The Belief of Men

[Maedhros]

From Morgoth's Ring: Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth
'Yet among my people, from Wise unto Wise out of the darkness, comes the voice saying that Men are not now as they were, nor as their true nature was in their beginning. And clearer still is this said by the Wise of the People of Marach, who have preserved in memory a name for Him that ye call Eru, though in my folk He was almost forgotten. So I learn from Adanel. They say plainly that Men are not by nature short-lived, but have become so through the malice of the Lord of the Darkness whom they do not name.'
said Andreth.
That's an interesting belief that early men had. That they were inmortal too from the beginning. Could this be the way that Melkor used to turned Men against Eru and the elves?
Che pensi tu?

[Grond]

From The Silmarillion, Akallabeth,
...The Eldar reported these words to the Valar, and Manwë was grieved, seeing a cloud gather on the noon-tide of Númenor. And he sent messengers to the Dúnedain, who spoke earnestly to the King, and to all who would listen, concerning the fate and fashion of the world.

'The Doom of the World,' they said, 'One alone can change who made it. And were you so to voyage that escaping all deceits and snares you came indeed to Aman, the Blessed Realm, little would it profit you. For it is not the land of Manwë that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast.

But the King said: 'And does not Eärendil, my forefather, live? or is he not in the land of Aman?'

To which they answered: 'You know that he has a fate apart, and was adjudged to the Firstborn who die not; yet this also is his doom that he can never return again to mortal lands. Whereas you and your people are not of the Firstborn, but are mortal men as Ilúvatar made you. Yet it seems that you desire now to have the good of both kindreds, to sail to Valinor when you will, and to return when you please to your homes. That cannot be. Nor can the Valar take away the gifts of Ilúvatar. The Eldar, you say are unpunished, and even those who rebelled do not die. Yet that is to them neither reward nor punishment, but the fulfilment of their being. They cannot escape, and are bound to this world, never to leave it so long as it lasts, for its life is theirs, And you are punished for the rebellion of Men, you say, in which you had small part, and so it is that you die. But that was not at first appointed for a punishment. Thus you escape, and leave the world, and are not bound to it, in hope or in weariness. Which of us therefore should envy the others?'This quote seems to make it pretty clear that the author intended Men to be seen as mortal by the designs of Illuvator and not the designs of Melkor. I think the quote from Morgoth's Ring gives us food for thought though. :)

[aragil]

Originally posted by Grond
This quote seems to make it pretty clear that the author intended Men to be seen as mortal by the designs of Illuvator and not the designs of Melkor. I think the quote from Morgoth's Ring gives us food for thought though. :)

Keep in mind though, the author of the Akallabeth is probably considered to be a Dunedain (internal conceipt of the mythology), and has probably been biased by several thousand years of Eldar beliefs (and is indeed quoting the emissary of the Valar, not giving his/her own thoughts). In the passage from MR, Andreth is opposed to the teachings of the Eldar regarding the fate of man, and she may have a point. Remember, the fate of man was unknown to the Valar, who tought the Eldar, so it is possible that the Valar/Eldar/Author of the Akallabeth got it wrong. That being said, I agree with you and the Eldar (as I've mentioned in an alternate reality), as the Eldar are pretty dang perceptive and in general shrewd guessers. I just wanted to point out that Tolkien (whether intentionally or not) gives us no true authoratative view on the issue, so it can not be considered too clearly resolved.

[Grond]

Originally posted by aragil
Keep in mind though, the author of the Akallabeth is probably considered to be a Dunedain (internal conceipt of the mythology), and has probably been biased by several thousand years of Eldar beliefs (and is indeed quoting the emissary of the Valar, not giving his/her own thoughts). In the passage from MR, Andreth is opposed to the teachings of the Eldar regarding the fate of man, and she may have a point. Remember, the fate of man was unknown to the Valar, who tought the Eldar, so it is possible that the Valar/Eldar/Author of the Akallabeth got it wrong. That being said, I agree with you and the Eldar (as I've mentioned in an alternate reality), as the Eldar are pretty dang perceptive and in general shrewd guessers. I just wanted to point out that Tolkien (whether intentionally or not) gives us no true authoratative view on the issue, so it can not be considered too clearly resolved. I hate to argue all the time but...From The Silmarillion, Of Men,
But Men were more frail, more easily slain by weapon or mischance, and less easily healed; subject to sickness and many ills; and they grew old and died.This is directly from the mouth of the author... unless you are asserting that the writer of the Silmarillion is also an uninformed Numenorean. :);)

[Ancalagon]

Maedhros, I think the original quote you gave referring to the words of Andreth relate to a greater longevity of life, not actual immortality. Certainly the belief is that Men at one point had a greater lifespan than they currently enjoy, which in reality is but a fleeting moment. This would also sit comfortably with Tolkiens own Christian view that Mankind was once blessed with a much longer lifespan, yet much reduced over the years. The relevance to Genesis is almost tangible, not in any religious sense, simply the relation between the two.

[aragil]

No, that would be a misinformed Elda (although the original concept was a misinformed Elda telling stories to the likewise misinformed mariner who happened upon Tol-Eressea). But misinformed is such an ugly word. How about 'non-omnipotent'? No shame in that.

[Maedhros]

From Morgoth's Ring: ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH
Now the Eldar learned that, according to the lore of the Edain, Men believed that their hröar were not by right nature short-lived, but had been made so by the malice of Melkor. It was not clear to the Eldar whether Men meant: by the general marring of Arda (which they themselves held to be the cause of the waning of their own hröar); or by some special malice against Men as Men that was achieved in the dark ages before the Edain and the Eldar met in Beleriand; or by both. But to the Eldar it seemed that, if the mortality of Men had come by special malice, the nature of Men had been grievously changed from the first design of Eru; and this was a matter of wonder and dread to them, for, if it were indeed so, then the power of Melkor must be (or have been in the beginning) far greater than even the Eldar had understood; whereas the original nature of Men must have been strange indeed and unlike that of any others of the dwellers in Arda.
I think that Andreth meant that men in the beginning tought that they were too inmortal.
The point of the thread, which seems to have deviated from my original idea, was Did Melkor use that fact that he could "toy" with men regarding their livespan and therefore using it to enslave the race of men or a great part of them?

[Grond]

Originally posted by Maedhros
From Morgoth's Ring: ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH

I think that Andreth meant that men in the beginning tought that they were too inmortal.
The point of the thread, which seems to have deviated from my original idea, was Did Melkor use that fact that he could "toy" with men regarding their livespan and therefore using it to enslave the race of men or a great part of them? NO!!!

[Maedhros]

What do you mean no?
From Morgoth's Ring: ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH
More strictly speaking, he would say that Melkor had not 'changed' Men, but 'seduced' them (to allegiance to himself) very early in their history, so that Eru had changed their 'fate'. For Melkor could seduce individual minds and wills, but he could not make this heritable, or alter (contrary to the will and design of Eru) the relation of a whole people to Time and Arda. But the power of Melkor over material things was plainly vast. The whole of Arda (and indeed probably many other parts of Eä) had been marred by him. Melkor was not just a local Evil on Earth, nor a Guardian Angel of Earth who had gone wrong: he was the Spirit of Evil, arising even before the making of Eä. His attempt to dominate the structure of Eä, and of Arda in particular, and alter the designs of Eru (which governed all the operations of the faithful Valar), had introduced evil, or a tendency to aberration from the design, into all the physical matter of Arda. It was for this reason, no doubt, that he had been totally successful with Men
It's right there.

[Ancalagon]

But the Quendi shall be the fairest of all earthly creatures, and they shall have and shall conceive and bring forth more beauty than all my Children; and they shall have the greater bliss in this world. But to the Atani I will give a new gift.' Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else; and of their operation everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.

This was pre-ordained by Eru in advance of potential for any influence by Melkor. It also states clearly in The Sil.;

Now all is said concerning the manner of the Earth and its rulers in the beginning of days, and ere the world became such as the Children of Ilúvatar have known it. For Elves and Men are the Children of Ilúvatar; and since they understood not fully that theme by which the Children entered into the Music, none of the Ainur dared to add anything to their fashion. For which reason the Valar are to these kindreds rather their elders and their chieftains than their masters; and if ever in their dealings with Elves and Men the Ainur have endeavoured to force them when they would not be guided, seldom has this turned to good, howsoever good the intent. The dealings of the Ainur have indeed been mostly with the Elves, for Ilúvatar made them more like in nature to the Ainur, though less in might and stature; whereas to Men he gave strange gifts.

It is clear that The Ainur (all the Ainur) played no part in the song that led to the creation of The Children. Therefore Melkor played no part in changing the original gift of Men.

[Maedhros]

It is clear that The Ainur (all the Ainur) played no part in the song that led to the creation of The Children. Therefore Melkor played no part in changing the original gift of Men.
I thinkt that we are arguing 2 different things.
I'm not saying that Melkor changed the fate of Men granted by Eru, I'm saying that Melkor deceived Men, using the gift of Eru as his instrument to make him his subjects.
From Morgoth's Ring: ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH
Then Andreth being urged by Finrod said at last: 'This is the tale that Adanel of the House of Hador told to me.'
Some say the Disaster happened at the beginning of the history of our people, before any had yet died. The Voice had spoken to us, and we had listened. The Voice said: 'Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you.'
We understood the Voice in our hearts, though we had no words yet. Then the desire for words awoke in us, and we began to make them. But we were few, and the world was wide and strange. Though we greatly desired to understand, learning was difficult, and the making of words was slow.
In that time we called often and the Voice answered. But it seldom answered our questions, saying only: 'First seek to find the answer for yourselves. For ye will have joy in the finding, and so grow from childhood and become wise. Do not seek to leave childhood before your time.'
Then one appeared among us, in our own form visible, but greater and more beautiful; and he said that he had come out of pity. 'Ye should not have been left alone and uninstructed,' he said. 'The world is full of marvellous riches which knowledge can unlock. Ye could have food more abundant and more delicious than the poor things that ye now eat. Ye could have dwellings of ease, in which ye could keep light and shut out the night. Ye could be clad even as I.'
He was less swift than we had hoped to teach us how to find, or to make for ourselves, the things that we desired, though he had awakened many desires in our hearts. But if any doubted or were impatient, he would bring and set before us all that we wished for. 'I am the Giver of Gifts,' he said; 'and the gifts shall never fail as long as ye trust me.'
The first Voice we never heard again, save once. In the stillness of the night It spoke, saying: 'Ye have abjured Me, but ye remain Mine. I gave you life. Now it shall be shortened, and each of you in a little while shall come to Me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him.'
There it is!;)

[aragil]

I don't think we're deviating yet- Indeed, Andreth was claiming 100% immortality, beyond even that enjoyed by the Elves. According to her (and all of the wise men of her age) Men originally did not die in Arda, and did not end with Arda- neither their spirit nor their body. Part of discussing whether Melkor had messed with this is discussing whether or not the wise men and Andreth were correct in their assumptions.

[Maedhros]

Part of discussing whether Melkor had messed with this is discussing whether or not the wise men and Andreth were correct in their assumptions.
Not necessarily. One could have a belief that comes from uncorrect assumptions. It does not change the belief itself.

[Grond]

I guess it really depends on whether you want to take the basic writings of the author through his more complete work, The Silmarillion or the lesser consistencies of the HoMe series which were more along the lines of rough drafts and alternative ideas.

While I have quoted HoMe in many of my arguments in the past, it is not as authoritative as the Silmarillion... but that is just my opinion.

I do not for one second think that Melkor corrupted Man in the sense that Maedhros is portraying... mainly because Melkor lacked the power to distort an entire race. He corrupted either Man or Elves or both into Orcs but the basic races of Man and Elves was unchanged. This assertion would mean that Melkor changed the path of mortality of the entirety of the race of Man. That would include all Men and I just don't buy into the theory. Melkor was not Eru. Only Eru could change the basic premise of his Third Theme. Of course, that is just the way I see it... and I could be wrong. :)

[Maedhros]

I guess it really depends on whether you want to take the basic writings of the author through his more complete work, The Silmarillion or the lesser consistencies of the HoMe series which were more along the lines of rough drafts and alternative ideas.
I agree that the Sil should have more weight but we have to remember that unfortunately the author didn't published himself the Sil and we don't know many of the changes that he himself would have done.
I do not for one second think that Melkor corrupted Man in the sense that Maedhros is portraying... mainly because Melkor lacked the power to distort an entire race.
But he didn't lacked the cunning to do so. It's true that Melkor lacked the power to change the fate of Men that Eru had given them, but he knowing that he couldn't change it made Eru himself change the span of life of Men.
The first Voice we never heard again, save once. In the stillness of the night It spoke, saying: 'Ye have abjured Me, but ye remain Mine. I gave you life. Now it shall be shortened, and each of you in a little while shall come to Me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him.'

[aragil]

Well, now I get to argue the other side. I don't see Andreth's tale of the 'two voices' as being any more 'true' than Finrod's assumption (held in general by all the Eldar and Ainur) that Man was from the outset mortal, at least in terms of his life in Arda. Both of these are presented as legends of the two people, and I'm leary to assign more weight to either of the two.

That being said, I certainly think that Morgoth does use Man's view of mortality to bind that race to himself (certainly his lieutenant Sauron uses this strategy to devastating effect in Numenor). The followers of Ulfang in the NA seem to be only a part of the mortal following of Morgoth, and there is every indication that the Edain were travelling west in an effort to escape the Dark Lord. Additionally, Tolkien hints several times that there was a 'first fall of man' which occured before their contact with the Eldar (explaining it's omission from The Silmarillion proper). The most memorable hint (for me) comes in Letter 131, to Milton Waldman:
The Downfall is partly the result of an inner wekness in Men - consequent, if you will, upon the first Fall (unrecorded in these tales), repented but not finally healed. Reward on earth is more dangerous for men than punishment!

Hmm. Tolkien wasn't Catholic, was he?

[Grond]

So we now have a new theory. Illuvator took immortality from Man as punishment for Man's cleaving to Melkor. Then Sauron leads Man to worship Melkor in Numenor and convinces them that immortality is theirs for the taking from the Valar in Valinor. Now it makes perfect sense.

[Maedhros]

The thread is called The Belief of Men. It means that the Men at that time believed in that, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Illuvator took immortality from Man as punishment for Man's cleaving to Melkor.
That's basically it. Althought they don't specify wether they at the begining were inmortal or had more longer lives.

[aragil]

Personally I think it makes more sense that they just had longer lives prior to the first fall. Shirley the 'Immortal-man-myth' (at least myth IMO) was a lie of Morgoth, designed to create a rift (real or perceived) between Illuvatar and the secondborn? But then, Tolkien often says that Morgoth's most damaging lies always had the seed of truth in them.

ps- Grond, my sarcasto-meter is temporarily at the shop. Was 'Now it makes perfect sense.' genuine or sarcastic?

[aragil]

Originally posted by Grond
While I have quoted HoMe in many of my arguments in the past, it is not as authoritative as the Silmarillion... but that is just my opinion.


Whoops, forgot to address this. I just wanted to point out that (probably obvious to everybody here, I know) that much of what was published in the HoME series was related to Silmarillion, it was not intended to be part of the Silmarillion. The various Annals (Aman, Grey, The Tale of Years), possibly the Lays (don't know my Author history as well as I should, I'm afraid), were all sort of a supplementary material. I think the Athrabeth falls into these categories- certainly the nature of the dialogue would have seemed awkward considering the narrative voice of the published Silmarillion. And even then, as we know the Silmarillion is 100% drawn from the material in the HoME series, with Christopher (not our beloved professor) making the decision on what to publish and what to leave by the wayside. Consequently, now that I'm finally reading the HoME series (over a decade after purchasing the BoLT1- extreme laziness on my part) I'm starting to regard it in many cases as 'more authoratative' than The Sil. Several times in the HoME series CT laments editorial decisions he made for the Sil, often where he thought there were conflicting passages, but upon further inspection the passages worked how his father had written it. In light of this, I consider much of the material in HoME to carry equal weight to the Sil, and in cases like the Athrabeth, in which there is no analogous passage in the Sil, I think the HoME series should take precedence (assuming conflict with the Sil).

[Grond]

Aragil.... the "perfect sense" comment was mega-sarcasm on my part. *smiles deviously*

Your comments concerning the HoMe are well taken and I agree with your esteemed opinion in some circumstances; however, let us not forget that the Silmarillion (while even being written and rewritten up to the author's death) was a near complete work. He intended for it to be published in conjunction with the LotR in 1953, even going so far as to contemplate changing publishers from Allen/Unwin to Harper/Collins (if the Letters of J. R. R. T. are to be believed.) I know the CT did much editorial work on the Sil but in doing so he never editorialized in the text. He simply gave us what his father wrote.

In the HoMe (I have all 12) CT seems to INTERPRET and MIND READ much more than was done in the Sil. Unfortunately, as with all posthumous publications, we'll never truly know what JRRT's definitive word was on many things. He was constantly trying to bring his world of Middle-earth into harmony and consistency. Since the job was never completed by him, we'll never know what he truly intended.

As for the HoMe having greater weight in Middle-earthly matters. I will agree with you that in many instances HoMe gives us a deeper insight into the mind of the author; unfortunately, rarely does it give us concrete evidence that the author truly intended to change this or that. Tolkien was the consumate story teller and as is evidenced by the voluminous material in the HoMe, he would write what his heart told him and then try to tie it apropriately into the FLOW of the magical world logic. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes he failed and on a few occassion he didn't seem to care. :)

[aragil]

Mega-sarcasm? No wonder my sarcasto-meter had to be sent to the shop!

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but in my above post I was just trying to stress that not everything in HoME was part of the Quenta Silmarillion proper. For that matter, not everything that went into the published Sil was part of the Quenta proper- the Ainulindale, the (2nd book who's name I cannot remember), the Akalabeth, and Of the Rings of Power and the third age were all outside the Quenta proper, but included in the published Sil (I haven't read whether or not this was at the request of JRRT, but I suspect that it was). While the majority of HoME deals with the various versions of the Quenta, a substantial portion of the series is dedicated to what I must consider 'supplemental material on Middle-earth'. I include in this category The Akalabeth, the Ainulindale, the various stories published in UT (although I'm unsure about the Narn i Nan Hurin), the various Annals (Aman, Grey, the Tale of Years), and the other miscelaneous stories that Tolkien wrote- The New Shadow, essays on Glorfindel and Cirdan, etc. I think that the Athrabeth falls into this category- I assume it was written as a supplement to the Silmarillion, and was never intended to be included with the published version. As a supplement, I think it is unfair to say that it should carry less weight than what was published- I can't remember how many drafts there were, but it is distinctly possible that JRRT considered the Athrabeth to be in more 'complete' form than the Quenta, the latter stages of which appear to have been neglected after the publication of LotR. My approach is that the Athrabeth should be regarded as a true account of the debate between Andreth and Finrod, but that the two legends (that's how I'll refer to them) regarding the original nature of Men should be regarded as mythic- possibly based on fact but equally possibe that they are 100% fiction. The Quenta is (supposed to be, internal conceipt) the history of the Eldar, recorded by the Eldar, and communicated to Men at some point. As such, I consider the information on the fate of Men to be the same legend espoused by Finrod in the Athrabeth- it carries a lot of weight because it come from the 'wise' (Finrod, those clever Elves, and especially the Valar). But it is possible that this information is incorrect- I think that it is pretty explicitly stated that the Valar did not know the fate of men, so the legend is only their (considerably qualified) speculation.

That being said, I think there is considerable evidence that Morgoth has messed with Men at some point prior to the Edain's arrival in Beleriand. There was certainly a first 'fall from grace', and with all the available information it looks like Morgoth played a prominent role in bringing the fall about. Again, I also see evidence that even the very early men were concerned with their own mortality, so it is entirely possible that Morgoth played upon this concern in order to bring about the fall. I (like Finrod, and from what I can tell Grond and Anc) find it too hard to believe that Morgoth was able to change the 'immortal' nature of man to be 'mortal', nor do I believe that Morgoth was able to con Iluvatar into doing this. That's just my opinion though, I could be wrong.

[Maedhros]

I (like Finrod, and from what I can tell Grond and Anc) find it too hard to believe that Morgoth was able to change the 'immortal' nature of man to be 'mortal', nor do I believe that Morgoth was able to con Iluvatar into doing this.
Well, that was the Belief of Men.
From Morgoth's Ring: ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH
The first Voice we never heard again, save once. In the stillness of the night It spoke, saying: 'Ye have abjured Me, but ye remain Mine. I gave you life. Now it shall be shortened, and each of you in a little while shall come to Me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him.'
Then our terror of the Dark was increased; for we believed at the Voice was of the Darkness behind the stars. And some of us began to die in horror and anguish, fearing to go out into the Dark. Then we called on our Master to save us from death, and he did not answer. But when we went to the House and all bowed down there, at last he came, great and majestic, but his face was cruel and proud.
It was the belief of Andreth, or do you think that she was lying. Ah Manwë where were you then? :(

[Grond]

Originally posted by Maedhros

Well, that was the Belief of Men.
From Morgoth's Ring: ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH

It was the belief of Andreth, or do you think that she was lying. Ah Manwë where were you then? :( Again, see my opinon on using HoMe works to support new ME theories at http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=133040#post133040 . I just don't think we can take new information from these works and consider them as authoritative. Look at how many different names good JRRT gave the Istari and how many different origins. You get different information from LOTR, SIL, UT and HoMe.

[aragil]

D'oh! There really is a lot of crossover between this thread and The Rejection of the Secondborn. Summary of my reply to Grond's opinion over there: there is evidence throughout Tolkien's work for a fall of man occuring before the Edain arrived in Beleriand, and presumably this fall is attributable to the actions of Morgoth, therefore I don't think this passage is in conflict with the published Sil.

[Maedhros]

D'oh! There really is a lot of crossover between this thread and The Rejection of the Secondborn.
You're right. I had to edit my last post in there because it was meant for here.:) Probably my fault for quoting Home in the Sil section.
therefore I don't think this passage is in conflict with the published Sil.
I don't see how a belief that early men had is in conflict with the Sil.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Maedhros
I don't see how a belief that early men had is in conflict with the Sil. My apologies to both you and Aragil. I thought both of your were forwarding this idea as a truth of Middle-earth. If early Man chose to believe this, then there is no real conflict with the works but if it is portrayed as a truth, then it would create a significant rift in the concordance in my humble opinion. :)

[aragil]

Originally posted by Maedhros
You're right. I had to edit my last post in there because it was meant for here.:)

I ain't gonna be so careful:

HoME v. 11, Part II- the Later Quenta Silmarillion, chapter 14, 'Of the Coming of Men into the West and the Meeting of the Edain and the Eldar', §8-9: But when Felagund questioned Bëor concerning the arising of Men and their journeys, Bëor would say little; and indeed he knew little, for the fathers of his people had told few tales of their past and a silence had fallen upon their memory.
'A darkness lies behind us,' Bëor said; 'and we have turned our backs on it, and we do not desire to return thither even in thought. Westwards our hearts have been turned, and we believe that there we shall find Light.'

HoME v. 11, Part I- The Grey Annals, YotS 60, §78-80:Moreover, he (Morgoth) was not encircled upon the uttermost north; and though the ice and snow restrained his enemies from keeping watch in the frozen wilderness, it hindered not his spies and messengers from secret going and coming.
Nor himself, an he would go. Indeed we learn now in Eressëa from the Valar, through our kin that dwell still in Aman, that after Dagor-nuin-Giliath (so that's where they got their guild name -aragil) Melkor was so long in assailing the Eldar with strength for he himself had departed from Angband, for the last time. Even as before at the awakening of the Quendi, his spies were watchful, and tidings soon came to him of the arising of Men. This seemed to him so great a matter that secretly under shadow he went forth into Middle-earth, leaving the command of the War to Sauron his lieutenant. Of his dealings with Men the Eldar knew naught at that time, and know little now, for neither the Valar nor Men have spoken to them clearly of these things.
But that some darkness lay upon the hearts of Men (as the shadow of the kinslaying and the doom of Mandow lay upon the Noldor) the Eldar perceived clearly even in the fair folk of the Elf-friends that they first knew. To corrupt or destroy whatsoever arose new and fair was ever the chief desire of Morgoth; but as regards the Eldar, doubtless he had this purpose also in his errand: by fear and lies to make Men their foes, and bring them up out of the East against Beleriand. But this design was slow to ripen, and was never wholly achieved, for Men (it is said) were at first very few in number, whereas Morgoth grew afraid of the tidings of the growing power and union of the Eldar and came back to Angband, leaving behind at that time but few servants, and those of less might and cunning.

Before Grond can say this is HoME material, here is the corresponding passage (single, because it combines the above two HoME passages) from the Silmarillion:
The Silmarillion, Chapter 17, 'Of the Coming of Men into the West'But when he (Finrod) questioned him (Bëor) concerning the arising of Men and their journeys, Bëor would say little; and indeed he knew little, for the fathers of his people had told few tales of their past and a silence had fallen upon their memory. 'A darkness lies behind us,' Bëor said; 'and we have turned our backs on it, and we do not desire to return thither even in thought. Westwards our hearts have been turned, and we believe that there we shall find Light.'
But it was said afterwards among the Eldar that when Men awoke in Hildórien at the rising of the Sun the spies of Morgoth were watchful, and tidings were soon brought to him; and this seemed to him so great a matter that secretly under shadow he himself departed from Angband, and went forth into Middle-earth, leaving Sauron the command of the War. Of his dealings with Men the Eldar indeed knew nothing, at that time, and learnt but little afterwards; but that a darkness lay upon the hearts of Men (as the shadow of the Kinslaying and the Doom of Mandos lay upon the Noldor) they perceived clearly even in the people of the Elf-friends whom they first knew. To corrupt or destroy whatsoever arose new and fair was ever the chief desire of Morgoth; and doubtless he had this purpose also in his errand: by fear and lies to make Men the foes of the Eldar, and bring them up out of the east against Beleriand. But this design was slow to ripen, and was never wholly achieved; for Men (it is said) were at first very few in number, whereas Morgoth grew afraid of the growing power and union of the Eldar and came back to Angband, leaving behind at that time but few servants, and those of less might and cunning.

Two purposes in posting these quotes-
1) to remind Grond that HoME does not necessarily conflict with the published Silmarillion, and that HoME v10-11 in particular were most often taken word-for-word into the published Sil.
2) I think this passage sets the background for the discussion of the Athrabeth. We see clearly that Morgoth did something bad after the awakening of the Atani, and that whatever happened haunted the Secondborn as much as the Doom of Mandos and the kinslaying haunted the Noldor. We also see that one of the main aims of Morgoth in this mischief was to estrange the Eldar and the Edain. Finally we say that the Atani were retiscent to speak of the events, and that it appears that in many points their memories might have been forgotten on purpose. I think this deserves special consideration when we discuss the Atanic legends of the origins and original nature of Man that Andreth relays to Finrod. There are holes in the collective memories of the Edain, and much of their original 'knowledge' could have come from the lies of Morgoth, aimed at estranging the Edain and the Eldar.

Now for my interpretation- I think that the large part of Andreth's wisdom comes directly from Morgoth. These are the lies that Morgoth has sown in attempt to turn them against the Valar and the Eldar. I think both of the voices which Maedhros quoted were Morgoth- it seems to me unlikely that Illuvatar would speak directly to his children, and even less likely that he would make the spiteful (IMO) utterance 'Now you're going to die and learn who the real powerful one is'. Morgoth knows that when the Edain meet the Eldar the second kindred will soon learn of the immortality of the firstborn. It seems that this would create enmity (at least so Morgoth could expect) between the two races, and so this would be a good candidate for the lies which Morgoth told to estrange the two. As Grond pointed out (Mega-sarcastically, it turns out) this difference in nature is exactly what Sauron exploited to bring about the fall of Numenor, so I don't feel like I'm coming from left field here. Finally, I don't see any evidence to support Andreth's claims of an immortal past and then a (great) reduction in life span. I think that the Atani lifespan had become very slightly reduced by their association with Morgoth, attributable to 'sinful living', if you like. However, I think this reduction was very mild, perhaps from an average of 90 years to an average of 70 years. I also think that the average of 90 was re-attained when the Edain first entered Beleriand- Beor and his offspring at least lived into their 90s. I think that as much as anything this re-attainment o the longer lifespan was due to the association with the Eldar, which would have led to the dropping of many Morgothian lies that had been adopted into their lifestyle. At least, that's my opinion.

[Melian Le Fay]

Why does anyone think that Eru would give Men both immortality and the power to shape their own destiny, and give the Eldar only immortal life?! I believe that Tolkien had in mind that mortality of men, but also a chance to be masters of destiny gives some kind of bitter-sweet sense to it...It is kind of poetic, don't you think?

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Maedhros
Did Melkor use that fact that he could "toy" with men regarding their livespan and therefore using it to enslave the race of men or a great part of them?
I think that Morgoth did use that belief of men to toy with them. Look how it was "toying" with Andreth...and she had never even spoke with Morgoth, but only learned these beleifs that had been passed down by her own people.

Andreth looked up and her eyes darkened. 'The Valar?' she said. 'How should I know, or any Man? Your Valar do not
trouble us either with care or with instruction. They sent no
summons to us.'
'What do you know of them?' said Finrod. 'I have seen them
and dwelt among them, and in the presence of Manwe and
Varda I have stood in the Light. Speak not of them so, nor of
anything that is high above you. Such words came first out
of the Lying Mouth.
'I see,' said Andreth, 'that in this ye of the High-elves do not
differ from your lesser kindred whom we have met in the world,
though they have never dwelt in the Light. All ye Elves deem
that we die swiftly by our true kind. That we are brittle and
brief, and ye are strong and lasting. We may be "Children of
Eru", as ye say in your lore; but we are children to you also: to
be loved a little maybe, and yet creatures of less worth, upon
whom ye may look down from the height of your power and
your knowledge, with a smile, or with pity, or with a shaking of
heads.'
It would easy for Melkor to manipulate someone who already held those beliefs. People who think like that would be quicker to turn against the Valar and the Eldar and even join forces with Morgoth if not out of love for him but hate of the Eldar.
I am not sure that Morgoth started these as lies that eventually made their way to Andreth, it could be that men just figured this on their own, but either way it must have pleased Morgoth. he knows all about jealousy and envy from experience and he would know how to use those two things to turn men against the elves.

[Lhunithiliel]

First of all, I’d like to congratulate Anc for bringing forth (AGAIN!!) such an interesting topic!
However, before I go into the topic itself, I’d like to share an opinion, which you may comment or you can just ignore. It’s JUST some thoughts that this discussion (and a few others) arose in my mind.
It has to do with a world-wide and a long-existing tendency of how art is understood and interpreted.
You see, every piece of ANY art is at a certain moment offered to an audience. Art is for the people, right? Then, every one who is part of this audience perceives this piece of art through his/her own personal and individual understanding and criteria of good/bad, beautiful/ugly, appealing/boring etc… BUT! There comes a special group within our society – the critics, who, although individuals themselves, start telling us (the rest) of HOW we MUST (and not even “SHOULD”) understand this very same piece of art! Based on THEIR individual understanding and/or criteria, they try to convince us of what EXACTLY the author wanted to show/say/express by writing/painting/composing etc. this or that! The strangest thing of all is, that we let them do it and so, gradually, we start to believe what THEY are saying, forgetting OUR own understanding and/or criteria! So was born this world-wide and long-existing tendency of art-criticism I’m talking about.
What does this “philosophy” of mine lead to? The way art criticism is done, the same pattern, is being strictly followed in many other fields – politics, history etc. Therefore all of a sudden it turns out that people start repeating what OTHER people have said, not even trying to look for their own inner perceptions and/or believes…. This is easier and more convenient! “Why should I “discover the Americas” if they were discovered lo-o-o-o-ng ago?!”
So, what is then becoming of the human mind? It turns into a folder of patterns! So, people start following the “Matrix” and never bother to change anything. This, I suppose, is what we call “BELIEF”.
Now speaking on the topic, but following this theory, I would say that people’s minds have always been strongly “patterned” by all those races superior to the race of Men – Eru, the Valar, Melkor incl., all the mighty Maiar, the Elves … Therefore, how can one of us, MEN, tell FOR SURE where the truth lies? Are you sure our minds are FREE of patterns?
Well, I know that what I’ve written is just a scratch on the surface….But, hey, I suppose you’ll let me be around in this thread a little longer, so I might in a couple of days provide you with some further observations, going deeper into the subject.

Once again, I apologize for being sort of "away" from the topic....yet am I? ;)

[Maedhros]

First of all, I’d like to congratulate Anc for bringing forth (AGAIN!!) such an interesting topic!
And I thought I made the topic.:(
Therefore, how can one of us, MEN, tell FOR SURE where the truth lies? Are you sure our minds are FREE of patterns?
Yet they are not necessarily truths but it was the Belief of Men!:)

[Lhunithiliel]

Shame on me!:eek:
Forgive me, Master Maedhros!
Let me paraphrase..
I'd like to congratulate MASTER MAEDHROSfor bringing forth AGAIN such an interesting topi!!! :p
Now, back to the topic.
Maedhros: Yet they are not necessarily truths but it was the Belief of Men
Me: .....people start following the “Matrix” and never bother to change anything. This, I suppose, is what we call “BELIEF”.
My point : don't people confuse truth with belief ?
I personally believe it is so. Then could anyone relly be able to exit the "matrix " and have a realistic view over the things?

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel

My point : don't people confuse truth with belief ?
I personally believe it is so. Then could anyone relly be able to exit the "matrix " and have a realistic view over the things?
First, who's to say what a realistic view is? It is what we know it to be, anything beyond our ability to imagine will be unknown to us. We may know there is something there but because do not have the ability to see it, can it really be called a part of reality? Maybe not. Maybe the fact that it is assumed to exist is all the reality there is to it.

People often confuse truth with belief, but to fuction a human must treat certain beliefs as truth. If someone is ever aware that the things which they believe are not fact then they may end up inactive. An amount of belief is required for every little action we take. I press down on the "P" on my keyboard with the belief that a P will show up on my screen though this isn't truth until it has happend. Why? Who knows? Maybe my brother's cat will dash through and unhook the wire. Maybe the power will go out. Maybe my keyboard is flawed and the P will suddenly cease to function for reasons I will not understand because I do not know the innerworkings of my keyboard. I may take it apart and a have look at it but blah blah blah....
Involuntary things that happend such as our heartbeats are a different story and I don't know enough to go into that.
In this post the word belief could be replaced with faith, and truth with fact.
When a person dwells too much of such things as this they may continue to be disatisfied, and that disatisfaction may even grow.
If someone looks too closely into these things they could find that it is a trap of the mind and maybe even spirit if you believe in such a thing. One may find that all the things going on around them are petty, and that existance and all that we know can not in truth by considered a complex thing until you fully understand it, and that, I have faith that no one will ever do. From the most straightforward questions will arise endless ones if someone seeks them. These can be deducaed and deduced and you know what?
I believe that Nothing good comes of this other than the enjoyment of digging for answers.
Bad things will come of it though, if it goes too far.
Or so my experiences have shown me.

[Lhunithiliel]

First, who's to say what a realistic view is? It is what we know it to be, anything beyond our ability to imagine will be unknown to us. We may know there is something there but because do not have the ability to see it, can it really be called a part of reality? Maybe not. Maybe the fact that it is assumed to exist is all the reality there is to it.
I think, this is the fundamental difference in the two basic trends in philosophy - does something exist if we can't see it?! - a question that can cause a great headache, can't it?! :p
I, however, as brought up with the philosophic views of the Materialism, believe that a thing can exist perfectly well even if I can't see it. Which means that this thing is a part of the existing reality! The fact that I don't see it does not mean that this thing is not there.
On the other hand, if I have no information about the existence of a thing, I can't know that it exists, which means that I can't believe in it! And if I don't believe in something, how can I consider it to be a truth?
You can see the "P" on your keyboard, and you know it exists and therefore you believe that when you hit it a "P" will le be shown on the screen.. and you are going to pronounce it as "[p]". But what you certainly don't know is what this letter means in another alphabet (for example in the Cyrilic, where this letter is pronounced [r]). So, it means that your truth and your belief are NOT valid for someone who knows only the Cyrillic alphabet.
See the point?
"Belief" is NOT the "truth".

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
You can see the "P" on your keyboard, and you know it exists and therefore you believe that when you hit it a "P" will le be shown on the screen.. and you are going to pronounce it as "[p]". But what you certainly don't know is what this letter means in another alphabet (for example in the Cyrilic, where this letter is pronounced [r]). So, it means that your truth and your belief are NOT valid for someone who knows only the Cyrillic alphabet.
See the point?
"Belief" is NOT the "truth".
The meaning of the letter P is irrelevent in the point I was making. In my example my faith was not in the meaning of P, but my faith that if pressed it would show up on my screen.
As for belief not being truth I already spoke of that but I will go further.
You'd have to define truth. I was using the word truth synonymously (sp?) with fact. I did this to avoid further deduction and to keep on track. I had faith ;) that truth was to mean fact in these last few posts.
If that is ot your intention of the word, let me know in truth what truth means to you.

[Nóm]

I think I've said before, but just incase I wasn't clear, I will say it again: Yes Maedhros, I think that it was.

In fact I think it was the major thing which he used.
It in fact (as I see it) enabled men to be in a state of mind whereat he woud more easily decieve them later on too.

I was going to open a new thread for the following but it relates so closely with Maedhros' opening question here that I figured it belongs in this thread.

Here goes:
From Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth Commentary
This is not presented as an argument of any cogency for Men in their present situation (or the one in which they believe themselves to be), though it may have some interest for Men who start with similar beliefs or assumptions to those held by the Elvish king Finrod.
It is in fact simply part of the portrayal of the imaginary
world of the Silmarillion, and an example of the kind of thing that enquiring minds on either side,the Elvish or the Human,
must have said to one another after they became acquainted.
We see here the attempt of a generous Elvish mind to fathom the
relations of Elves and Men, and the part they were designed to play in what he would have called the Oienkarme Eruo (The One's perpetual production),which might be rendered by 'God's management of the Drama'.


The following is a summary of my current interpretation of Finrod's line of thought,(it is based on what I read in the Athrabeth, and greatly based on both The Author's notes and CT's notes)about why men fear death.

Finrod thought that seperating on hroa and fear was unnatural, so he concluded that the separation was not of Iluvatar's design but is rather caused by the marring of Arda by Melkor. He seems to think that the belief of men that they (before the marring) were like the evles in that they never die (leave Arda) can not be the truth since if it were so, it would mean that men and elves were at first the same. He does not think men and elves could have at first been the same since there seems to be no reason that Iluvatar would have introduced them at differnt times had this been so. So Finrod then figures that the belief of men that they were once as elves in that they didn't ever die is based rather on the fact that men fear death because it is separation of fea from hroa. That would mean that men who hadn't been currupted or hadn't "fallen" would (as Finrod reasons) take with them their hroa as the fea leaves the world.

What do you think of his line of thought?
Do you think his conclusion is correct?
What do you think of the tale of Adenel?
Did these things (or some of them) really happen?
If you think none of those things did happen, then you probably think Morgoth caused them to think they had. If not, please tell what you think caused the beliefs. If so, will you share ideas on how, but more importantly why Morgoth set up the false story (story of Ardenel) the way that he did. There are some interesting points in her story, so if it is not true, what caused them.

[Aiwendil2]

Quothe Nom:
What do you think of his line of thought?

That is what I have always made of Finrod's reasoning as well.

Do you think his conclusion is correct?

Well, Finrod is the wisest voice through which Tolkien discusses the question. I also think that, within the context of Tolkien's world and its physical/metaphysical laws, his reasoning is very good. I'd be inclined to say that his conclusion is correct.

What do you think of the tale of Adenel?

If we are to accept the above analysis, we must accept that Andreth's theory concerning the original nature of Men is incorrect. Insofar as her argument is representative of a commonly held belief among Men, we must assume that this belief is also incorrect. This casts serious doubt upon the tale of Adanel, in my opinion. Nonetheless: we also see that there is a grain of truth in Andreth's account (if Finrod's analysis is to be trusted). So it is likely that there is truth too in Adanel's story. It agrees, at any rate, as far as I can see, with Finrod's analysis.

f so, will you share ideas on how, but more importantly why Morgoth set up the false story (story of Ardenel) the way that he did.

I don't think that Adanel's story is necessarily inconsistent with the propositions set forth by Finrod. That is, I don't think there is anything in it that implies that Morgoth was able to change the nature of Men. There is a middle ground between saying that Morgoth was responsible for the change and saying that the whole thing was a lie: the change was made by Iluvatar, as punishment for the fall, which was precipitated by Morgoth. Morgoth's lie is then that he was directly responsible for the change. I think this middle road agrees with Finrod's account as well as with Adanel's story.

People often confuse truth with belief, but to fuction a human must treat certain beliefs as truth.

I disagree. As I press the P on my keyboard, there is no need for me to treat the belief that it will work as truth. You are right in pointing out that the P may not function - even if all the variables you mention were removed, there is the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. You argue that this means that I must make a leap of faith, transforming my belief that the key will work into truth, i.e., a certainty that it will work. I do not think this is correct. There is no reason to suppose that I cannot press the P key, with full knowledge of the relative probabilities that it will function correctly and that it will not - i.e., treating as "true" the probabilities only, not the belief. I can do so because I know that it is probable that the key will work. This is a truth, not a belief, nor a belief transformed into truth.

When a person dwells too much of such things as this they may continue to be disatisfied, and that disatisfaction may even grow.

Not necessarily. I am a devoted admirer of quantum physics, and I frequently think about the fact that none of my actions have deterministic consequences. When I press the P key on my keyboard, I may very well be fully cognizant of the possibility that it will not work. I am not dissatisfied by this. Why? Because the probability of its functioning is so high that I know (don't believe, but know) that it is a worthwhile gamble. The probability of things functioning in the ordinary, expected way is so high that we can act as if they are certainties, even without making any leaps of faith to eliminate the improbabilities.

Quothe Lhunithiliel:
I think, this is the fundamental difference in the two basic trends in philosophy - does something exist if we can't see it?!

There are really two questions here. 1. Does something exist if it is not observed? 2. Can we know that something exists when it is not observed?

The answer to the first question is one to be answered by Quantum Mechanics rather than by philosophy. Of course, it has tremendous philosophical implications and as such it is a philosophical problem - but it cannot be tackled without an understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Unfortunately, right now no one in the world has a sophisticated enough understanding of QM to tackle it.

The answer to the second question is "no". If we are absolute in our analysis, we must conclude that only one thing can be known in the classical sense of the word: cogito, ergo sum. I really should say, I can know only one thing; at this most basic level, truth is individual. I cannot know that you exist, that you perceive, that you think. All that I know is that I exist, and the only proof of this is my own consciousness. Even direct observation cannot generate absolute knowledge, because first of all our senses are fallible and second it is possible that the perception of an object is a random quantum event. We can be even less sure when the object in question is not being directly observed. Of course, the probabilities here are again incredibly high. They are so incredibly high that we can act as if we know that things exist.

[Nóm]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Aiwendil, I do amire your thinking.

It is truth that pressing the P key will probably put a P on the screen, but I view a person as acting on belief that it will work when they do this. I agree with what you say in that we don't make this belief into a truth though. What I should have said is that we treat it as we would treat a truth. But who knows, maybe that isn't exactly true either.
I don't think anything in the future will happen in truth. But I behave in life as I probably would if I knew things were truth, because I am not constantly thinking about the fact (as I see it) that these things are not true.

Though I did say that dissatisfaction might result, so when you say "Not necessarily" do mean that "dissatisfaction will never result from such a thing". Or, that it is not necessarily true that it might.

There is a middle ground between saying that Morgoth was responsible for the change and saying that the whole thing was a lie: the change was made by Iluvatar, as punishment for the fall, which was precipitated by Morgoth.
After reading the conversation between Finrod and Andreth I was not convinced that men had changed, but after reading notes and commentary I'm leaning in the direction that the nature of men was changed. This is mostly because I at first didn't understand how Finrod concluded that the seperating of hroa and fea is unnatural.

I Agree that there is middle-ground. If it was changed then it makes sense to me that the tale of Adanel is true, I mean that the events in it did happen, or something much like them did happen. I don't see why else Iluvatar would have changed their nature.

Those who agree with Finrod's reasoning:
Do you think it is true that men as they first were, or who hadn't been touched by the this change, would infact take their body with them when they leave the world?
Also, this reminds me of Beren and Luthien. Could it be that them being the only (as far as I know) to be rehoused as mortals means that perhaps they were as men unfallen?
If so, maybe that is why no one saw them leave the world, or knows where the bodies lay. Maybe the bodies did leave the world?

[Aiwendil2]

What I should have said is that we treat it as we would treat a truth.

Okay, I agree with this. "Belief" in this sense means an approximation, not actually taken to be the truth. My only hesitancy was that you equated this with "faith", a word often used in quite another sense: belief that a thing is the single and absolute truth.

[Maedhros]

Okay, I agree with this. "Belief" in this sense means an approximation, not actually taken to be the truth. My only hesitancy was that you equated this with "faith", a word often used in quite another sense: belief that a thing is the single and absolute truth.
Aiwendil, I have stated that this was a "belief" that men had. It does not have to be true for it to be a belief.
As you know already, this "belief" would contradict with the conception of the Ainulindalë, that Men already had their gifts before the creation of the world.
Yet, in all beliefs, there is a "flicker" of truth, and in this case I believe that there was a "diminishment" of the life span of men; I'm not saying that they were immortal, but just that their lifespan was greater.

[Grond]

In my reading of the tale, it was apparent that Andreth's belief of the "corruption of Man by Morgoth" was based on "faith." And here is my 'P' key analogy. Pressing the 'P' key will normally produce the 'P' character on the screen. My belief that God will see the 'P', as well as anything else I type, is based on faith. Faith assigns a certainty to something that is unproveable. The beliefs forwarded by Andreth have no certainty in history as too many generations have passed for a certain conclusion to be reached. That doesn't mean that there was not a historical basis for those beliefs; and, over time, the causes of those beliefs have proliferated because of a need on Man's part to justify his deficiency. (His deficiency being that Man sees himself as something "less than Quendi because of his mortality".) Death is deemed a gift only by those who don't have to face it. :)

And that last little statement gives me a new sig too. :)

[Nóm]

By Maedhros
Aiwendil, I have stated that this was a "belief" that men had. It does not have to be true for it to be a belief. As you know already, this "belief" would contradict with the conception of the Ainulindalë, that Men already had their gifts before the creation of the world.

Although you address Aiwendil here I have to give my opinion on this statement because I also am inclined to believe that Finrod's conclusion was correct. I also agree with his reasoning.
Finrod did not believe that men were ever immortal in the way that elves are. He thinks that they are mistaken about that point, and came up with that idea out of fear of death.
Men would still have always had the gift of death, by Finrod's reasoning, as I see it. That being if: death = leaving Arda, and not: death = seperation of fea from hroa.
If this definiton of death is correct, then the idea that men were changed does not seem to contradict what the Ainulindale says of the gift of death.


Grond, what part do you think Melkor played in those beliefs? Did he play a part in those events of Adenel's tale or did he just cause a false belief that the events of that tale happend at all?

[Grond]

Nom, I can't answer your question. In the world of Middle-earth we are dealing with conundrums on the grandest scale.

First, do we assume that the Silmarillion is a factual document and that the Valar physically exist in real time on the real world of Middle-earth? If we accept the Valar and Eru are real, both were horrendously negligent in not revealing themselves to Man. If Melkor really existed within the realm of Arda and actually revealed himself to Man in all his grandeur and glory, what was man to do? Absent proof that there is an absolute good, what was Man to do but worship whatever absolute and proveable diety that presented itself. How can Man have fallen if he wasn't given an alternative? Andreth is actually claiming that Man was being punished, not for failing to worship Eru but for worshiping Melkor. And how could they be faulted with worshiping Melkor when they were offerred no other alternatives?

Your question, Nom, only leads to further questions.

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Grond
And how could they be faulted with worshiping Melkor when they were offerred no other alternatives?

Well do you think this voice they heard in the beginning was Eru's? One might say that to have listened and obeyed that voice was an alternative. Though, it seems to be that by nature they were only doomed not to listen to it.
I would also say the same about Feanor's rebellion. He had the alternative to stay in Aman and trust to the Valar but he couldn't do it because Melkor had caused distust in him.
Originally posted by Grond
Your question, Nom, only leads to further questions.
Most questions can and many will :D
I was just interested in hearing other people's ideas about this. :)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Nóm
Well do you think this voice they heard in the beginning was Eru's? One might say that to have listened and obeyed that voice was an alternative. Though, it seems to be that by nature they were only doomed not to listen to it.
I would also say the same about Feanor's rebellion. He had the alternative to stay in Aman and trust to the Valar but he couldn't do it because Melkor had caused distust in him.

Most questions can and many will :D
I was just interested in hearing other people's ideas about this. :) How was Man to know where the first voice ended and where the second voice began? Orome, representing the Valar, appeared before the Quendi, gained their trust and befriended them. Eventually, he led them to Aman. Man deserved some of the same treatment but didn't get it. :)

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Grond
How was Man to know where the first voice ended and where the second voice began? Orome, representing the Valar, appeared before the Quendi, gained their trust and befriended them. Eventually, he led them to Aman. Man deserved some of the same treatment but didn't get it. :)
Likewise, how was Feanor to know that the Valar could be trusted? It seemed to him that they could not be. :D
I don't know what men deserved, but what they got, as I see it, was up to Eru and I guess he had his reasons.
Also, keep in mind that some elves were lost to Melkor before Orome arrived, and that some elves feared him (because Melkor) and fled before they could be offered saviour.

[Maedhros]

If this definiton of death is correct, then the idea that men were changed does not seem to contradict what the Ainulindale says of the gift of death.
From the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth:
Now the Eldar learned that, according to the lore of the Edain, Men believed that their hröar were not by right nature short-lived, but had been made so by the malice of Melkor. It was not clear to the Eldar whether Men meant: by the general marring of Arda (which they themselves held to be the cause of the waning of their own hröar); or by some special malice against Men as Men that was achieved in the dark ages before the Edain and the Eldar met in Beleriand; or by both. But to the Eldar it seemed that, if the mortality of Men had come by special malice, the nature of Men had been grievously changed from the first design of Eru; and this was a matter of wonder and dread to them, for, if it were indeed so, then the power of Melkor must be (or have been in the beginning) far greater than even the Eldar had understood; whereas the original nature of Men must have been strange indeed and unlike that of any others of the dwellers in Arda.
Yes it is. It was what men believed, not what the Eldar did.

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Maedhros
From the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth:
[QUOTE REMOVED]
Yes it is. It was what men believed, not what the Eldar did.
I am not sure that I take your point Maedhros.
I am guessing that your point is that what the Eldar believed has nothing to do with your question in this thread. If so, I agree.
Though the last several posts by me delt with different, but related questions.
If I have missed the point of your last post, then please let me know what the point is.
If it is that my idea about how the changing of men does not contradict the Ainulindale please explain.

[Maedhros]

The idea of the thread was to see the Belief of Men in the Athrabeth. The exiled Ñoldor had dealings with the Valar, so their knowledge was definitely more accurate. Unfortunately, Men had no such sources of knowledge.
Some of the Edain (I don't know if all), believed that Melkor had changed their nature to make them mortal. Of course Finrod, being an exiled Ñoldor knew otherwise, but it doesn't change the fact that men belived otherwise.
If what Men believed proved to be true, then it would be against the Ainulindalë.
Regardless of the fact that it wasn't true, it was their belief nonetheless.

[Nóm]

[EDITTED]

Now if you read back to my post on 11/13 you will see that I had some doubt as to if I should start a new thread or continue in this one which had been static for some time.
I'll ask Grond or someone to divide this thread.
The new thread should start with my post on 11/13 and I think both threads should contain Aiwendil's reply since he/she responded both to my new questions and to a post that was here before the new questions. I think everything thereafter can go to the new thead.

[Grond]

As far as I'm concerned this thread is moving along quite nicely and I am trying to address all issues that have been brought. Request for a new thread is denied. :)
Originally posted by Nóm
Likewise, how was Feanor to know that the Valar could be trusted? It seemed to him that they could not be. :D
I don't know what men deserved, but what they got, as I see it, was up to Eru and I guess he had his reasons.
Also, keep in mind that some elves were lost to Melkor before Orome arrived, and that some elves feared him (because Melkor) and fled before they could be offered saviour. Nom, you're attempting to compare apples and oranges on multiple levels.

First, Feanor's impatience and pride is what made him act the way he did. And his fate in no way enters into this earlier "Curse" we are speaking of here.

Secondly, some Elves were lost before the Valar found them; but, the Valar did find the Quendi and offer them the protection of Valinor. The choice was then theirs to make. Man was never offerred such a choice.

Finally, Eru had his reasons for what? Abandoning Man? My whole point here is that the story of Andreth must have a bais in fact. Something happened in Man's early history that caused this mythology to be created and something happened to instill this belief to be remembered. Why are we to believe the Ainulindale as being unreproachable?

I am not one who looks upon the Ainulindale as sacrosanct, Middle-earth lore. Why? Because it was supposed to have been written by Elves and is seen through the eyes of Elves. Who is to say that they see with perfect clarity? There is no doubt that Andreth believes (as do the Wise-folk among her people) that Melkor ensnared and corrupted Man in their earliest beginnings. There is no doubt, given Melkor's nature, that he did exactly that. Melkor corrupted Man and influenced him to evil. Is it any real stretch that Man (having escaped Melkor's yoke) would blame Melkor for the single thing that they most dread (Death)??? I think not. Is it any real stretch that Man would assign blame to Eru, who they perceived had abandoned them? I think not.

What Andreth makes all the sense in the world, if you look at it through her eyes, the eyes of Mortal Men. :)

[Aiwendil2]

Aiwendil, I have stated that this was a "belief" that men had. It does not have to be true for it to be a belief.


I know this is going back a bit in the thread, but the in the bit to which you were here responding, I was not talking at all about the Athrabeth, or about Tolkien. There had been some epistomological/philosophical questions about belief and truth; I don't think that these questions have any bearing on the matter of the Athrabeth. It is irrelevant whether the belief of Men was taken as absolute truth or whether it was simply thought to be the most likely situation.

Of course Finrod, being an exiled Ñoldor knew otherwise, but it doesn't change the fact that men belived otherwise.
If what Men believed proved to be true, then it would be against the Ainulindalë.
Regardless of the fact that it wasn't true, it was their belief nonetheless.

Exactly true. The belief of Men, as formulated by Andreth, is clearly in contradiction with the Ainulindale. The revision of this belief made by Finrod appears to agree with the Ainulindale.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Aiwendil
...Exactly true. The belief of Men, as formulated by Andreth, is clearly in contradiction with the Ainulindale. The revision of this belief made by Finrod appears to agree with the Ainulindale.A question. Are we to assume absolutely that the account of the Ainulindale by the Eldar is truth and the beliefs of Andreth are not? I'm just wanting a clarification.

Because, in my book... who's to say that the Ainulindale isn't a made up book by the Elves to explain their immortality? *grins devlishly*

[Aiwendil2]

A question. Are we to assume absolutely that the account of the Ainulindale by the Eldar is truth and the beliefs of Andreth are not? I'm just wanting a clarification.

Because, in my book... who's to say that the Ainulindale isn't a made up book by the Elves to explain their immortality? *grins devlishly*

Well . . . if we're interested in the truth of the matter, the Ainulindale is simply a text made up by J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, what you're asking is: within the world created by Tolkien, could the Ainulindale be slightly fictitious, or at least biased? There's a danger in trying to pick apart different layers of reality and subreality, though. How do we define "the world created by Tolkien" (that is, the "true" story)? It obviously doesn't have any physical existence. The obvious answer, then, is that the world created by Tolkien is that defined by the various texts we have. In that case, the Ainulindale must be true, because that is what Tolkien wrote.

There is a problem with this view, though. Even setting aside the massive difficulty of the evolution of the mythology and the ambiguity of the "canon", we have certain contradictory bits. For instance, Andreth believes one thing and the Ainulindale insists upon another. The Lord of the Rings tells us that Gollum fell into Mount Doom with the Ring, but "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" says that Frodo cast it in. Perhaps most significant of all, Tolkien purports that the various documents are actual texts written by characters within the story, not by an omniscient narrator. Thus the Ainulindale is by Rumil, The Lord of the Rings is from the Red Book of Westmarch, etc. This almost necessitates thatthe accounts reflect the biases of their narrators. The only solution seems to be to invent an even more fictitious Arda - not one that physically exists (because it doesn't), and not one that is defined by any text (because the texts are biased and, to some extent, wrong). If you really want to increase the complexity of the multi-layered tradition, you can try to analyze the "Drowning of Anadune" myths from HoMe IX in this way, adding the fact that according to some notes in X, the whole Silmarillion is a Numenorean myth ignorant of certain astronomical truths (like the spherical nature of the earth).

Venture too far down that path and soon there is no Arda any longer (at least none that we can know anything about), just a plethora of diverse and incorrect accounts of it. Of course, it seems like something of a cheat to simply ignore the whole problem. In my opinion, the best solution is to accept the bulk of the corpus as somehow "true" (whatever that may mean).

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Aiwendil2
Venture too far down that path and soon there is no Arda any longer (at least none that we can know anything about), just a plethora of diverse and incorrect accounts of it. Of course, it seems like something of a cheat to simply ignore the whole problem. In my opinion, the best solution is to accept the bulk of the corpus as somehow "true" (whatever that may mean).
This is similar to the part of the point I made about our own world earlier in the thread, and digging too deeply, and dwelling on the fact that things we trust in (such as the P key :D) are not truth.
Of course there is a major difference between our world and Ea. As far as I see that is only that we know our world in the physical way through our senses. We can study our world in a manner that we can not study Arda (as far as I know). Aiwendil, being into Quantum physics (Not that I really know what that is ;)) you may understand better than I do just how big this difference is, and the different ways that Ea is studied vs. our own universe, and what exactly that means. Though Ea is a part of our Universe if we ourselves are, as I see it.
The physical exists no matter ;) what we think of it or how we look at it, it makes sense to me that like Ea, as Aiwendil says "at least none that we can know anything about" would be true of our universe, if someone chose to be aware that things are not truth, and ends up questioning everything too much. Though tomorrow, (as far as I know) the scientific laws of today may be dispoven (or thought to be).
Though everything I just said is what I believe to date, I do not take it as fact. But because I believe those things, I understand the need to take much of Tolkien's writings as the truth of Ea.

[Ancalagon]

I discussed this at some length with Maedhros yesterday evening, anyone who wishes to add to, or comment on our thoughts is more than welcome; Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth - An Impromptu Discussion (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7387).

Setting aside what is and is not 'canon' for a moment, I think it is essential that each of the parts of the jigsaw be considered equal in the authors mind. Although various parts may have been rewritten, rehashed or removed, the themes therein still reveal a great deal of the authors thoughts on the subject.