiment" of a race of everlasting fallen was not working. Great stories individually, but the ontology-axiology of Elvishness as a context was inherently flawed beyond redemption... And this does not begin to deal with the problem of angelic powers (the Valar) subservient to time... who in traditional Christian theology are eternal beings, not temporal. Meaning they are eternally bound by their own choice to follow the will of omniscient, morally-ethically perfect God Whose first principle of creation is free will - whether on the eternal or on the temporal plane. Tolkien was simply confronting and accepting that the parameters of his Silmarillion legendarium were untenable. The Silmarillon could not be finalized, and thus was not publishable. This may be the reason Christopher never edited and published the essays in this book. I see these problems as insurmountable: I hope Tolkien did also. I think Flammifer's contextualization points in this direction.

 

[Odola]

I should probably not utter a word about all this as I cannot get through "The Silmarillion" of 1977. And I have not studied HOMe sufficiently, having only dipped into it here and there and listened sporadically to Prof Corey's discussions of it. Finally, I do not yet have a copy of "The Nature of Middle-earth". I have copies of all the rest. And I do not pretend to understand Boethius "Consolation". That said I have some deep suspicions as to why JRRT never finished the Silmarillion... that is, the whole legendarium. And I raise these issues also only as providing some context to the discussion, not because I have hardened conclusions about the issue of WTNFS... Why Tolkien Never Finished the Silmarillion.... My context simple to state, but has far reaching implications. That context is Orthodox Christian patrology to the degree I understand it. Namely, that there is a very solid bond between mortality and sin (aka The Fall). We die because we are corrupted physically and in soul by having become as a race separated from God, Who is life. Because we are mortal (fear death) we sin. This is a vicious circle. The cure of our mortality and corruption is the infusion of the Divine Nature into ours, if we let it, and work on it. That happens through the Incarnation and Resurrection of the God-man. This has nothing to do with the Anselm Vicarious Satisfaction Theory of Redemption which is classic RC and Prot dogma. It is not a transactional, a bribery deal with God the Father by the suffering of the Son, esp. on the Cross. The paying off of the Justice determined God by the Son. The Cross in the Orthodox Fathers is, was impossible death of Life Himself overcoming human mortality and corruption. It is an ontological transformation of human nature itself not a legalistic, juridical payment (to whom... the devil? God forbid! the Father? how does the injustice of deicide achieve that, even if we consider such a basically blasphemous concept of God Who is love. not an offended righteous only Judge).... Our race is fallen because the fountainhead of our human race fell (from communion with God) and is restored by the recapitulation (reheading, literally) of our race in Christ. This restores our free will if it has gotten lost in subservience to our vices (the passions), which we let ourselves become prey to.. PS: For those who ask, this is the point, the resolution, the goal of the OT... It is coherent despite differing genres.... OK, what has this to do with the Silmarillion? Very simple. The basic premise of the Silmarillion, no matter which version, edition, or revision one chooses, is that the Elves have longevity because they are not "fallen" yet they are indeed obviously fallen! Away from Valinor, in the Kinslaying, with the rebellion of Feanor, etc. Some have claimed they have no free will, being subservient to The Music. If that were true, their story would be not only irrelevant but boring. I see in the musings, so far, of "The Nature of Middle-earth" Tolkien's attempts to deal with this fundamental impossibility... in the aging, the whole complex of the problematics of Elvish nature and its history. In a nutshell, he is confronting the problem of a fallen race enduring no ontological consequences to their fallenness. This is akin to his futile attempt to reconcile modern science and his Elvish cosmology. These are not solvable problems without having to reject the entire uniqueness of the legendarium. Maybe I have this all wrong, but I offer it as a possible explanation: that he intuited these problems as being inherent (whether one accepts RC theology of the Fall or not... which is more about inherited guilt (a logical impossibility, by the way) than about an ontological transformation, salvation, resurrection of the human race). Perhaps he intuited (or learned of) the problematics of the RC doctrine... The "thought experiment" of a race of everlasting fallen was not working. Great stories individually, but the ontology-axiology of Elvishness as a context was inherently flawed beyond redemption... And this does not begin to deal with the problem of angelic powers (the Valar) subservient to time... who in traditional Christian theology are eternal beings, not temporal. Meaning they are eternally bound by their own choice to follow the will of omniscient, morally-ethically perfect God Whose first principle of creation is free will - whether on the eternal or on the temporal plane. Tolkien was simply confronting and accepting that the parameters of his Silmarillion legendarium were untenable. The Silmarillon could not be finalized, and thus was not publishable. This may be the reason Christopher never edited and published the essays in this book. I see these problems as insurmountable: I hope Tolkien did also. I think Flammifer's contextualization points in this direction.

I agree the problem is fundamentally what are elves and how far they are they distinct from humans. And how it is possible that even Maiar can fall - well after the initial Fall of the angelic powers. As such it is the question of Evil - what it exaclty is and how it opperates. The question of Evil is actually very central to TLOTR istself. As such it maches well.

The marrying of Arda concept actually answers the question quite elegantly. Whoever is in Arda, automatically takes part in her marring and is as such able to fall - individually (This brings problems for the future assumed Incarnation, but for the timeframe given it does work). The human race is fallen as a whole to another degree - it is at odds with its own nature and with the natural world. A human has to choose Good actively, s/he does not stays good just by doing nothig, s/he has to "force himself/herself to do it like s/he has to force the natural world to ggive him/her food or shelter. Simple Good is no longer his/her "default" position, like it is for elves or the Ainur. As such a human being has not the option to "opt out" from the fight against Evil - neutrality is not a valid human position - while it can be for elves.

This is what elves discover in the Silmarillion - that humans - frail as they are - make quite good fighters against Morgoth - no wonder - fighting against Evil is now part of their very existance. (Biblically speaking part of the eternal Enmity put by God between the Woman and the Snake in Genesis 3:15). Elves are not normally part of that fight. They can enter it - like the Noldor did - but that is not necessary. The Noldor had they own Fall as such they are more akin humans and it shows in the Legendarium also. But humans as a whole are profs in this regard (fighting evil), the Noldor just newcomers who have still much to learn, especially how to deal and come to terms with one own's darkness. Galadriel passes the test at the end, but her way to achieve this was long. And who knows, maybe seeing Frodo facing off the evil he carries shows her how to do this.

 

[Flammifer]

I should probably not utter a word about all this as I cannot get through "The Silmarillion" of 1977. And I have not studied HOMe sufficiently, having only dipped into it here and there and listened sporadically to Prof Corey's discussions of it. Finally, I do not yet have a copy of "The Nature of Middle-earth". I have copies of all the rest. And I do not pretend to understand Boethius "Consolation". That said I have some deep suspicions as to why JRRT never finished the Silmarillion... that is, the whole legendarium. And I raise these issues also only as providing some context to the discussion, not because I have hardened conclusions about the issue of WTNFS... Why Tolkien Never Finished the Silmarillion.... My context simple to state, but has far reaching implications. That context is Orthodox Christian patrology to the degree I understand it. Namely, that there is a very solid bond between mortality and sin (aka The Fall). We die because we are corrupted physically and in soul by having become as a race separated from God, Who is life. Because we are mortal (fear death) we sin. This is a vicious circle. The cure of our mortality and corruption is the infusion of the Divine Nature into ours, if we let it, and work on it. That happens through the Incarnation and Resurrection of the God-man. This has nothing to do with the Anselm Vicarious Satisfaction Theory of Redemption which is classic RC and Prot dogma. It is not a transactional, a bribery deal with God the Father by the suffering of the Son, esp. on the Cross. The paying off of the Justice determined God by the Son. The Cross in the Orthodox Fathers is, was impossible death of Life Himself overcoming human mortality and corruption. It is an ontological transformation of human nature itself not a legalistic, juridical payment (to whom... the devil? God forbid! the Father? how does the injustice of deicide achieve that, even if we consider such a basically blasphemous concept of God Who is love. not an offended righteous only Judge).... Our race is fallen because the fountainhead of our human race fell (from communion with God) and is restored by the recapitulation (reheading, literally) of our race in Christ. This restores our free will if it has gotten lost in subservience to our vices (the passions), which we let ourselves become prey to.. PS: For those who ask, this is the point, the resolution, the goal of the OT... It is coherent despite differing genres.... OK, what has this to do with the Silmarillion? Very simple. The basic premise of the Silmarillion, no matter which version, edition, or revision one chooses, is that the Elves have longevity because they are not "fallen" yet they are indeed obviously fallen! Away from Valinor, in the Kinslaying, with the rebellion of Feanor, etc. Some have claimed they have no free will, being subservient to The Music. If that were true, their story would be not only irrelevant but boring. I see in the musings, so far, of "The Nature of Middle-earth" Tolkien's attempts to deal with this fundamental impossibility... in the aging, the whole complex of the problematics of Elvish nature and its history. In a nutshell, he is confronting the problem of a fallen race enduring no ontological consequences to their fallenness. This is akin to his futile attempt to reconcile modern science and his Elvish cosmology. These are not solvable problems without having to reject the entire uniqueness of the legendarium. Maybe I have this all wrong, but I offer it as a possible explanation: that he intuited these problems as being inherent (whether one accepts RC theology of the Fall or not... which is more about inherited guilt (a logical impossibility, by the way) than about an ontological transformation, salvation, resurrection of the human race). Perhaps he intuited (or learned of) the problematics of the RC doctrine... The "thought experiment" of a race of everlasting fallen was not working. Great stories individually, but the ontology-axiology of Elvishness as a context was inherently flawed beyond redemption... And this does not begin to deal with the problem of angelic powers (the Valar) subservient to time... who in traditional Christian theology are eternal beings, not temporal. Meaning they are eternally bound by their own choice to follow the will of omniscient, morally-ethically perfect God Whose first principle of creation is free will - whether on the eternal or on the temporal plane. Tolkien was simply confronting and accepting that the parameters of his Silmarillion legendarium were untenable. The Silmarillon could not be finalized, and thus was not publishable. This may be the reason Christopher never edited and published the essays in this book. I see these problems as insurmountable: I hope Tolkien did also. I think Flammifer's contextualization points in this direction.

Interesting thoughts Tindalf.

I would offer a counter, however. In my interpretation, Elves are not fallen. If Elves are not fallen, then there is no need for JRRT to construct an explanation for unfallen immortals.

I have always interpreted that Elves are an unfallen race. However, that JRRT also thought this seems confirmed in Chapter XII of 'The Nature of Middle-earth' (a confirmation unavailable until recently):

"The Quendi never "fell" as a race - not in the sense in which they and Men themselves believed that the Second Children had "fallen". Being "tainted" with the Marring (which affected all the "flesh of Arda" from which their hroar were derived and were nourished), and having also come under the shadow of Melkor before their Finding and rescue, they could individually do wrong. But they never (not even the wrong-doers) rejected Eru, nor worshipped either Melkor or Sauron as a god - neither individually, nor as a whole people. Their lives, therefore, came under no general curse or diminishment, and their primeval and natural life-span, as a race, by "doom" co-extensive with the remainder of the Life of Arda, remained unchanged in all their varieties."

I think, JRRT would disagree with your statement that Elves, "are indeed obviously fallen". He clearly states that they are not.

 

[Timdalf]

OK, so JRRT wrote this quote.... But it makes no sense! What does he mean by "fallen as a race"? Sinless? Committing no ethical or moral crimes? That is obviously not so. They are tainted by "the marring of Arda" another vague phrase. Those in Middle-earth do not return to Valinor. Isn't that a racial fall? There would be no story whatsoever if they did not fall to the temptations of Morgoth/Sauron... There is no story if they do not have free will -- the ability to act against Iluvatar's will, which has to be a moral-ethical will for good and even sanctity. Human beings are fallen -- that is, self-separated from God and His holy will and thus mortal -- even if sinless yet mortal (to wit: the all-holy Theotokos, the Mother of God) (who by the way cannot be herself "immaculately conceived" if she is to be human and thus provide the human nature side to the God-man -- a bogus answer to an unnecessary problem in RC theology -- created by their unPatristic -- Augustinian -- conception of sin as being inherited guilt, not inherited mortality and corruptibility) Adam's sin is his own, nobody else's... what is passed down is mortality and corruptibility -- as Tolkien rightly points out: mortality is a blessing (not a punishment) lest sin become everlasting. My point: the Elves are of course fallen otherwise they would always be in touch with Iluvatar and his messengers the Maiar and willingly following their behests and thus do no wrong. But they do wrong... So the problem remains... What is the ethical ontology of the Elves? Tolkien got himself into a serious dead end with immoral, but everlasting Elves. Such cannot exist... and be relevant to a Biblical world (Old and New Testament), i.e., a Christian world... (the OT Patriarchs and Prophets and Righteous were OT Christians -- preparing the way for Christ, culminating in the Theotokos who made the Incarnation possible.) It seems to me Tolkien was enough of a clear thinking religious writer that he intuited this dilemma imbedded in false Western Christian theology and probably unconsciously was moving beyond it, back to the unified original Church of the first 800 or so years. His struggles with problematic "unfallen" Elves was leading him in that direction all along. But it meant the Silmarillion legendarium was inherently problematic and its problems were unresolvable.
Just like the issue of the Valarian year is an unresolvable problem... How can you have a "year" without seasons, with a cycle which is entirely due to the position of the sun in the sky, which results from the tilting of the earth's axis as it orbits the sun, without the sun there is no "year". Unless for some reason the Two Trees go through seasonal changes due to internal causes. But Two Trees of light require perpetual leafing.... lack of which is the definition of annualness. Does Tolkien even see this as a problem. I can't believe he wouldn't and just use "year" naively, unreflectingly. Might not his attempt to push the sun and moon back to the beginning be expressions of his awareness of the problem? But then what does one do with the magnificent beauty and significance of the Two Trees?!
Will these essays on "The Nature of Middle-earth" uncover and address these problems implicitly or explicitly?

 

[Timdalf]

Death is inevitable as an ontological reality (not a "curse") if one is doing something contrary to the will of iluvatar... like Kinslaying or harming the Second Children or even ignoring them. Worship of Iluvatar is not a weekend excursion into a compartmentalized box... Worship is living the will of iluvatar. Not walking into a temple only. The Fall of Adam (and Eve) is a true myth. It is archetypal action by archetypes -- and here we are at the problem of who is at Cuivienen... one Elf, a group, a pair? If a group, as seems the case, then how so? How do other Elves descend from them, and so what is the coherence of their race... ours is genetic. A single root or seed, a single tree. Their unity mechanism is....? Elves are a lovely diversion, but are they workable? Is their world? Its mechanics need to be confronted and worked out......

 

[Odola]

Death is inevitable as an ontological reality (not a "curse") if one is doing something contrary to the will of iluvatar... like Kinslaying or harming the Second Children or even ignoring them. Worship of Iluvatar is not a weekend excursion into a compartmentalized box... Worship is living the will of iluvatar. Not walking into a temple only. The Fall of Adam (and Eve) is a true myth. It is archetypal action by archetypes -- and here we are at the problem of who is at Cuivienen... one Elf, a group, a pair? If a group, as seems the case, then how so? How do other Elves descend from them, and so what is the coherence of their race... ours is genetic. A single root or seed, a single tree. Their unity mechanism is....? Elves are a lovely diversion, but are they workable? Is their world? Its mechanics need to be confronted and worked out......

As I've stated before I see no problem with Elves being as a whole unfallen but marred and even the Ainur to be marred through their having entered Arda Marred. What Tolkien imho had a problem with is what exact consequences this would have for the elvish perspective on themselves, their nature and their lives. Being a fallen human himself, he had trouble to imagine exaclty the inner view of a unfallen creature. This is trouble enough imho.

And the connection to Adam had not to be genetic per se to work. A president or king is often described as "the father of a nation". The treaties he signs are binding for all of his subjects and their children for generations. The Oath o Feanor has a similar effect on his descendants. And the Doom of Mandos on the whole of the Noldor.

 

[Flammifer]

Death is inevitable as an ontological reality (not a "curse") if one is doing something contrary to the will of iluvatar... like Kinslaying or harming the Second Children or even ignoring them. Worship of Iluvatar is not a weekend excursion into a compartmentalized box... Worship is living the will of iluvatar. Not walking into a temple only. The Fall of Adam (and Eve) is a true myth. It is archetypal action by archetypes -- and here we are at the problem of who is at Cuivienen... one Elf, a group, a pair? If a group, as seems the case, then how so? How do other Elves descend from them, and so what is the coherence of their race... ours is genetic. A single root or seed, a single tree. Their unity mechanism is....? Elves are a lovely diversion, but are they workable? Is their world? Its mechanics need to be confronted and worked out......

All good questions Timdalf, and all touched on in 'The Nature of Middle-earth' as JRRT was wrestling with very similar questions.

If you follow the Mythgard classes on that book, I'm sure Corey will give us his interpretation of JRRTs comments on some or all of these.

 

[Jim Deutch]

It is curious that JRRT was very keen to get 'The Silmarillion' published when it was not possible, but not keen at all when it would have been easy.

"Easy" only in the sense that by that time he could have thrown just about any kind of text at a publisher and gotten it published. Not at all easy in the sense of putting together a work that he was satisfied by himself! He worked at it, off and on, but never got much closer.

 

[Jim Deutch]

The cure of our mortality and corruption is the infusion of the Divine Nature into ours, if we let it, and work on it. That happens through the Incarnation and Resurrection of the God-man.

Timdalf - I think you would be interested in the "Athrabeth of Finrod and Andreth", in Morgoth's Ring. I'm still catching up on the Morgoth's Ring sessions; by the end of session 20 (where I am now), Finrod and Andreth have just deduced the possibility of the bodily reincarnation of Men into everlasting life. I think you'd like it, in a philosophical way at least.

 

[Timdalf]

I have just finished reading another very insightful essay in Tolkien Studies... This time in the latest issue # XVIII 2021... which relates directly to the issue here. ' "This gift of freedom": The Gift of Iluvatar from Mythological Solution to Theological Problem' by Magne Berland. I strongly encourage you all to read it. What my take-away from it is similar to what is increasingly becoming my take-away from "The Nature of Middle-earth'.... Tolkien (to use the phrasing of an author quoted in the Studies' essay) was submitting his legendarium to external criteria -- in the case of this Gift issue, Western/Latin (RC) theological criteria about the Fall of Mankind. In the case of "Nature" he is submitting the legendarium to modern scientific criteria. The result is (I quote) "There is also the possibility that Tolkien intended to start a redesign [of The Silmarillion], but found -- during his work on the "Athrabeth' or later == that the revision of the extremely complex web of stories and motifs was ultimately impossible. Or he may have found it to be undesirable because such a scouring would take away too much of the original poetry, energy and appeal of the legendarium."

 

[Odola]

The result is (I quote) "There is also the possibility that Tolkien intended to start a redesign [of The Silmarillion], but found -- during his work on the "Athrabeth' or later == that the revision of the extremely complex web of stories and motifs was ultimately impossible. Or he may have found it to be undesirable because such a scouring would take away too much of the original poetry, energy and appeal of the legendarium."

I do not agree. Maybe Tolkien's new approach takes away the whimsical but it also has gains that make up for it. By being less random it is less "lazy". There are new layers and new depts. By focussing on "the fall of the Valar" it becomes a story of how those in power can go wrong and why. Which is a very interesting topic especially for parents. The change of focus is similar to the difference between "the Hobbit" and TLOTR. And I have always preferred the latter, even if I do enjoy the first. And I fail to see how it is "submitting the legendarium to modern scientific criteria". It does not follow the scientifically assumed timelines at all (as the brilliant post with the "timelines of Arda" shows). It just pays more respect to logic, feasibility and respect for the "intellingence of the readers". And "Athrabeth" is brilliant imho. As is "Mariner's wife". More stories of this kind of realism? Am all for it.