Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘The Silmarillion’ Is a Dense Yet Highly Engaging Origin Story for J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-Earth
As Game of Thrones draws to a close, and a new Amazon Lord of the Rings TV series awaits, J.R.R. Tolkien is sure to return as the king of fantasy (if he ever even left). Despite being dead now for nearly 46 years, Tolkien created, in Middle-Earth and the stories that take place there, a rich, vivid mythology that has ensured his immortality.
Many people first came to appreciate Tolkien’s work because of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings film trilogy in the early 2000s. I was one of them. Only eight years old when The Fellowship of the Ring came out, I was not allowed to see either it or its sequel in theaters (though I did catch them later on DVD). But when my parents said they would let me see The Return of the King in theaters, I decided to read all of the books in the trilogy before the movie came out so that I would appreciate it properly. Even at age 10, I recall getting lost–in the best possible way–in the epic and fully realized world of heroism and mysticism that Tolkien had created. Seeing the last movie in theaters remains one of my best-ever theatrical experiences, and it confirmed my status as a Tolkien fan.
Looking for more ways to deepen my fanhood at the time, I came upon The Silmarillion, which I have now had the chance to discuss on an episode of the Legendarium Podcast. Described to me as the ‘Old Testament’ of The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion gave the backstory to which the more famous trilogy is the culmination: the creation of the world, the early struggles between its gods, the plight of the elves, the coming of men and dwarves (and their own trials), etc. Delighted that there was more material to read, I dove right in…only to crash on a rocky shoal of confusing names, excessive detail, and quasi-poetic prose that seemed straight out of some ancient tome. I got only a few dozen pages in before giving up on The Silmarillion.
Only recently, as the excessive cultural cachet of Game of Thrones has turned me into a rabid anti-Game of Thrones reactionary, did I make myself go back and finish The Silmarillion as part of my first full rereading of all of Tolkien’s most popular work, also including The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Rereading The Silmarillion, I could understand why, as a 10-year-old, I found it so daunting. The names were still myriad, and often confusing; the stories abounded, intersecting in ways sometimes unclear to me; and the prose had the same ancient tome quality that I recalled from my youth.
Yet these were far more minor complaints this time around. While 15 years ago, they kept me from getting lost in the work as I did in Lord of the Rings, now they could barely restrain my enjoyment of it. For The Silmarillion is a true epic, the product of a single mind (two if you want to count his son Christopher, who compiled and edited what his father never completely finished). Usually, epic traditions are the products of entire cultures and many authors, assembled over centuries or more. But in preparing a backstory for The Lord of the Rings (which–importantly–was never the focus of Tolkien’s writing, but rather the bulky bottom of the iceberg that allowed him to tell the tiny top of his most famous story), Tolkien just decided to create such a mythology of his own accord within a discrete period–a stunning achievement. Sure, others have followed his lead since. Yet many of them have gotten too lost in their creations, too high on playing god, to produce a work that also contained transcendent themes (or ended!).
For though The Silmarillion is an epic, of gigantic scope and scale, it is also strongly driven by individual actors and choices. Pride, arrogance, fate, hubris, irony, mortality–those all-too-human forces–play out among a cast of often larger-than-life characters nonetheless subject to them.
Indeed, it is hard for me to explain how, exactly, but The Silmarillion seems not merely like the mythic creation of its author, but rather like a window into an entire other tradition, heretofore unknown. Something about the way it was written strongly suggests that what we have is actually a translation from another language, now long forgotten, and that what we are reading pales in comparison to the actual story, now long disappeared. This is not to say The Silmarillion is a bad work; rather, that in depicting its own rich mythology, it successfully conveys a sense that what actually happened was somehow even grander than what we are reading. It is, at times, hard to believe all of this came from the imagination of one man. Tolkien himself felt similarly. He wrote that, in creating his legends, he “…always I had the sense of recording what was already ‘there,’ somewhere: not of ‘inventing.’”
The most compelling reason for the more casual Lord of the Rings fan to read The Silmarillion, however, is that it puts everything in Tolkien’s more famous work in context. It deepens one’s understanding of what happens there, and answer some questions about where some things came from. It also instills an appreciation for how, in Tolkien’s understanding, everything in The Lord of the Rings is merely a less impressive imitation or centuries-old echo of the ancient struggles depicted in The Silmarillion, a sort of “there were giants, in those days” aesthetic that often goes underappreciated in Tolkien’s immortal work.
At any rate, if you want to hear more from me (and others more qualified) about Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion, check out my appearance on the Legendarium Podcast.
Published in Literature
Let’s say you have a child and the priest is a long way away, such that you can’t baptize him for several years. Are you still christian or Catholic? Sure. Let’s say you’re an adult who decides to become a christian, and get baptized at the age of 40. Are you doomed to hell for not being baptized as an infant? Of course not. Infant baptism is merely for the sake of protecting the child in case he should die first. In many Catholic cultures, the baby is baptized immediately after birth, rather than the more common age of a few months that we see here in the United States. Both times are acceptable to the Church.
Extreme Unction is also not required for salvation, but it is believed to help a lot.
That’s exactly the definition of henotheism, and it is rejected by Judaism and Christianity.
Edit: From wikipedia, “Henotheism refers to a pluralistic theology wherein different deities are viewed to be of a unitary, equivalent divine essence.”
Got it.
This URL for the Latin.
Si quis parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat . . . .
The key word is baptizandos. Here’s the grammatical breakdown, a future passive participle. They really “to be baptized.” My Latin’s not that good, but it really looks to me like a must.
Details of Catholic theology I’d best not speak for.
Note the phrase “one true G-d,” and the distinction drawn between the creator G-d and the lesser beings whose status as spirits is recognized but whose status as G-d is denied.
Edit: Your citation of Wikipedia makes my point nicely:
I think the best way to say it is that baptism is how original sin is forgiven. Water is not required, nor is a priest. It may happen at any time so long as the effort is done properly, and usually an emergency or other extreme circumstance is required. The quote above is, I believe, because some people of that day were arguing that an infant doesn’t have the mens rea to be forgiven. That quote is saying that baptism absolutely is sufficient for forgiveness of original sin in an infant and saying otherwise is wrong.
And yes, we have gone down the rat hole now.
And we will have to disagree that christianity can accept other gods with entirely different creation stories, histories, and abilities. I know that Catholicism and many other Christians understand the creation stories of the Bible to be figurative, but it would seem to go too far to ascribe entirely other myths to be the same. Also, the men, elves, dwarves, and other sentient beings in Tolkein’s works are not required — or even asked — to pray to Iluvatar, nor ask for forgiveness of sins, nor to recognize any other recognizable religious tenet. When Beren or whoever else gets in trouble, he doesn’t ask for Iluvatar (the name looks like “light father” to me) for help or salvation. All salvation comes from individual effort without divine help or even inspiration. As such, it would appear much more secular than religious.
Okay, I’m going to bed. It’s been fun, but I think this keg is floating. It was fun, thanks.
I believe the “If any one denies, that infants . . . are to be baptized . . . –let him be anathema” was because Anabaptist had denied that infants are to be baptized. I haven’t studied much of the theology of the time (and remember little of the book I read by Estep), but I believe their reasoning was at least not limited to the denial of a guilty mind in a baby. There was probably also an understanding of immersion as the New Testament model, and other stuff.
Ricochet’s funner that way.
What on earth are you talking about? This has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
When I say “the guy worshiped as Zeus,” do you think I mean “the Zeus of Greek mythology”? Those words meaning nothing of the sort, and I mean nothing of the sort.
If I refer to “Obama, the guy the Left loved as their savior,” does that mean that I think Obama is any kind of savior?
Except the religious tenet that G-d exists, created them out of nothing, gave them their souls, etc.
As for prayer and asking forgiveness of G-d being necessary, I believe I most recently refuted this line of reasoning at # 101.
Nothing of the sort. Salvation is by the grace of a higher power all through Tolkien.
I think this is an official hijacking. Get a room, fellas.
Not exactly, no. Judaism’s very strict monotheism, and rejection of henotheism, is a post diaspora development.
Could you unpack that a little? Do you mean in doctrine? Or in practice?
By doctrine, I mean, “And God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.’” (Exodus 20:1-3)
By practice, I mean, for example, “And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.” (Judges 2:17)
I could try, but if you don’t mind I’ll defer to a better authority:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2019/02/28/biblical-monotheism/
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2019/01/02/theophany-and-river-gods/
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/12/10/the-angels-who-left-their-former-estate/
Thanks, Skipsul. I’ll probably have to read some of that. Your Orthodox scholar priest guy is wonderful, based on what little I’ve read so far. (However, his blog is designed to induce madness by changing pages every time you use the wrong arrow key.)
That’s what I’m talking about, @Skyler. It’s not at all unusual in biblical theology.
A sharp distinction is drawn between these angelic beings and the G-d who created them, and we’re explicitly taught not to worship them. It could only be called “henotheism” in a very loose sense, and based on your Wikipedia citation a plainly inaccurate sense.
They, like the Valar and any other spirits there may be in Tolkien, are created by the one true G-d.
My point was that it is a different “one true god.” The resemblance to the god of Judeo-Christian theology is slight. This god has different names, created things in a different way, etc. Beyond just being the source of creation, there is nothing to compare them. He does nothing that is critically mentioned in the Bible. This makes him little different from Zeus or any number of other so-called pagan gods. Accepting the Tolkien god is henotheistic because it supposes that you might believe in this god or that god, but people think they are the same with different names or different behaviors. The christian god has very specific behavior that differs substantially from the Tolkien god.
Eru, the One–called Iluvatar by the Elves–is the one true G-d, who creates out of nothing and is all-good and all-knowing and all-powerful. What additional divine characteristic are you looking for?
Not counting creating, giving sapient beings their souls, and providential intervention in history, no. It’s a fantasy story with a Christian worldview; it’s a Bible story.
How many differences from Zeus do you need?
What god or G-d are you comparing to what? Eru, the One, is literally infinitely different from the Valar. No one thinks they are the same, except maybe Melkor/Morgoth who thinks he’s as good as Eru. And he’s the Satan character and, like Satan, he’s dead wrong.
Thanks for that @skipsul — I notice that Fr. De Young is from “God’s Country” (Lafayette, LA). He has obviously studied this issue extensively. Very interesting stuff.
I like this one:
… Because it is a different mythology for the one true God. Consider how Tolkien persuaded CS Lewis that Christianity was true myth.
Nothing that happens in a fictional world has to have really happened. A fictional story doesn’t have to be myth that really happened. It can just be myth. A tale of “hauntingly beautiful lands which somehow never satisfy,” stories that “push you on to the real thing because they fill you with desire” for something beyond themselves — namely, the real thing.
For the best and most beautiful in this world to inspire longing for something beyond this world is a predicament not everyone values. I know there’s a strain within conservative thought that prides itself on being hard-nosed and practical and on considering this predicament a distraction — stop with the transcendent longing already and get back to doing your job! Fulfill the social role you have now and stop mooning over whether that’s all there is! Be content with your station in life, don’t get ideas above your station!
Those who hold this predicament worthless have little reason to think of Western Civilization’s predominant religion, Christianity, in terms of this predicament. Religion is a means of social control, for the good order of society, not expression of existential predicaments because what good are they? Bloody distractions are what they are — leave that to the silly leftie types!
But then there are the rest of us.
Indeed.
But Westminster had it right: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”
God’s creation shouts, sings, and displays God’s glory, pointing to Him…
This one is worth the reading as another way to understand what Tolkien was getting at in his tales.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/alightsolovely/2019/03/23/j-r-r-tolkien-fairy-tales-and-cultural-renewal/