My Precious - attachment and detachment

[Jan]

I am new to your board, and I lurk more than I post, and I must say, your conversations certainly give me many ideas to think about! Most recently, I was reading all the posts for the Feanor and Palantiri thread, and it got me to thinking in another direction. The direction I went in, was a meditation of sorts on Tolkien's use of possession vs. detachment in the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and the LOTR books.

The Silmarils were precious to Feanor, and look at the trouble that caused.
The ships were precious to the Teleri of Alqualonde, and they were slain by Feanor and the Noldor.
The One Ring was precious to Gollum, and getting it back was his death.
It was precious to Sauron, too, and also his end.
Bilbo gave it up more or less willingly, and Frodo was willing to do so (although unable at the end, but the intention was there), and they came out okay.

And Sam, dear Sam, he carried all that stuff on his back all the way to Mt. Doom, and it was precious to him. Yet at the end, he laid it willingly aside in order to carry Frodo the rest of the way. And the whole world was saved.

Attachment and detachment have consistently been prominent themes in Catholic spirituality since the early centuries, and Tolkien would have been very aware of them. I find it interesting that he managed to work it into the stories he told.

[Éomond]

The Silmarils were precious to Feanor, and look at the trouble that caused.
The ships were precious to the Teleri of Alqualonde, and they were slain by Feanor and the Noldor.
The One Ring was precious to Gollum, and getting it back was his death.
It was precious to Sauron, too, and also his end.
Bilbo gave it up more or less willingly, and Frodo was willing to do so (although unable at the end, but the intention was there), and they came out okay.

Attachment and detachment have consistently been prominent themes in Catholic spirituality since the early centuries, and Tolkien would have been very aware of them. I find it interesting that he managed to work it into the stories he told.

First off, welcome!

Well, the White Ships of the Teleri were precious to the Teleri, but I don't know if that fits in the subject of the Rings and Simarils, because they never made them greedy or evil. The reason Olwe (was it him?) and the Teleri never gave up their ships was because of (I guess you could say) "madness" in Feanor, which that madness caused the Kinslaying.

From what I heard, Tolkien didn't try to write a parrallel to the Bible or Catholics, although some things are very clear that they are.
(Someone correct me if I'm wrong)

[Jan]

From what I have read in biographies of Tolkien, he really really hated allegories. It seemed to be a sticking point between him and CS Lewis, since Narnia is pure allegory through and through.

So I agree with you that he was not writing a parallel to the Bible (although the creation and fall in the Silmarillion come very close), but still I think there are many themes which both scripture and Tolkien's books share.

I think it was Olwe. Sometimes I get a little lost in the elves' names. But I was wondering what would have happened, even seeing Feanor's madness, if the Teleri had just let the ships go. Would the First Kinslaying have occured? Maybe not. But I remember (I think I remember) that Olwe said that the Noldor couldn't have the ships because (paraphrasing here) the ships were as important to them as the Silmarils were to Feanor. They made them once, and wouldn't be making them again. They were hanging onto those ships in the same way that Feanor was holding onto those jewels. And so they were slain.

There was something in the Ainulindale about Aule that I thought was interesting that touches on this. The text reads, "Of the fabric of Earth had Aule thought, to whom Iluvatar had given skill and knowledge scarce less than to Melkor; but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." It says later on in the Valaquenta that he was the master of all crafts, his were "the gems that lie deep in the Earth and the gold that lies fair in the hand," and "the Noldor learned most of him, and he was ever their friend." If Feanor and the Noldor had learned Aule's generosity and not just his skill, they would have been a lot better off!

Gee, I love that book.

[Éomond]

I think it was Olwe. Sometimes I get a little lost in the elves' names. But I was wondering what would have happened, even seeing Feanor's madness, if the Teleri had just let the ships go. Would the First Kinslaying have occured? Maybe not. But I remember (I think I remember) that Olwe said that the Noldor couldn't have the ships because (paraphrasing here) the ships were as important to them as the Silmarils were to Feanor. They made them once, and wouldn't be making them again. They were hanging onto those ships in the same way that Feanor was holding onto those jewels. And so they were slain.


If the Teleri lent their ships to Feanor and the Noldor, then the Oath and/or Curse wouldn't have been as worse and there'd be alot more friendship with the Noldor and all the other Elves of Beleriand.

Olwe never said that the Noldor couldn't have the ships because they were just as important to them as the Simarils to Feanor or anything like that. They would not give then up:
1. They saw the madness in Feanor
2. No ship would they lend, or help make, against the will of the Valar.
3. They desired no other home or no other lord than Olwe.

I'm to lazy to quote what was actually said, but I will if you want.

Hope that helps. :)

[Jan]

I see where your three points come from, page 86 (in my edition) in Of the Flight of the Noldor in the Silmarillion. But there is more, at the bottom of the page, which is what I was referring to: Olwe says to Feanor, "For I say to you, Feanor son of Finwe, these are to us as are the gems of the Noldor, the work of our hearts, whose like we shall not make again."

The Teleri should have been less possessive of those ships, beautiful and precious though they may have been. The Noldor were numerous, fierce, and well-armed. The Teleri were fewer and only lightly armed. I still think that if they had let those ships go, the First Kinslaying might have been avoided.

Of course, it brings up another theme, which is the battle between Good and Evil and standing to fight and being willing to die, which is the main theme of all the books.

The keeping of the ships and the kinslaying is not as clear-cut in my mind as the other cases (Feanor and the silmarils, Bilbo/Frodo/Gollum/Sauron and the One Ring, Sam and his backpack). Olwe had never listened to Morgoth and was trusting in the Valar. Feanor was mad for the recovery of the Silmarils; nothing was going to stand in his way. So here's Good vs. Evil, just in this one little story. A microcosm of the entire series. Tolkien's a great writer, isn't he? Always something more to think about...

[Bucky]

Attachment and detachment have consistently been prominent themes in Catholic spirituality since the early centuries

Those are actually more commonly general to Judeo/Christian Biblical teachings as far back as Abraham & Issac rather than specific to Catholicism in the early centuries.

But, I like the thoughts as they pertain to Tolkien's Middle-earth & 'precious'.

Olwe never said that the Noldor couldn't have the ships because they were just as important to them as the Simarils to Feanor or anything like that. They would not give then up:


Olwe most certainly said that the ships of the Teleri were as the jewels of the Noldor were to them.....
"The work of our hearts"

He does not use the word 'precious', but it's clear they won't part with them because they hold them too dear.

But, the reason for parting with them is different than parting with the Ring too.

However, the same can be said for parting with The Silmarils or The Ring, there's a big difference there too; Just as there is a heck of a big difference in Abraham having to lay down his attachment to his long promised son Issac.

And in that respect (And in Tolkien's motivation?), all attachments are the same if we can't lay them down: Instead of us controlling them, they control us.

[Jan]

Bucky: I agree with you 100%. If we can't lay our possessions aside, then it is they who possess us. Tolkien brought this out very clearly in his books.