What Angelology Reveals About Tolkien's Ainulindalë and Valaquenta

            After reading the Ainulindalë and Valaquenta and hearing the discussion from class, I knew at once I had to brush up on a certain subject, given both the nature/descriptions of the Ainur, Valar, and Maiar as well as the importance of singing in the Ainulindalë. That is, I had to look up angelology and the hierarchy of the choirs of angels according Catholic tradition:

Here they are, in all their magnificence (note, the pictures themselves are not from tradition, but rather from the greatest video game of all time, Persona 4). Now, how exactly does the angelic hierarchy of choirs work? Well, according to tradition, the angelic hosts are divided into three levels, or spheres. In the first sphere one has the angels closest to God, the seraphim, the cherubim, and the thrones. To them are bestowed the most knowledge of the plans of God. Then there is the second sphere, in which are contained dominions, virtues, and powers. To the virtues are given the power to control the seasons, stars, moon, and nature as a whole. Finally, in the third sphere are the archangels, principalities, and angels. These may interact with humans and contest with the servants of Satan.

            In relation to Tolkien’s stories, it can be plainly seen how ingenious he weaves certain elements of angelology into his narrative. The Ainur who choose to remain with Iluvatar “beyond the confines of the world” can be likened to the first sphere of angelic hosts. If this is the case, then the Valar can be compared to the second sphere. This makes sense, as they are referred to as the Powers of the World (a bit on the nose with the choirs of Powers) and, like the virtues, are given domain over certain aspects of nature (e.g., wind, water, hunting, etc.). Finally, the servants of the Valar, the Maiar, can be seen as the third sphere. Case in point, not only can Gandalf (a Maiar) regularly interact with the races of Middle Earth, but he also contends with the servants of Melkor and his follower Sauron (e.g., the Balrog in Moria). Now, I am sure countless people have made this connection before, but it is still a fascinating comparison nonetheless!

The Silmarillion: “Ainulindalë” and “Valaquenta,” Creation Story

One thing I found incredibly intriguing about Tolkien’s Creation Story for Middle-Earth is how he chose to have a pantheon of Gods—who each sing a different part, and each of these parts of their symphony creates each part of the world—rather than a one true God, like he might have if he had followed his own religious views when writing his creation story. I find it very interesting that he decided on a multi-god model, just like the pantheon’s he’d have studied in school, instead of a one-god one, and I wonder why he made this choice.  

Perhaps he might have thought or seen it as blasphemous to model his invented creation story after his religious beliefs. It would probably be much easier to model it off something viewed as literature, like the ones with a pantheon of gods. This thought is extremely fascinating to me, as Tolkien’s creation story is so well written that I could see it being placed alongside the creation stories of ancient religions and being read the same way. It comes off as a religion worshipped, at one time, just as much as any of those I’ve studied that really were. 

An interesting question posed about the creation story in our discussion was why Tolkien created fourteen gods and divided these into equal portions male and female. One thing that came to mind, when further pondering this question afterwards and our discussion about this sense and need for balance, is how each pair of male and female of this set of gods, for the most part, are stated to be married to each other, bringing an even further sense of harmony and balance by having them tied together. Then Tolkien sort of shatters this equilibrium by going on to have nine gods that are the most powerful and revered; restoring this slightly by remarking one’s no longer a part of their group, so there are eight. This disparity in the equality might be a hint at a reason for disquiet in the world, that balance must be obtained for there to be peace.   

Beowolf Freewrite (Tolkien and His Take on Dragons)

“Beowolf’s dragon, if one wishes to criticize, is not to be blamed for being a dragon,, but rather for not being dragon enough, plain pure fairy-story dragon. There are in this poem some vivid touches of the right kind- as pa se wyrm onwoc, wroht wæs geniwad: stonc æfter stane, 2285 – in which this dragon is real worm, with a bestial life and thought of his own but the conception, none the less, approaches draconitas rather than draco: a personification of malice, greed, destruction (the evil side of heroic life), and of the undiscriminating cruelty of fortune that distinguishes not good or bad (the evil aspect of all life)." 
- Beowolf: The Monsters and the Critics, pg. 17

This description of Beowolf’s dragon seemed to me to reflect what Tolkien believes is the right kind of dragon in a story by pointing out the less effective use of a dragon in Beowolf. He says that Beowolf’s dragon is more draconitas than actual draco, being a personification of the evil side of heroic life and the evil aspect of all life (the “undiscriminating cruelty of fortune…”). This made me think of how his thoughts on Beowolf’s dragon must have influenced the way he wrote Smaug in The Hobbit. In his story, Smaug is a wicked and cruel, but intelligent creature with the characteristics that Tolkien stated the Beowolf dragon could have had more of: “bestiality of life and thought of his own.” It seems to me that though Smaug is most definitely a good example of a dragon as a malicious creature, but Tolkien does create a character in his story that represents the evil side of heroic life-Smaug’s hoarding of the treasure in the Lonely Mountain is not unlike Thorin’s later attitude towards the treasure and the Arkenstone after the desolation of the dragon. Smaug is indeed representative of the power of fortune and riches that attract both evil forces (like the goblins) and “good” or not inherently evil ones (like the wood-elves and the men of Lake-town). I think Tolkien finds a good balance of symbolism and fairy-tale monster in his creation of Smaug.

Addition to free-write: I was initially confused by Tolkien referring to dragons as “worms” but after the art report on “Glorund Sets Forth”, it makes more sense as Tolkien had more non-traditional beliefs/depictions of dragons' physical appearance, such as Glorund. 

Beowulf Freewrite

"it is to idols that men turned(and turn) for quick and literal answers"(44)

It is with this sentence that Tolkien decides to conclude his essay.  Although at first glace it seems like a somewhat weak ending to such a critical essay.  However, I think that it actually does an excellent job of 'summing up' this very dense essay.  The majority of criticisms Tolkien makes about the critics of Beowulf is their tendency to focus on the wrong things and/or focus on things that are not there.  Whether it be the structure, the language , the lack of progression, theme of religion references.  This is not, as Tolkien explains, a fair judgement to make  on a work that was not written to appease to these "necessary" requirements of a historical text.  It makes perfect sense that people who study these medieval texts can easily get to a point that the idolize the past and all things that remain from it.  Therefore, they treat the story of Beowulf as an 'idol' what surely must be a source of critical information.  However, when they do not find these "quick and literal answers", the text must therefore be inadequate because it does not live up to the standard of other idolized historical texts.  Therefore, Beowulf becomes unfairly judged by what it is not, instead of enjoyed for what it is and nothing more.

Beowulf Freewrite

"For it is now to us itself ancient; and yet its maker was telling of things already old and weighted with regret, and he expended his art in making keen that touch upon the heart which sorrows have that are both poignant and remote" (pg. 33)

I think Tolkien really enjoyed "old" or "ancient" things because he always writes as though the events of the story have already occurred. In The Lord of the Rings, the book we know as the Hobbit is referred to as the "red book" which Bilbo wrote of his adventure to the Mountain and back. It is also mentioned that Frodo was to keep a record (mentally) of his adventure to tell Bilbo when he got back so it could be recorded. Also, when Bilbo and Frodo leave for the Grey Havens Frodo makes it Sam's responsibility to finish the record. To me, it seems that Tolkien was a fan of record-keeping and I wonder if he had a journal or diary. In "Farmer Giles of Ham" Tolkien, as the narrator, takes on the role of editor and translator of a very old legend. It seems that his experience in studying medieval literature really influenced the way he approached his stories.

Destiny and Free Will

           On the question of destiny and free will in The Hobbit, Tolkien appears to follow the general idea of these concepts in previous works such as Oedipus Rex or in Christian theology: that of destiny given free will. That is, fate and free will are not mutual exclusive; instead, the free will of individuals can lead to different paths that ultimately lead to the conclusion of destiny. The destination is (somewhat) certain, but the journey is not at all written.

            One big example of this is when, despite Gandalf's constant warnings, the dwarves and Bilbo stray off the path. This leads to a chain of events that lead to the barrel travel to Lake Town. Now, the party had free will to stray off or on the path, and according to even the wise (Gandalf and Beorn) had supposed staying on the path was right and straying certain demise. However, events showed the river was the only path remaining to them to take, which meant that destiny lead them to the right destination, despite free will's straying from the path.

            However, other events show that destiny does not cheapen one's free will. As evidenced by Bard, destiny is nothing without free will. For example, in The Hobbit, it is noted during the attack of Smaug that: "But there was still a company of archers that held their ground among the burning houses. Their captain was Bard...." (228). Yes, without the seemingly coincidental message from the thrush Bard would probably not have defeated the dragon. However, it was within Bard's free will to stay and fight or retreat. That is the strength of free will within fate. Even if the thrush had not told him, even if the dwarves had not even come woken up the dragon, if Bard was confronted with a situation that required defending his home to the bitter end he would choose to defend it of his own free will.

            Finally, there is Thorin. Even in the narrative Tolkien notes that, "Some began to sing snatches of old songs concerning the return of the King under the Mountain; that it was Thror's grandson not Thror himself that had come back did not bother them at all" (182). If it was not for the free will of Thorin and his choice of giving in to his greed, he would indeed have become King under the Mountain for a long time. Instead, it is Dain who ultimately ends up the one returning the mountain to its full glory. Destiny is certainly not as clear cut as some would make it, and it is ultimately free will within the path towards destiny's end that fills in the gaps of the story.

Beowulf free write

“But I have read enough, I think, to venture the opinion that Beowulfiana is, while rich in many departments, especially poor in one. It is poor in criticism, criticism that is directed to the understanding of a poem as a poem.”

This quote is at the heart of what Tolkien wants to convey with this lecture. There is no doubt that Beowulf has been studied tirelessly by historians and professors of literature and linguistics. And Tolkien later goes on to somewhat validity the historians' effort as noble and necessary. However, Tolkien highlights the fact that up until now, this poem has been solely used to study northern Germanic themes and history. This may be because it is one of the only stories that we have that date back this far. Tolkien later goes on to talk about the poet's intentions when writing this poem. He claims that this poem was written by a christian on the cusp of a society denouncing the pagan lifestyle. Therefore it is a poem written about the past. The poet's intentions were to make the poem sound like a eulogy, and make it sound historic. Although the poet succeeded in doing so, this is possibly why so many scholars study Beowulf as a historic text and not a poem of the literature category. The author of the poem succeeded in what they wanted to do. 

I found this essay interesting because Tolkien really goes after the critics that break down Beowulf into microscopic pieces in order to analyse them. It reminds me of a quote from Lord of the Rings: 

White!' he sneered. 'It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.'

In which case it is no longer white,' said I. 'And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.' - Gandalf”

Beowulf Freewrite

When reading this very dense article, there was a lot that really stands out in regards to Tolkien and his works. I have left the page number out, purposely.

“Nearly all the censure, and most of the praise, that has been bestowed upon The Beowulf has been due either to the belief that it was something that it was not. ”

This was something that really stuck out to me, mainly because this can relate to Bilbo Beggins in The Hobbit. Bilbo seemed like an ordinary Hobbit to his friends and all the people he met along the way, but by the end of it, he really showed a different, and better side of himself. Also, you can relate this to how Tolkien intended his book to be for children, but was it really? The way this story truly plays out is how characters become a character they never intended to be and it always took people by surprise. However, the praise for Tolkien’s novel, The Hobbit, was believed to be what it was,  it the characters ended up being what they weren’t, especially with his dense character development for specific characters in his book. Beowulf was looked more differently to Tolkien than anyone else because he saw a true meaning behind it than just the hero’s, and I think that’s where Bilbo really fits into this. He seems normal and kind of a weird fit in with all of these people, but once acknowledged for all of his things, it really becomes evident that he was something other people had originally thought he was not. By comparing the poem and Bilbo would really have no use to this, but it just shows how Tolkien took his works and really brought out the true meaning of Beowulf and the significant of the seemingly insignificant.

Exercise for Chapter 17 (The Hobbit)

Erika's work for last week's exercise on The Hobbit, Chapter 17


A. List examples
a. Bilbo and Thorin’s relationship (297)
b. Thorin becoming more greedy (297)
c. Bilbo becoming braver (297)
d. Bilbo dishonored Thorin by stealing the Arkenstone and giving it to Bard (297)
e. Thorin is dishonoring the people of Laketown by not giving them their fair share of the treasure in Erebor
f. The relationship between the dwarves, men, and elves change when the goblins and wargs come to attack them (303)
g. Ravens (significance of the insignificant)

B. In this chapter it opens up with Thorin and Bard talking and Thorin is being quite stubborn and harsh as usual we then see an important moment in Bilbo’s character development when Thorin asks how Bard got the Arkenstone and Bilbo speaks up ad says he took it(297). Bilbo in the beginning of The Hobbit was very much against being considered a thief and he is not the bravest character in the beginning either considering his reluctance to initially join the dwarves and Gandalf. After Bilbo reveals that he is the one who “stole” the Arkenstone we see Thorin completely go ballistic on him all because Thorin has become consumed with greed and a need for the Arkenstone(297). This si another example of a character who does have some personal transformation because Thorin isn’t necessarily a greedy character in the beginning but when they arrived in Erebor that all completely changed and he became consumed. However, there is a change in the negative relationships between the dwarves, elves, and men when the Goblins and Wargs show up to fight. This causes the Dwarves, elves, and men to band together and become one army to defeat a common enemy.

In-Class Exercise: The Hobbit, Chapters 10-19

One major theme of The Hobbit, and seemingly Tolkien's works in general, is the significance of the seemingly insignificant. In this section of The Hobbit, one quote that, to me, really conceptualizes this idea is, "While there's life there's hope" (Tolkien 254). Bilbo, a hobbit that desperately desired to return to his comfy, warm home in the Shire, is attempting to provide hope to his dwarf companions during their dangerous quest. This change of character, especially from Bilbo, is significant because it provides the dwarves with the motivation and endurance to move forward. This seemingly "insignificant" creature, as he is initially portrayed, and his words of encouragement are hugely important with regard to the outcome of Tolkien's The Hobbit. This moment establishes the idea that anyone can truly make a difference, no matter how small.

Fate, Destiny, and Free Will

In The Hobbit I believe that fate and destiny are connected because to me they are virtually the same thing. The difference between the two I would say is that fate to me is more so how you die and is something that is discovered at the end of your life and destiny is your life's purpose. I also believe that characters are perceived to have free will but they really don't, it's just them subconsciously following their fate/destiny. For instance when Bilbo decided at the last second to join the company on their quest to Erebor that wasn't free will that was just his subconscious pushing him towards his destiny of becoming the owner of the One Ring and his fate of him passing the ring to Frodo and living a longer life than the average Hobbit. To me all three of these things are connected because the illusion of free will leads to your destiny and your destiny eventually leads to your fate.

Foils of Bilbo

Hello all,

Many times recently it has been brought up that The Hobbit develops what a Hobbit is, and then explicitly what they aren't by having Bilbo act very Tookish. It has got me thinking about how this is a foil of Thorin's development. Thorin begins to change and falls into the bad habits of dwarves around gold, and treasures, slowly falling before our eyes. On the other hand, Bilbo's entire arc is about going against the grain for development, becoming brave, strong, clever.

I think this is another great example of Tolkein using known literary techniques to help add a layer of meta-character relationships within his story. Both characters start with an inkling of their actions - which leads to drastic change within themselves, lives, and behaviors. I think this allows readers to become excited when they recognize this especially in younger audiences. This doesn't make this necessarily immature or simplistic though - using devices that many generations can enjoy and recognize simply gives the story greater length in life as well as accessibility.

I suppose that's all,
Elendil

Tolkien Inspiration

During the group disscusion, Bilbo taking the cup was brought up, as well as the parallels that has to Beowulf. It is very classic dragon for what we know today: a thief steals a very small amount of treasure, one cup, something that would seem insignificant to us and yet the dragon notices and stirs, ending with it reaping terror on innocents. I find it very interesting that the two are so closely related. At the beginning of the semester, we read that paper about insipration and how it is importaint to not focus on it, as we may not know what that inspiration is. However, I think that sometimes, we should look at what an author references. While I do not think a reader should go comparing the two, it is interesting to know what influences people and how they turn it into their own thing. The way Bilbo fights the dragon in riddles is very different than how Beowulf fight the dragon with his sword, but seeing the way different people create a story is rather inspireing I think.

Elrond

I am Elrond, half-elven born in the first age. I am the founder of Rivendell, and have been the Lord there for thousands of years. My wife and I, Celebrían, have 3 children. They are Arwen, Elladan, and Elrohir. Being as old as I am, at age 6,520, I left Rivendell to travel overseas with the Ringbearers and haven’t been seen since then. I was one of the few to decide on destroying one of the rings and have really been trying to figure out this whole “Mortality” thing with Arwen, but I guess it’s for the greater good of man. Anyways, I am still undercover and will probably never return.

Fate, Destiny and Free will.

Fate, destiny, and free will are all crucial aspects of The Hobbit and they are tightly interwoven. I will start with some definitions. I consider fate to be the idea of a definite sequence of events laid out by some higher power. Destiny I think of as the general outline of a person's life, with lots of wiggle room for free will.

I think the hobbit largely embraces the idea of destiny over fate, because the characters are shepherded down a general path, but they make important choices that greatly influence how the story plays out. For example I would say that Bilbo was fated to discover the one ring, but the choice to give Gollum mercy was purely his. Bilbo's choice to give the Arkenstone to Bard to help break the siege of the kingdom under the mountain, helped make it so that the dwarves and elves and men were able to unite against the goblins and the wargs.

In a more general sense, all books are kind of a form of pure fate in and of themselves because nothing will change once they have been published. This often leads to a certain predictability of events, where you know what must happen because of what has happened before. If a book is too predictable this can detract from the story, but I think in the case of The Hobbit there are so many factors the reader cannot account for that there is a great deal of unpredictability.

Sorry for ranting, I don't really know how to wrap this up cleanly.

Bilbo's Honor

After listening to the class discussions on Bilbo and his role in the story, it became more and more apparent to me that he is supposed to show the significance of the insignificant.  As we all have discussed, Tolkien purposefully created the race of hobbits and used Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, and Sam to make the point that "even the smallest person may change the course of the future."  It would not be terribly inspiring if a great warrior like Thorin or Aragorn negotiated with a dragon or accomplished the destruction of the Ring, though these characters assisted greatly.  Tolkien purposefully made the hobbits simple characters that do not know their own strength.  That way, a reader like you or me could be inspired to think that our own selves can conquer great battles and change the world.  I am sure that not many of us feel like the tall, powerful warrior that Aragorn is, but rather like the hobbits in their repetitive lifestyle and sometimes overlooked existence.  

Tolkien also uses Bilbo to set an example of honor.  Bilbo's selfless devotion to his friends causes him to risk life and limb to give up his own share of the treasure to try to prevent all-out war.  The Elven-King is amazed by the humble honor of the hobbit.  He thinks of himself as honorable, but sees that he is more proud than anything else.  This instance hammers home the point that character matters more than outward appearance.  Tolkien made hobbits very unimposing, with their small stature and love of the simple things in life, providing a perfect contrast to their surprising courage and honor.  Bilbo shows more honor than the King Under the Mountain and the Elven-King, setting an example for even the most timid reader.

Bilbo's purpose

We've discussed a few times in class why a creature like Bilbo serves as the main character of the hobbit. It's obvious to a group of battle-hardened dwarves and a wizard a small timid hobbit is unlikely to be much use in battle. The obvious answer as to the purpose he serves in the story is to find the one ring and then use that to help the dwarves reclaim the mountain and then to return it to the shire so eventually, it can be given to Frodo. However, this sort of robs Bilbo of his agency as a character. Is he really just a ringbearer? If he had never found the ring would he have been any help at all to his friends? But I think as we all know even without the ring Bilbo does prove his worth as a character. He is the heart of the group, he is the innocent moral onlooker. Wise old Gandalph knows that the dwarves will fail on their own. They need someone further from the situation. Someone whose vision won't be clouded by greed or pride. Because those are the two main faults of Thorin and his company. They were not the ones to beat the dragon and the peace that ensued after the battle of the five armies only came because Dain decided to share the riches he had reclaimed. When Bilbo steals the Arkenstone and gives it to Bard he shows intelligence and empathy and distaste for violence. After this, we know he can retain his morality even when presented with the greatest treasures and the darkest of circumstances.

Something else of note is about the role the ring plays in the greater story of middle earth. The really scary thing about the ring is that no matter how much you seek to do good with it it can only do evil. While money corrupts many characters in middle earth there are always those who can resist it. Characters like Bilbo who delivers a precious gem to the enemy armies as a way to prevent conflict. However, what we learn is that with enough time even Bilbo is lured in by the ring. This is what makes it so insidious. The fact that with time it can corrupt even the most incorruptible creatures in middle earth.