This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
I'll make one more addition (for this part) in that, as understood by Tolkien, Sub-creation is something that is inherently interconnected.
Verlyn Flieger put this quite eloquently in that "light, emanating from the Creator, is, in her view, splintered and passed on through every author's works in the act of subcreation" thanks Wikipedia and thus it is Tolkien's seeming belief that all sub-creative works all fall under the same umbrella, the same system. That of tribute and existence to and from God.
"We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I should have said that liberation 'from the channels the creator is known to have used already' is the fundamental function of 'sub-creation', a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety, one of the ways in which indeed it is exhibited, as indeed I said in the Essay. I am not a metaphysician; but I should havethought it a curious metaphysic – there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones –that declared the channels known (in such a finite comer as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him!" - Letter 153
"Sub-creator, the refracted light through whom is splintered from a single White to many hues, and endlessly combined in living shapes that move from mind to mind. Though all the crannies of the world we filled with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build Gods and their houses out of dark and light, and sowed the seed of dragons, 'twas our right (used or misused). The right has not decayed. We make still by the law in which we're made."- Mythopoeia
"To one who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though "breathed through silver"." - Mythopoeia
The poem being as much an exposition on Tolkien's beliefs regarding Sub-creation and Creation as it is a rebuttal to C.S. Lewis.
You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name – can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not 'what is Tom Bombadil' but 'Who is he'. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of 'I am that am' – which is quite different from he is.* She adds as a concession a statement of pan of the 'what'.
One, he is answering the question of is Bombadil God? In short, the answer is no, and Goldberry gives her answer as to what he is (in the Book)... although it itself is rather vague.
This arose because of Frodo's question in LotR where he asked "who is Tom Bombadil?’‘" and Golberry's answering "He is".
This being the footnote to Letter 237 "* Only the first person (of worlds or anything) can be unique. If you say he is there must be more than one, and created (sub) existence is implied. I can say 'he is' of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?"
Secondly, he is talking about the relation of any "created" being to both God and another created being.
"You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name – can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns?" - God, the One, can be related to "created beings" without name. He is. Aka, the whole "I am that I am".
"But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you?" - However, other finites cannot be done in such a way (at least in this context).
Frodo in this context is another finite being asking another finite being about a finite being. It is only the Creator who is not finite.
I think Letter 172 has a particular case for the argument now that I reread it.
"“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”"
Alongside the existing crossing over of Ainur and Eru/God with "the Real World" (as it is considered in context), Tolkien consciously and unconsciously admits to applying his beliefs into the Legendarium and indeed striving to do so more once he became aware he was doing so. It is a work he has fundamentally made to adhere to his very Catholic beliefs.
As his theology is much of the reason as to why High 1-A+ and 0 are arguable (Mythopoeia for instance), I think it's safe to say the Legendarium is a work that is part of his "system".
"Theologically (if the term is not too grandiose) I imagine the picture to be less dissonant fromwhat some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain 'religious' ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else),and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted." - Letter 211
Even if it is not explicitly one to one, it has been made in adherence to Tolkien's theology, which is where so much of this revision emerges from. This includes sub-creation and such, hence why such language is used in notes/drafts on the Legendarium.
One, he is answering the question of is Bombadil God? In short, the answer is no, and Goldberry gives her answer as to what he is (in the Book)... although it itself is rather vague.
This arose because of Frodo's question in LotR where he asked "who is Tom Bombadil?’‘" and Golberry's answering "He is".
This being the footnote to Letter 237 "* Only the first person (of worlds or anything) can be unique. If you say he is there must be more than one, and created (sub) existence is implied. I can say 'he is' of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?"
Secondly, he is talking about the relation of any "created" being to both God and another created being.
"You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name – can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns?" - God, the One, can be related to "created beings" without name. He is. Aka, the whole "I am that I am".
"But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you?" - However, other finites cannot be done in such a way (at least in this context).
Frodo in this context is another finite being asking another finite being about a finite being. It is only the Creator who is not finite.
Okay, this is interesting as hell, actually. Here's Tolkien's full quote:
As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point.
(Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as a commentator). You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person, citing last Sunday's Epistle – inappositely since that says ex quo. Lots of other characters are called Master; and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names. See and ponder Tom's words in Vol. I p. 142.2
You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name – can you:
for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not 'what is Tom Bombadil' but 'Who is he'. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of 'I am that am' – which is quite different from he is.* She adds as a concession a statement of pan of the 'what'. He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of possession or domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm.
He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.
* Only the first person (of worlds or anything) can be unique. If you say he is there must be more than one, and created (sub) existence is implied. I can say 'he is' of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?
And, for reference, the "mystery of names" that Tolkien mentions refers back to this passage from Fellowship of the Ring:
‘Who are you, Master?’ he asked.
‘Eh, what?’ said Tom sitting up, and his eyes glinting in the gloom. ‘Don’t you know my name yet? That’s the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?[...]"
So, putting all this together: Tolkien says that the third-person predicate "He is" is something that can only be applied to created existences, because it implies multiplicity and the possibility thereof (Tolkien also says Goldberry answered correctly when she just said "He is" when asked of Tom's identity, so the two things seem to be co-extensive here). Contrary to Eru / God's "I am that I am," which denotes total uniqueness. Bombadil then seems to ask Frodo something of an unanswerable question when he says "Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?". Basically implying that, when one is utterly alone and existing solely by themselves, they have no name, and questions like "Who are you" become meaningless.
So, from what I gather, Tolkien is basically saying that Eru transcends identity and attributes like "Who"ness and "Is"ness because those can only be said of finite beings entering in relation with other finite beings, whereas Eru is above all such relations and in-and-of-himself is nameless. If I'm reading this correctly and not just spazzing out because of the coke, this is pretty undeniably Tier 0, yeah, especially when put into context with the other statements about Eru being beyond thought and totally unique, alone, etc.
So, putting all this together: Tolkien says that the third-person predicate "He is" is something that can only be applied to created existences, because it implies multiplicity and the possibility thereof (Tolkien also says Goldberry answered correctly when she just said "He is" when asked of Tom's identity, so the two things seem to be co-extensive here). Contrary to Eru / God's "I am that I am," which denotes total uniqueness. Bombadil then seems to ask Frodo something of an unanswerable question when he says "Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?". Basically implying that, when one is utterly alone and existing solely by themselves, they have no name, and questions like "Who are you" become meaningless.
So, from what I gather, Tolkien is basically saying that Eru transcends identity and attributes like "Who"ness and "Is"ness because those can only be said of finite beings entering in relation with other finite beings, whereas Eru is above all such relations and in-and-of-himself is "nameless." If I'm reading this correctly and not just spazzing out because of the coke, this is pretty undeniably Tier 0, yeah, especially when put into context with the other statements about Eru being beyond thought and totally unique, alone, etc.
Well that's a lot of tier stuff that is beyond me.
I'd say you're very much correct as that's how I read it. - "God, the One, can be related to "created beings" without name. He is. Aka, the whole "I am that I am"" as I read it. Eru is beyond any relation to other finite beings and cannot be related in the same way finite beings relate to other finite beings. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's the Catholic notion of God being beyond defining, any name and term applied to Him being a finite approximation of the infinite.
You can put me as agreeing with Tier 0 Eru now, for the matter. As I see it, this thread now is really just a discussion on whether Tolkien's broader metaphysics are applicable as evidence for High 1-A+ Ainur and as supporting evidence for Eru's Tier 0. The latter is already pretty rock-solid.
Since the major issue is really the question of Tolkien's broader metaphysics, I suppose I'll simply open the floor on that by asking what the major concerns are?
Edit: I'll make a defense post for the system some time in the nearish future.
Tolkien has evidently made his Legendarium to be in line with his metaphysics, but to what extent does it apply to the work itself? Well to begin with, let us examine the framework he exactly has applied his metaphysics into his worldbuilding.
Note, nothing here should contradict the draft, although it will expand on ideas from it. A prior reading of the draft is largely necessary as I will be largely writing on the basis that it has been read.
Tolkien and Catholicism
"“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”" - Letter 172
"Theologically (if the term is not too grandiose) I imagine the picture to be less dissonant from what some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain 'religious' ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else),and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted." - Letter 211
Tolkien's faith is the foundation of the Legendarium's world building, he makes it very clear that he is not making "an allegory" of his faith, nor is he "preaching". To Tolkien, Catholicism is part of the story itself and its symbolism. What implications does this therefore have? It means his theology applies to the world building of the Legendarium and, in my opinion, this is genuinely enough as it means Tolkien's work exists in the framework and system outlined in the blog that is defined by his faith.
But for the purposes of this post, I will present new points to hopefully shore up the argument. Next let us look at his theology as it explicitly relates to the Legendarium.
Tolkien and Theology
'He is.' Hastings said that this seemed to imply that Bombadil was God. Hastings was most of all concerned with the reincarnation of the Elves, which Tolkien had mentioned to him in a conversation. He wrote of this: 'God has not used that device in any of the creations of which we have knowledge, and it seems to me to be stepping beyond the position of a sub-creator to produce it as an actual working thing, because a sub-creator, when dealing with the relations between creator and created, should use those channels which he knows the creator to have used already..... "The Ring" is so good that it is a pity to deprive it of its reality by over-stepping the bounds of a writer's job. - Letter 153
Hasting's letter to Tolkien.
We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I should have said that liberation 'from the channels the creator is known to have used already' is the fundamental function of 'sub-creation', a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety, one of the ways in which indeed it is exhibited, as indeed I said in the Essay. I am not a metaphysician; but I should have thought it a curious metaphysic – there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones –that declared the channels known (in such a finite comer as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him! - Letter 153
Tolkien's response to Hastings.
Tolkien's Catholic theology extends deeply into his views on fiction and its creation as a whole. Indeed, he makes a defense of his presented theology within the Legendarium in regards to "sub-creation" when it is criticised.
Hastings criticises Tolkien here for several things, but in this instance, he criticises him for overstepping as a "sub-creator". The critique is that Tolkien has written of a "channel" that God has not already used. Tolkien responds by asserting that there are is "not one" but potentially "innumerable ones" within just the finite understanding of God's capabilities.
This is an example of Tolkien's theological position regarding the Legendarium and fiction as a whole, with the importance of adherence to his theology also being expanded to the creation of fiction as a whole.
Now, note that Tolkien states that sub-creation is fundamentally "a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety". This is an example of how the wider metaphysics of Tolkien applies to the Legendarium, the statement being a practical 1 to 1 to statements such as all sub-creations being "refracted light" from God's "single White" as Tolkien puts it in Mythopoeia for example. An example which we will focus on next.
Mythopoeia
Now, Mythopoeia is not part of the Legendarium, but it is incredibly relevant to it and all of Tolkien's writings, and by proxy, it therefore relates to the Legendarium greatly.
First, let me begin by reiterating from the draft that all sub-creations are just tributary fictions to the perspective of God, with all worlds being under the "Will of God". Notably, as stated in the draft, from the perspective of God, "our Real World" is little different from God's perspective.
"– our Real World does not appear to be wholly coherent either; and I am actually not myself convinced that, though in every world on every plane all must ultimately be under the Will of God, even in ours there are not some 'tolerated' sub-creational counterfeits!) !) when you make Trolls speak you are giving them a power, which in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a 'soul'" - Letter 153
Now, Tolkien is not delusional in the sense of him thinking fiction and reality are equal existences, but he has the notable belief that sub-creation is something that is genuinely given substance by/due to God. "...myths are “lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver.” No, said Tolkien. They are not lies... Tolkien continued, not merely the abstract thoughts of man but also his imaginative inventions must originate with God, and must in consequence reflect something of eternal truth. In making a myth, in practising 'mythopoeia' and peopling the world with elves and dragons and goblins, a storyteller, or 'sub-creator' as Tolkien liked to call such a person, is actually fulfilling God's purpose, and reflecting a splintered fragment of the true light." - The Inklings : C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and their friends
"...myths are “lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver.”
No, said Tolkien. They are not lies. You look at trees, he said, and call them 'trees', and probably you do not think twice about the word. You call a star a 'star', and think nothing more of it. But you must remember that these words, 'tree', 'star', were (in their original forms) names given to these objects by people with very different views from yours. To you, a tree is simply a vegetable organism, and a star simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a mathematical course. But the first men to talk of 'trees' and 'stars' saw things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological beings. They saw the stars as living silver, bursting into flame in answer to the eternal music. They saw the sky as a jewelled tent, and the earth as the womb whence all living things have come. To them, the whole of creation was 'myth-woven and elf-patterned'.
This was not a new notion to Lewis, for Tolkien was, in his own manner, expressing what Barfield had said in Poetic Diction. Nor, said Lewis, did it effectively answer his point that myths are lies. But, replied Tolkien, man is not ultimately a liar. He may pervert his thoughts into lies, but he comes from God, and it is from God that he draws his ultimate ideals. Lewis agreed: he had, indeed, accepted something like this notion for many years.
Therefore, Tolkien continued, not merely the abstract thoughts of man but also his imaginative inventions must originate with God, and must in consequence reflect something of eternal truth. In making a myth, in practising 'mythopoeia' and peopling the world with elves and dragons and goblins, a storyteller, or 'sub-creator' as Tolkien liked to call such a person, is actually fulfilling God's purpose, and reflecting a splintered fragment of the true light. Pagan myths are therefore never just 'lies': there is always something of the truth in them."
Now, this does not mean substance in the sense that it is of genuine and equal reality to our own, hence why Tolkien writing that Eru gave Eä life does not mean it is a primary reality, but in the sense that they are reflective of "truth". At the heart of this "truth" is the same God across all myths and fictions, with God being the origin and source of all human imagination.
All sub-creations are a tribute to God in that sense, they reflect a sliver and splintered fragment of the "true light" derived from God, hence why theology is so important even within fiction to Tolkien and like or similar-minded fellows, because it is reflective of the divine truth.
"Sub-creator, the refracted light through whom is splintered from a single White to many hues, and endlessly combined in living shapes that move from mind to mind. Though all the crannies of the world we filled with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build Gods and their houses out of dark and light, and sowed the seed of dragons, 'twas our right (used or misused). The right has not decayed. We make still by the law in which we're made."- Mythopoeia
"To one who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though "breathed through silver"." - Mythopoeia
"But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. - Letter 153"
Tolkien, Catholicism, and Theology
So Tolkien believes all fictions/myths have a genuine life to them, albeit as refracted portions of a single truth. Now, the implication is obvious in relation God, with God in fictional contexts always refers to the same God for Tolkien. This is why he says things like this in a 1964/5 interview.
"D. Gueroult: There's an autumnal quality throughout the whole of The Lord of the Rings, in one case a character says the story continues but I seem to have dropped out of it … however, everything is declining, fading, at least towards the end of the Third Age. Every choice tends to the upsetting of some tradition. Now this seems to me to be somewhat like Tennyson's "the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways". Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?
J.R.R. Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice.
D. Gueroult: Is he the One?
J.R.R. Tolkien: The One… yes."
- 1964/1965 BBC Interview
Gueroult: There's an autumnal quality throughout the whole of The Lord of the Rings; there’s a sense of continuous change. Each character feels himself to be part of a story that’s forever continuing. In one case a character says the story is continuing but I seem to have dropped out of it. However, everything is declining, and it’s fading, at least towards the end of the Third Age. Every choice tends to the upsetting of some tradition. Now this seems to me to be somewhat like Tennyson’s “the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways”. Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?
Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice.
Gueroult: Is he the One above the Eldar?
Tolkien: The One, yes.
Gueroult: Despite the continuous war between evil, personified in Sauron, and good, you never personalize or personify goodness. Good is there but it’s totally abstract; you don't attempt to ascribe any godship to it, particularly.
Tolkien: No, no, this isn't a dualistic mythology it's based on, no. No, certainly not.
Gueroult: But, I mean, the whole book is nevertheless nothing but the battle between good and evil.
Tolkien: Well that’s, I suppose, actually, a conscious reaction of the war from the stuff that I was brought up on—“The War to End Wars,” that kind of…I couldn’t…which I didn't believe in at the time and I believe in less now.
Gueroult: If I can take this a bit further, I may make my point clearer. In battle, Frodo and Sam call on Galadriel or their native country, Gimli calls on his ancestor’s axe, if I read your appendices correctly, and the Men call only on their swords by name or on their kings or lords. I would expect them to call on their gods. And yet amid thousands of names you don’t name the deities of any the races you've invented, why? Have they no gods as such?
Tolkien: There aren’t any.
Gueroult: I would’ve thought a story of this sort was almost dependent upon an intense believe in some theocratic division, some hierarchy.
Tolkien: There is indeed. That’s where the theocratic hierarchy comes in. The man of the 20th century must of course see that you must have, whether he believes in them or not, you must have gods in a story of this kind. But he can't make himself believe in gods like Thor and Odin, Aphrodite, Zeus, and that kind of thing.
Gueroult: You can’t believe the men in your story would have called on Odin?
Tolkien: I couldn't possibly construct a mythology which had Olympus or Asgard in it on the terms in which the people who’d worshiped those gods believed. God is the supreme, the creator, outside, transcendent. The place of the gods is taken, so well taken that I think it really makes no difference to the ordinary reader, is taken by the angelic spirits created by God, created before the particular time sequence which we call the world, which is called in their language ‘Eä’, ‘that which is’, ‘that which now exists’. Those are the Valar, the Powers. It’s a construction, you see, a mythology in which a large part of the demiurgic of the thing has been handed over to powers which are created therein under The One. It's a bit like, but much more elaborate and more thought out than, C. S. Lewis’s business with his Out of the Silent Planet where we have a demiurgus who is actually in command of the planet Mars. And the idea that Lucifer was originally the one in command of the world, but he fell, and so it was a silent planet [unintelligible] that was the idea; well this is not the same with me.
Gueroult: Yes, yes…so, then you have…in your theocracy, you have an ultimate One, whom you call…
Tolkien: He’s called The One only.
Gueroult: The One only. And then the Valar, who are considered as living in Valinor.
In the interview, God is not being represented or given an expy, but is present as Eru/The One.
Mythopoeia therefore isn't simply a poetry expounding on the relation between Sub-creator and Creator, it's thus a unitary statement that brings all fictions (in Tolkien's view) under the purview of the Creator. There is only one God amongst fiction as it is the same God as the one in reality. Thus to Tolkien, all fictions are granted this "life" by the same God and are under Him, hence why all possible worlds are "under the Will of God, even in ours", because they all share Him.
Thus the God in the Legendarium is the God in all of Tolkien's writings as there is no difference between them.
The Ainur and Comparatives
So we come to the matter of the Ainur now. They are... far less unitary that Eru/God. However, there is some element of this.
To be clear, the Ainur are the angels of the Legendarium, and this the 1965 interview makes it clear that, while they can take the place of "the gods" in an Olympian or Asgardian sense, they are "the angelic spirits created by God".
In particular, the Valar are the Demiurgic entities under God, with Tolkien making the comparison to C.S. Lewis' Lucifer as a demiurgus in command of the planet Mars in "Out of the Silent Planet".
"Tolkien: I couldn't possibly construct a mythology which had Olympus or Asgard in it on the terms in which the people who’d worshiped those gods believed. God is the supreme, the creator, outside, transcendent. The place of the gods is taken, so well taken that I think it really makes no difference to the ordinary reader, is taken by the angelic spirits created by God, created before the particular time sequence which we call the world, which is called in their language ‘Eä’, ‘that which is’, ‘that which now exists’. Those are the Valar, the Powers. It’s a construction, you see, a mythology in which a large part of the demiurgic of the thing has been handed over to powers which are created therein under The One. It's a bit like, but much more elaborate and more thought out than, C. S. Lewis’s business with his Out of the Silent Planet where we have a demiurgus who is actually in command of the planet Mars. And the idea that Lucifer was originally the one in command of the world, but he fell, and so it was a silent planet [unintelligible] that was the idea; well this is not the same with me."
- 1964/1965 BBC Interview
They are the governing spirits who take the place of saints and angels, such as Saint Michael, with Tolkien directly acknowledging that discussion of the Ainur falls into the realm of "angelology"
"Gueroult: Almost the last question: do you in fact believe, yourself, not in the context of this book, believe in the sense of straightforward strict belief, in the Eldar or in some form of governing spirits?
Tolkien: Well the Eldar must be distinguished from the Valar. The Eldar are only…
Gueroult: The Valar, I mean. I'm sorry.
Tolkien: Yes…umm… [pause]
Gueroult: Are you in fact a theist?
Tolkien: [emphatically] Oh, I’m a Roman Catholic…devout Roman Catholic, yes, but I don’t know about angelology. Yes, I should’ve thought almost certainly…yes. Certainly.
Gueroult: Well they seem to me to be the saints or the equivalent of the saints.
Tolkien: For theology, in some way, yes; [lights match] they take the place, in this book of the things in which the medieval and old religions you have the gods in the invocation of the saints which are lesser angels, you see; yes, they do. Well, so obviously many people have noticed that praying to the Lady or the Queen of the Stars is most like Roman Catholics in the invocations of Our Lady."
- 1964/1965 BBC Interview
But this is admittedly not the strongest point for the Ainur. The relevance he is more in the comparison of the Ainur to the angels. It brings up the important fact that they are the angels of Tolkien's work, and this is what gives them so much potential potency within the Tiering System.
Ainur and the Primary Reality
In the blog, we discuss the Primary Reality and the Secondary Realities. In a short run down, the Primary Reality is the "Real World" in comparison to the secondary ones which are fictions and myths.
This is a biological dictum in my imaginary world. It is only (as yet) an incompletely imagined world, a rudimentary 'secondary'; but if it pleased the Creator to give it (in a corrected form) Reality on any plane, then you would just have to enter it and begin studying its different biology, that is all. - Letter 153
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world. – Letter 131
This is a biological dictum in my imaginary world. It is only (as yet) an incompletely imagined world, a rudimentary 'secondary'; but if it pleased the Creator to give it (in a corrected form) Reality on any plane, then you would just have to enter it and begin studying its different biology, that is all." - Letter 153
Yet despite being the "Real World", the fictional Ainur are explicitly given the equal reality of... reality within Tolkien's exposition.
""I note your remarks about Sauron. He was always de-bodied when vanquished. The theory, if one can dignify the modes of the story with such a term, is that he was a spirit, a minor one but still an 'angelic' spirit. According to the mythology of these things that means that, though of course a creature, he belonged to the race of intelligent beings that were made before the physical world, and were permitted to assist in their measure in the making of it. Those who became most involved in this work of An, as it was in the first instance, became so engrossed with it, that when the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality, subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality, and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves) they desired to enter into it, from the beginning of its 'realization'." - Letter 200"
Now, note that Tolkien writes "according to the mythology of these things". This is because the Ainur are meant to be Tolkien's attempt to write about angels, which he believes to be real, and approximate their level of existence and potency.
This is why Letter 153 says he "feigned", in the definition of simulated or pretended, that Eru/God gave his highest created beings, the Ainur, "special sub creative powers", as Tolkien does not genuinely know if real angels have such potency. This is why Tolkien is unsure if it is "legitimately" a feature of the "real world" that the angels are of such potency. Tolkien is writing of the Ainur/angels in a way that equates them to reality, to the real angels.
Now, I am not insane and I am not making the inane proposition that we should have the Ainur be rated by the sole basis of being interpretations of "real angels", but rather that we rate them as Eru/God is taken as Tolkien's interpretation of God and rate them based on what Tolkien ascribes to them. They are the highest created entities with special sub-creative power beyond that of any other sub-creator. They are thus capable of realising any possible world, etc.
"“So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions”- Letter 153"
Note: As God is equated across Tolkien's writings, the very fact they are the "highest created beings" puts them above the Sub-creators. Tolkien afterall, has placed the position within his writing.
Now, even if the notion of the Ainur as the highest created beings is rejected, the Ainur remain existences of the Primary Reality. They are above all the possibilities made by sub-creators regardless after all, simply by their level of existence within the "Primary Reality", the level of reality of Sub-creators.
"Those who became most involved in this work of An, as it was in the first instance, became so engrossed with it, that when the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality, subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality, and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves) they desired to enter into it, from the beginning of its 'realization'."– Letter 153
"…Valar or Rulers. These take the place of the 'gods', but are created spirits, or those of the primary creation who by their own will have entered into the world. – Letter 181
The post was getting so long it was slowing down my laptop somehow
In conclusion, regarding God:
The Legendarium is based on Tolkien's Catholic theology.
Tolkien defends his theology even in fiction, with him believing his work should and does adhere to it.
God is the one to whom all fiction is tribute to, hence why the fiction must be adhering to theology.
All fiction (for Tolkien) is fragmentary truths created by human imagination which originates from God. All fragmentary truths have their basis in God.
All fiction therefore shares the same God, as the One God is the source of all fiction. This is why Tolkien does not differentiate God in fiction from reality, it is the same source (just as the Real World is derived from God, albeit directly instead of through sub-creators).
The Legendarium thus has the same God as all of Tolkien's writings.
Regarding the Ainur:
The Ainur are Tolkien's angels within the Legendarium.
In their origin however, they were existences of the Primary Reality.
This is because they are meant to be Tolkien's interpretation of the real angels.
This interpretation is one that places them as the highest created beings and as those with special sub-creative power.
Regardless, they, as primary existences, stand above all possible created worlds.
Theologically (if the term is not too grandiose) I imagine the picture to be less dissonant from what some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain 'religious' ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else),and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted." - Letter 211
Yeah, the other quotes are good, but this one in particular expresses the point of all this pretty explicitly. For reference, this is what Tolkien says in the paragraph immediately before it:
May I say that all this is 'mythical', and not any kind of new religion or vision. As far as I know it is merely an imaginative invention, to express, in the only way I can, some of my (dim) apprehensions of the world.
So, yeah, the Legendarium really is inseparable from his personal metaphysics and not supposed to deviate from them at all (Its purpose is to express Tolkien's understanding of the world, even, as he explicitly says). Count me as agreeing with using it.
So, yeah, the Legendarium really is inseparable from his personal metaphysics and not supposed to deviate from them at all (Its purpose is to express Tolkien's understanding of the world, even, as he explicitly says). So, yeah, count me as agreeing with using it.
I forgot if I expressed anything earlier or was brought up this topic. I agree with Eru being 0, obviously and the rest of the content seems good to go as I’m catching up on the rest of the thread which like the OP seems reasonable.
Honestly, it kinda affects everyone. Eru has multiple Únati, those things He made impossible, that basically results in resistances to everyone in-verse.
For instance, souls cannot be destroyed and minds cannot be penetrated or entered without consent.
Honestly, it kinda affects everyone. Eru has multiple Únati, those things He made impossible, that basically results in resistances to everyone in-verse.
For instance, souls cannot be destroyed and minds cannot be penetrated or entered without consent.
That's actually insane. Do you know some of the other Laws, or would I have to look them up ? It's fine if I have to I'm curious and will do it, but just asking.
That's actually insane. Do you know some of the other Laws, or would I have to look them up ? It's fine if I have to I'm curious and will do it, but just asking.
Finally finished your blog, and it did not address any of the feats or anti-feats in the actual published works.
While I do not care much for Eru since not much about him is said in the books, there are so many things that disproves High 1-A+ Ainur.
Which I guess in turn may affect the Eru tier 0 or not.
I will make a post later on listing out this discrepancies as your claim for High 1-A+ Ainur is that they can make all logically possible space. Which is what I will be addressing.
I will make a note that none of the in Eä stuff is relevant to the key discussed. Aka, none of the Silmarillion except the first chapter and parts of the Valaquenta.
Also, Eru is unaffected by their rating. It just adds support.
I will also note that they are in that position by relation to the Sub-creators as the highest created beings and special sub-creators.
The blog also does note that any restriction on their ability to create (minus Únati related stuff) is largely due to their adherence to the Axani, minus Melkor and co who disobey.
Even without that, they stand above all possibilities by the very existence of themselves as special sub-creators.
What? Sorry, the grammar makes it hard for me to understand. If you're asking for scans It's in the blog. They are explicitly described as possessing special sub-creative powers and are noted as being the highest created beings.
Ok, I see, but you should change the part above all possibilities part. It would be an anti-feat because there is not tier 0, there can only be one tier 0. and there not said to be above them from what i see
Ok, I see, but you should change the part above all possibilities part. It would be an anti-feat because there is not tier 0, and there can only be one tier 0. and there not said to be above them from what i see
Above all possibilities as in they are High 1-A+. They are not above all possibilities in the Tier 0 sense.
Essentially, Sub-creators can realise all possible worlds and the Ainur possess an equal level of existence while having greater level of power.
If the latter is discarded, they still possess the former, meaning their power encompasses all possible worlds. This is a brief summary, but it's more or less the position.
