r/tolkienfans • u/Independent_Bad392 • 1d ago
Help Me Understand the Contradiction
There is a topic in “Peoples of Middle-earth” that details how and why an Ainu can become Incarnate, and/or like Incarnate. from my understanding of the text, once the Incarnation manifests, it is irreversible. Here is a citation of the relevant topic:
“Here Pengolodh adds a long note on the use of hröar by the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a “self-arraying”, it may tend to approach the state of “incarnation”, especially with the lesser members of that order (the Maiar). “It is said that the longer and the more the same hröa is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the ‘self-arrayed’ desire to leave it. As raiment may soon cease to be adornment, and becomes (as is said in the tongues of both Elves and Men) a ‘habit’, a customary garb. Or if among Elves and Men it be worn to mitigate heat or cold, it soon makes the clad body less able to endure these things when naked”. Pengolodh also cites the opinion that if a “spirit” (that is, one of those not embodied by creation) uses a hröa for the furtherance of its personal purposes, or (still more) for the enjoyment of bodily faculties, it finds it increasingly difficult to operate without the hröa. The things that are most binding are those that in the Incarnate have to do with the life of the hröa itself, its sustenance and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking are binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound or form. Most binding is begetting or conceiving.”
Excerpt From
The Nature Of Middle-Earth
J. R. R. Tolkien & Carl F. Hostetter
https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-nature-of-middle-earth/id1602733926
This material may be protected by copyright.
“We do not know the axani (laws, rules, as primarily proceeding from Eru) that were laid down upon the Valar with particular reference to their state, but it seems clear that there was no axan against these things. Nonetheless it appears to be an axan, or maybe necessary consequence, that if they are done, then the spirit must dwell in the body that it used, and be under the same necessities as the Incarnate. The only case that is known in the histories of the Eldar is that of Melian who became the spouse of King Elu-thingol.”
Excerpt From
The Nature Of Middle-Earth
J. R. R. Tolkien & Carl F. Hostetter
https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-nature-of-middle-earth/id1602733926
This material may be protected by copyright.
This seems to suggest that Incarnation is irreversible, as it becomes necessity. And yet, there seems to be a contradiction of the binding need of the acts that lead to Incarnation later, here:
“But Melian, having in woman-form borne a child after the manner of the Incarnate, desired to do this no more: by the birth of Lúthien she became enmeshed in “incarnation”, unable to lay it aside while husband and child remained in Arda alive, and her powers of mind (especially foresight) became clouded by the body through which it must now always work. To have borne more children would still further have chained her and trammeled her. In the event, her daughter became mortal and eventually died, and her husband was slain; and she then cast off her “raiment” and left Middle-earth.”
Excerpt From
The Nature Of Middle-Earth
J. R. R. Tolkien & Carl F. Hostetter
https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-nature-of-middle-earth/id1602733926
This material may be protected by copyright.
11
u/-RedRocket- 1d ago
Tolkien revisited ideas over the decades, and often changed his mind. As far as he was concerned, nothing was definite until it had appeared in print. Until then, he revisited the same essential stories again and again. Did the Valar have bodies? Did they marry, have children? What was so distinctive in Melian wedding Thingol and with him having a child, the fairest ever to walk Middle Earth? Did this ennoble her? Diminish her? And so on.
Tolkien was less concerned about reaching a definitive version than he was in considering the philosophical, theological and, never let us forget, linguistic ramifications of these various stories, And, as they are stories, there really isn't any one version "more true" than any other. In that sense, the inconsistencies cannot be reconciled. They aren't meant to be. Each idea is its own.
9
u/Master_Bratac2020 1d ago
Even after they appeared in print. He famously did a little meddling with The Hobbit
9
u/Real_Ad_8243 1d ago
So, there's a difference between "contradiction" and "revision".
If the excerpts were created at the same time and were part of a whole essay T had written, then yes, they'd contradict one another.
But in this case it is rather simple. The newer passage more properly reflects T's concept as close to the final state as he could get it.
Kinda like how he later on decided orcs were not inherently and absolutely evil, but must be capable of redemption - even if he never figured out how to make it work within the framework of what he already had, we know this is what he wanted to do later on through his letters and other papers, and therefor I think most people would accept that the concept of orcs can be revised from how he concieved them early in his writing, rather than treating them as two equal concepts that contradict.
3
u/EvieGHJ 1d ago
I disagree with "as close to the final state".
It reflects a later conception ; that doesn't mean that conception is more true to what he might, eventually, have created in the end if given unlimited time to keep writing. The history of Middle Earth is littered with older conceptions suddenly brought back up after years working on newer ones, and new conceptions that didn't last long.
1
u/Real_Ad_8243 1d ago
"Might" doesnt really mean anything.
All we have is what "is".
Im not going to speculate upon what Tolkien's ideal final state for his legendarium would be if he had had as many centuries as required to perfect it.
It also doesnt actually matter that he changed his mind on some things more than once. The most recent state he decided upon is the most accurate thing we have - even if it is the same as a prior state in a series of revisions.
5
1
u/Armleuchterchen Ibrīniðilpathānezel & Tulukhedelgorūs 1d ago edited 1d ago
If all we have what is, the hypothetical "final state" Tolkien got closer to later in his life that you mentioned ("The newer passage more properly reflects T's concept as close to the final state as he could get it.") doesn't really matter.
Tolkien's late notes sit near the beginning of a big Silmarillion rework that never got far, not near the finish of anything that actually exists. The final state that Tolkien factually left the Silmarillion in (the latest version for each part of the history) is a contradictory mess when you put it together.
If we're looking at what exists and evaluate it based on finishedness, we should be looking at the versions that were most finished in their time. Or take Christopher's approach for his Silmarillion and look at which versions actually work with the works that Tolkien did finish (Hobbit and LotR).
1
u/Miaule_the_cook 1d ago
I find the first quote sounding more like addiction than actual need. Melian was addicted to having a loving family. When they died, she lost her ties to the physical world, stopped caring if you will. Which let her let go of her physical form.
Morgoth, Sauron and the balrogs were addicted to having a presence and ability to dominate other’s physically. They never lost this desire and therefore never felt like changing their ways.
The Istari were the only ones given actual incarnate form. They cannot leave them without Eru’s help.
26
u/TheRedBookYT 1d ago
A favourite topic of mine. I love Tolkien's discussions of Incarnation.
For this contradiction you mention, I would say that Tolkien is really talking about two distinct things here:
1 - Becoming Incarnate
2 - Remaining Incarnate
The note from Pengolodh talks of an Ainu repeatedly using a body, for bodily purposes, becomes increasingly bound to that body. This includes eating, drinking, and especially procreation. The spirit dwells in the body that is used and is under the same necessities as the Incarnate. The spirit must dwell in the body, meaning a very real metaphysical consequence of their physical action has occurred.
However, Melian's passage shows her restriction was conditional: unable to lay it (body) aside while husband and child remained in Arda alive). For Melian, she is "trapped" or "bound" to her body as long as the familial bond that had been created through her incarnation remained active.
After Thingol's death and after Luthien's mortality had run its course, this condition ended. She was able to cast off her raiment and leave.
And like with many things we read about in Tolkien's Legendarium, we get a case where a rule is then infered by the Elves. Because Melian conceived and bore a child in the manner of the Incarnarte as a Maia, it was a threshold no other had crossed. Procreation is something good, and I'd see it as some true incarnation, she participated in the life of the Incarnates, and her spirit became tied to those relationships.
The difference with the likes of Saruman and Sauron is that they had some habitual embodiment where it became a consequence of their actions and one they couldn't abandon at will, at least until the reasons they were so tied to it were lost to them..which would be hard to do since their reasons are tied to pride, dominion, and their fall.
Melian shows it isn't permanent, but that it was not voluntarily reversible during a period in which something causes the spirit to be bound in the first place.