Lord Of The Rings And Catholicism

[MarysLittleFlower]

I didn't want to overtake the HP thread

In the HP threads, there's always a discussion about the witchcraft side of it.

I was interested in something about LOTR. By the way, I love the LOTR books and other Tolkien books as well. I've read many of them. I've also seen the movies maybe a hundred times by now.

But here's a question: could the Elves be criticized on the same ground as HP? Is what they do "witchcraft"? I'm NOT saying this is necessarily the case... I just want to see what you all think

I read something Tolkien said, about how witchcraft is what Sauron does.. and what the Elves do, it's more like their form of "art", an ability they naturally have. What helps is that their "magic" doesn't have much resemblance to what we would call witchcraft. They don't do spells, make potions, they also dont worship the "earth" or multiple gods/goddesses... it seems what they actually do is make objects that have some sort of power, like the Rings. They can also sometimes see the future, etc. When I read the books, they appeared to me as just another type of creature in Middle-earth. If they were human, and had these same abilities, THEN it would seem more like witchcraft. As for Gandalf, and the other wizards, the resemblance there is stronger but - in the mythology, they are actually like "angels" in human form (Maiar in Tolkien's language). Gandalf was actually created with the other spirits, before there was Middle-earth, and one of these spirits later fell and became the first 'dark lord' (like the devil). His "powers" also come from him not being human.

Another thing that helps the books is that the message is consistently good. I never got anything bad from it. We can't really argue against the point that the good characters, are good (Sam, Aragorn, Faramir, etc). They can make mistakes (Frodo and the ring), but they dont use evil means to reach a "good" end, etc. In fact, doing so is very criticized: all the characters that wanted to use the Ring "from the desire to do good", were seen as making a grave error. (Gandalf was tempted to. Boromir and Denethor wanted to do this as well). Overall, there's a sense of goodness in the books, even in the style and how they are written, that I also find in CS Lewis.

There are other things that are interesting about LOTR, for example I read a quote by Tolkien, where he said that his idea of beauty is based on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Any thoughts??

Edited January 8, 2012 by MarysLittleFlower

[Maximilianus]

Eagerly waits for the response of the resident [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v446/echo4lima/JRRTTAG-1.jpg[/img]

Edited January 8, 2012 by Maximilianus

[centurion]

The elves were never designed to be magical in the way that we might think of witchcraft. Their abilities were part of them in the same way that we might eat or breath. I think Tolkien described their powers as "natural."

Tolkien himself was deeply affected by his experiences in WWI. He lost almost all of his friends to the industrialized warfare that burned most of Europe. Those feelings stayed with him, which is why Sauron's powers are based on fire and industrial might. Sauran destroys the world around him and turns it into an engine of war. Its not natural, its artificial and highly destructive. That's part of what makes Sauron the villian. Consider that orcs were only elves twisted by the power of Morgoth. That's the evil of Sauron. He takes what is natural and warps it into something artificial and ugly.

Maiar are like the equivalent of angels, of which Gandalf and the other wizards part of, so that is where their power comes from. Technically, Sauron is a Maiar as well (as are the Balrogs), but he followed Morgoth and turned to the evil and destructive power that he used to build his empire.

The books are good, but they are actually pretty dark. You'll notice that for most of the books the main characters are facing impossible odds. There's no reason to hope, and yet the characters still strive against evil. This also stems from Tolkien's experiences in the Great War. Experiencing those horrors gave him a dark view of the world. He saw hope as something fleeting, but in the end good prevails against all odds. I personally think that this is a great message for people facing reality in a world that isn't always kind, but who can still place their hope in God.

Edited January 8, 2012 by centurion

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thanks for the response!

I think that yes the books are dark, however after reading them, I was left with the opposite, a sense of goodness and hope. I think that's because goodness there still wins despite the opposition against it.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1326017829' post='2364932']
Eagerly waits for the response of the resident [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v446/echo4lima/JRRTTAG-1.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

You called?



[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I think that Tolkien was very careful with the use of 'magic' in his work. He even (gently) criticizes use of that word when Galadriel discusses it with Sam:

[color=#000000][quote]For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe, though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?[/quote][/color]

[color=#000000]Galadriel is careful to distinguish between 'Elf-magic' (here, meaning her Mirror) and the 'deceits of the Enemy'. The magic of Saruman and Sauron is very technological in nature; they are Maiar associated with Aulë the Smith, after all. Their magic is a desire to manipulate and control nature...which is, of course, what our technology is for, as well. Modern science has its roots in medieval magic, and Tolkien (and some other fantasy writers) are well aware of that. Alchemy and chemistry weren't independent fields; as the alchemists learned about the material world, chemistry was born. Great scientists like Sir Isaac Newton were still quite interested in certain esoteric subjects. But the desire to turn lead into gold never went away; in fact, we can now do that [or something similar -- transmutation is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical one]. [/color]

[color=#000000]We never see any of Sauron's evil magic being carried out; the details are left nearly completely obscure. So, it is unlikely that one would be able to pursue this further into realms of real-world magic. If anything...you would be more likely to land in the realm of science fiction if you were to do so. Sauron tortures the land in a scorched earth policy. He[/color][color=#000000] breeds dinosaur-like creatures to be the mounts for his Nazgul (so, what, Jurassic Park?), and Saruman is clearly using a form of gunpowder to blow up the wall at Helm's Deep. It is true that Sauron is referred to as 'The Necromancer' in The Hobbit (a role that will likely be explored in the new movies), which has clear implications of meddling with dead souls and is firmly on the side of real-world magic. Tolkien also...had very little to say on that and it is only in his posthumously published essay '[/color][i]Of Re-Birth and Other Dooms of Those that Go To Mandos' [/i][color=#000000]in Morgoth's Ring that we get any idea of what he meant when he included 'The Necromancer' as a title for Sauron. Not surprisingly, Sauron's practice of these arts is strongly condemned by the Valar and is evidence that he is...evil. [/color]


What, then, is meant by Elf-magic? It is Art, the natural abilities of the elves that look 'magical' to others (such as hobbits and humans). The (also post-humously published) essay Osanwe-kenta (Enquiry into the Communication of Thought) explains the mental abilities of Men, Elves...and Valar. This helps to explain some of the apparently magical communication and messages in dreams and such. As an example, Frodo 'sees' Gandalf in Orthanc in one of his dreams in Tom Bombadil's house, and Gandalf seems to know much of what happened to Frodo during his journey to Rivendell when Frodo wakes up - even some things that the other hobbits did [i]not[/i] know (the Barrow) - and thus Gandalf seems to have read Frodo's mind. But these natural abilities can be enhanced - and hence a device like the Mirror of Galadriel (which owes much in inspiration to a scrying glass, clearly). How is this different from the technology of Sauron or Saruman? In the lack of control. Galadriel cannot 'make' the Mirror show things. Nor does she know what she is being shown - past, present, possible future? This lack of control keeps it at the level of Art, and does not cross over to a 'device of the enemy.' The palantiri are similar magic devices made by elves, that, while open to manipulation, cannot completely be controlled by the user.

There was one instance when the elves' desire for control made them cross the line between art and technology - and that was in the forging of the Rings of Power. It is no mistake that Celebrimbor, the Noldorin grandson of Fëanor, was the one who fell prey to Sauron's temptation to power and control. So, while the Three Rings are not evil or tainted by Sauron in any way, they do reveal 'elvish' temptations in this realm of magic. The desire to preserve things as they are, to keep the world in stasis so that it cannot change...that is what elves want, and there is a danger in them actually doing that. Thus, Rivendell and Lothlorien were artificially-preserved, and when the Rings lost their power, the realms would come to an end. The elves could not find that changelessness in Middle Earth; they would have to seek it in Valinor.



There is only one example of human use of magic that I am aware of [in [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i]]. The Numenoreans used spells during the forging of their swords, so that the sword Merry got from the Barrow-downs was specially designed to combat the Witch-kng of Angmar. Tolkien was not entirely comfortable with the implications of this, and would probably have found a way to explain around that, had he considered the question in any depth.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote][/font][/size][size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North Kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and the chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorceror king. [/color]No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.[/quote][/font][/size]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]As Aragorn says earlier, [/font][/size]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote][/font][/size][color=#000000][font=Constantia,][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4]Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.[/size][/font][/quote][/font][/color]

[color=#000000]Tolkien noticed this discrepency when he was writing a letter to someone about the magic in his books, but didn't really address it, rather stating, "[/color][color=blue][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][i][color=black]"[/color]...a difference in the use of ‘magic’ in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but it is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such.[/i][/size][/font][/color][color=black][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]" ([i]Letters[/i] 155)[/size][/font][/color][/color]

[color=black][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]An essay on the topic of magic in Tolkien's work from a Catholic perspective may be found here: [url=[/size][/font][/color][/color]http://www.frodolivesin.us/Catholicwork/id56.htm][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]Magic in Middle-earth[/url][/size][/font][/color]

Edited January 9, 2012 by MithLuin

[MithLuin]

Sorry; don't know why that final link isn't working. Let me try again:
[url="http://www.frodolivesin.us/Catholicwork/id56.htm"]Magic in Middle Earth[/url]

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thanks!! that's very informative. I think it makes sense that Tolkien saw it more as their "art".

Do you think it differs from the magic in Harry Potter, where it's also seen as a type of natural ability that's inheritable? I think maybe a difference is that - in HP, they do try to "control" nature, etc, through "magic", and the practice of it is "attainable" except for Muggles. Additionally, they do use spells and other forms of witchcraft, whereas the Elves in Tolkien's books seem not to. I'm not sure about Gandalf, but since he's not human, it's probably just his abilities as one of the Maiar. The only example I could think of is when in the movie (I can't remember if this happens in the books or not) - Saruman tries to cause a storm to gather around the mountain when the Fellowship is climbing it (in the snow), but Saruman is evil at that point.

This quote from the link was very helpful:

"[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3][color=#000000][b]That's because magic in Tolkien's creation doesn't come ultimately from the person who is wielding it. It's not a skill that someone can learn and then practice. "...it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such." (Letter #155) Magic is power, and that power has to come from somewhere. When Gandalf faces the Balrog, he doesn't call on his own abilities as a wizard; he says, "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass." He acknowledges that the Balrog also gets its power from elsewhere: "The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow!" The question in this contest is not whether Gandalf or the Balrog is stronger; the question is which of them serves the more powerful Fire. (We don't learn anything more about the Secret Fire in [/b][i][b]LotR[/b][/i][b], but in [/b][i][b]The Silmarillion[/b][/i][b] it is said to be "with Eru" and in at least one letter Tolkien identified it as the Holy Spirit.) [/b][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]This is very different from books that do have witchcraft.. there it is always something attainable by humans. Here, it's seen not as magic but as an ability that is given to some creatures like the Elves. It could be used properly, or misused. I always found it interesting how Gandalf talked about the "Secret Fire" when fighting the Balrog, because like this quote says, there he is not calling on his own abilities at all. I wonder if the powers of the evil characters were their original powers that are now misused, or if they are supposed to come from demons.[/color][/font]

Edited January 10, 2012 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

By the way, I came across these quotes by JRR Tolkien on the Blessed Sacrament they are beautiful. It made me glad to learn that he loved the Eucharist. [url="http://singulare-ingenium.blogspot.com/2009/06/jrr-tolkien-on-blessed-sacrament.html"]http://singulare-ing...-sacrament.html[/url]

Tolkien was always one of my favourite authors (probably my favourite fiction author) - and now that I'm Catholic I'm noticing some Catholic ideas in the Lord of the Rings, which is great. Even though I know he disliked any type of allegory so I'm not saying it is such but a person's faith does come into everything they write directly or indirectly.

Edited January 10, 2012 by MarysLittleFlower

[Papist]

Dr. Peter Kreeft can hardly give a talk without referencing JRR Tolkien and LOTR.



[quote]
[b]A story points to a storyteller.[/b]

[b]First[/b], we could argue from the meaningfulness of history itself. History, both human and prehuman, has a storyline. It is not just random. The atheist Jean-Paul Sartre has his alter ego Roquentin say something like this about history in the novel Nausea: "I have never had adventures. Things have happened to me, that's all." If atheism is true, there are no adventures, nothing has intrinsic significance, life is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". But life is not that. Life is a story. Stories are not told by idiots. In J. R. R. Tolkien's great epic The Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam are crawling through the slag heaps of Mordor desperately attempting to fulfill their perilous quest when Sam stops to ask, "I wonder what kind of story we're in, Mr. Frodo?" It is a great question, a concrete way of asking the abstract question, "What is the meaning of life?" That the question is asked at all shows that we are in a story, not a jumble, and a story points to a storyteller. Thus the general argument from history is a version of the argument from design.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/history.htm"]http://www.peterkree...ics/history.htm[/url]

Edited January 10, 2012 by Papist

[MithLuin]

Gandalf's magic is the most like lore/learning. [color=#000000]'I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves or Men or Orcs, that was ever used for such a purpose. I can still remember ten score of them without searching in my mind.'[/color] Perhaps his is not much different from the elves....but then, we don't see the elves working their magic, either. Of course, this 'magic' in Tolkien is simply the power of language. He's a philologist, so his spells are simply....statements . Of course, he's also a Christian, so the idea of the entire world being created because God said 'Let it be!' is an appealing and intriguing idea. The 'Let there be Light' of Genesis connects very much to Jesus being the Word of God. When Tolkien told the creation story of his world (the Ainulindale in the Silmarillion), he keeps the same motif - 'Ea!' or 'Let it be!' is how God speaks to create the world....though the Music of the Ainur has the creativity part of creation. Compare this to Aslan singing Narnia into being in C. S. Lewis's work.

In the book (not the movie), Gandalf conjures fire to fight the Wargs before they enter Moria. He says:
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4]'Naur an edraith ammen! Naur dan i ngaurhoth!'
[color=#423126]which, literally translated, means, "Fire for saving of us! Fire against the werewolf-host!"[/color]
[color=#423126]His 'spell' merely says what he wants it to do.[/color]

[color=#423126]Likewise, when he tries to open the gates of Moria, he...tells them to open.[/color]
'Annon edhellen, edro hi ammen! Fennas nogothrim, lasto beth lammen!'[/size][/font]
[color=#423126][font=verdana][size=3]"Elvish gate open now for us; doorway of the Dwarf-folk listen to the word of my tongue"[/size][/font][/color]
And later he just repeats 'Edro! Edro!' (Open! Open!) a lot. Of course, these commands do not work on the door; it will only open if you speak the password.

In Moria, when he is fleeing from Balin's tomb, Gandalf tries to put a spell on the door to keep in closed (he calls it a 'shutting spell'). The balrog is on the other side, so when [i]he[/i] touches the door, he perceives the spell and uses a counter-spell. Gandalf fights back with what he calls a 'Word of Command', and then the door, caught in the middle of all of this magic, explodes and makes the ceiling collapse.

So, in Tolkien, what we get is more 'the primeval power of words' than any sort of [i]scientific[/i] magic. By 'scientific' I mean, repeatable - if you do or say [i]this[/i]...the result will be [i]that[/i]. Tolkien's magic is not so...precise. And, as the contest with the balrog and with Saruman show -- it's not how powerful your spell is that matters, but how powerful you are. And....Gandalf is a lot more powerful after his return from the dead, suggesting that his power is not actually his own at all anyway.



Four more instances of the magical power of language in the books:

1) [i]Tom Bombadil.[/i] Everything the character says is a song, and it would be easy to mistake his simple rhyming for...nonsense. But, when Tom Bombadil tells someone to do something...they obey. We see that with Old Man Willow and the Barrow-wight, but also with Frodo, who immediately takes out the Ring and hands it over when Bombadil 'asks' him to. Bombadil doesn't fit with the rest of the story; he's not 'part' of the goings-on in Middle Earth. He's from a much earlier time, when all one did was roam around the new creation in wonder. But for this reason, he sings more than speaks, and his words still have that primordial power to command.

2) [i]Gandalf rebukes Saruman[/i]. This scene is sometimes criticized, because Gandalf doesn't seem to *do* anything to beat Saruman. He just says normal words...and yet they have a force of power to *make* themselves true.
[color=#000000][quote]"Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death. You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order and from the Council." He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear voice. "Saruman, your staff is broken.! There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet.[/quote][/color]

[i]3) The Duel of Finrod Felagund and Sauron in the Silmarillion.[/i] If you do not yet know the tale of Beren and Luthien, I am not going to tell it to you now. But suffice it to say that at one point, an elf-lord had a reason to try to sneak past Sauron's (here called Thu) stronghold, and got caught. But, he and his companions were disguised as orcs (not just 'dressed up', but magically disguised to actually appear as orcs [there's that elf-magic again]), so Sauron did not know who they really were. What follows is some of the most impressive poetry Tolkien wrote (in my opinion):

[quote][color=#000000]He chanted a song of wizardry,[/color]
[color=#000000]of piercing, opening, of treachery, [/color]
[color=#000000]revealing, uncovering, betraying.[/color]
Then sudden Felagund there swaying
sang in answer a song of staying,
resisting, battling against power,
of secrets kept, strength like a tower,
and trust unbroken, freedom, escape;
of changing and of shifting shape,
of snares eluded, broken traps,
the prison opening, the chain that snaps.

Backwards and forwards swayed their song,
Reeling and foundering, as ever more strong
Thu's chanting swelled, Felagund fought,
and all the magic and might he brought
of Elfinesse into his words.
Softly in the gloom they heard the birds
singing afar in Nargothrond,
the sighing of the sea beyond,
beyond the western world, on sand,
on sand of pearls in Elvenland.

Then the gloom gathered: darkness growing
in Valinor, the red blood flowing
beside the sea, where the Gnomes slew
the Foamriders, and stealing drew
their white ships with their white sails
from lamplit havens. The wind wails.
The wolf howls. The ravens flee.
The ice mutters in the mouths of the sea.
The captives sad in Angband mourn.
Thunder rumbles, the fires burn,
a vast smoke gushes out, a roar -
and Felagund swoons upon the floor.

excerpt from 'The Lay of Leithian' found in History of Middle Earth volume 4: The Lays of Beleriand[/quote]
What's going on in this Duel of Song is very interesting - Sauron is trying to find out their secret, so he's trying to break through the barrier of the disguise. Felagund, a lord of the Noldor (and Galadriel's brother, actually) fights back with all he can...and to do that, he has to rely on, essentially, goodness. But his people's history is not exactly perfect, so Sauron throws their wrongdoings back at them. Even though that's not his personal sins being enumerated, it's still enough to break him. When he loses, their disguises are stripped away, and Sauron can see them as they truly are. He still doesn't know their names, though, and they refuse to tell, so Finrod's duel wasn't wholly in vain. But the concept of a 'wizard's duel' being a duel of words and song (not other weapons) is very....Tolkien.

4) The final example is actually going to be [i]Frodo and the Ring[/i]. Now, Frodo is a hobbit (essentially, a human being), and thus he has no particular magic to him. He is said on several occasions to have an 'elvish air' to him, and thus he might be a bit more sensitive to elvish 'Art' than some other people. He has significant dreams (even before his adventures), and then of course he has magical devices take their toll on him - the Witch-king's Morgul blade (morgul = black sorcery), the Ring. So, like it or not, he is in a position to wield some magic, eventually. And....he does. Not entirely meaning to, perhaps, but it is still there. His relationship with Gollum is unusual - we see it almost entirely through Sam's eyes, and Sam is an outsider to this whole Ring business. But the last thing Frodo says to Gollum, on the slopes of Mount Doom [i]and while clutching the Ring[/i] is:
[color=#000000]"Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom." [/color]
Of course Gollum doesn't listen. He does attack Frodo again, when Frodo is actually wearing the Ring...and this curse comes home. Gollum is cast into the Fire of Doom. It would be difficult to deny that Frodo used the power of the Ring to bring that about, and thus he used...magic. But see how it is the magic power of words and command? [If you have only seen the movie and not read the book, it is worth pointing out that the climax occurs a bit differently in the book.]

For a fuller discussion of Frodo and Gollum and the Ring, see this brief essay: [url="http://valarguild.org/varda/Tolkien/encyc/articles/f/Frodo/FrodoSuccess.htm"]How can a Ringbearer destroy the One Ring?[/url]

Edited January 10, 2012 by MithLuin

[Basilisa Marie]

As has been said above, it's my understanding that the problem with the magic in Potter is that a main component of the story is human children learning to use it and Rowling's treatment of magic as a neutral tool or ability. Whereas in Tolkien's works magic is used, but is treated in a much more complex and nuanced way, as described above (MithLuin you are excellent). It would seem that there's much more of a chance of people (kids) making the jump from Potter magic to real magic than with Tolkien magic to real magic. So no, you can't criticize it on the same ground as HP, because the books do two entirely different things with it.

[PaladinSoG]

There is no way for me to describe the amount of amesome and win there is in this thread! Thank you all very much for this!

[elizabeth09]

Elvis magic is in a few times doing the movie. This is because an Elvis is trying to save someone. But I do count that as a little witchcraft because it is playing with falling angels.

[Socrates]

[quote name='elizabeth09' timestamp='1327016434' post='2371666']
Elvis magic is in a few times doing the movie. This is because an Elvis is trying to save someone. But I do count that as a little witchcraft because it is playing with falling angels.
[/quote]
[img]http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g470/GregoryIRice/Elvis-Presley.jpg[/img]
TCB, baby, takin' care of business.

[Papist]

[img]http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/1/24/4f459f36-ba32-434e-ba78-7fa0ca954663.jpg[/img]

Edited February 6, 2012 by Papist