Troels Forchhammer wrote: > The staff and sword are more interesting. The sword symbolizes the > warrior, the one who is fighting against the enemy (as it did for > Gandalf).
> The staff is more ambiguous, and has been used in many connections. > Given the title of the underlying text (I'm thinking of 'The > Wanderings of Húrin'), it seems to me likely that this is a > wanderer's staff, rather than, for instance, a wizard's staff or a > shepherd's staff. In that case the image is that of a solitary > wanderer, an old warrior who has seen too much, but who hasn't lost > his courage.
of course gandalf's staff is a bit ambiguous as well, gandalf being both a wizard and a wanderer, and for the most part conealing or downplaying his *wizardly* attributes. (it's interesting that tolkien doesn't have much in the way of magic, but stretching the topic of the thread a bit too far, i guess.)
> > Rather it is the stories within the story that are the points.
> Yes. The Beleriandric wars is a setting for stories, not the story > itself. The Quenta Silmarillion uses these wars to tie all the > stories together, but the actual manouvres and battles between Good > and Evil fill relatively little in the tale.
> Tolkien is, in other words, using the wars as a background, on which > he paints stories of individual valour, tragedy etc.
yes; in addition to providing a frame foor the lesser stories, the losing struggle with morgoth serves to deepen the tragedy of the children of hurin and to highlight, by way of contrast, the eucatastrophe of beren and luthien.
but surprisingly
> little about much of the other stuff that has filled much of the war > literature in the wake of the two great wars of the twentieth > century:
note to self: when i get time, re-read garth. (still on shippey atm.)
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:10:58 -0500, Troels Forchhammer
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote: > Thingol's scorn for the dwarves is, of course, an invention by CJRT, > which, though in line with his earlier hauteur towards Beren, shows > little of the mellowing of Thingol's mind that came about after Beren > and Lúthien's deeds. > The other meetings, with Beren and Húrin, come from the Quenta > Noldorinwa (c. 1930: Húrin) and the Quenta Silmarillion (c. 1937: > Beren) respectively -- both works of the thirties separated by only a > few years, the later essentially expanding upon the earlier. What > truly separate these two portrayals of Elu Thingol is, IMO, rather > the quest of Beren and Lúthien, and Thingol's own regret[*] at > Túrin's flight from Doriath and refusal to return.
"Christopher's invention" is putting it a bit strongly (unless you mean by "Thingol's scorn" his particular contemptuous speech right before his death). The Elves always looked down on the unlovely Stunted People (except perhaps Felagund, but he's the nice one). In pre-Lotter writings, the Dwarves generally deserved it, too. Fifties versions necessarily rehabilitated the Dwarves' character, but the Elves' contempt remained- now of course more as a reflection of Elvish arrogance.
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:40:49 -0500, Emma Pease <e...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Yes. It is uncommon in Modern English but the Lord's Prayer (King > James Version) has "Hallowed be thy name". Also Halloween is short > for All Hallows Eve or the eve of All Saints day. So hallow as a noun > means saint (dying out around 1500 as a usage except in Halloween and > related words) and as a verb means to make holy. Hallows (plural) can > also mean holy place.
generally, "something holy", both words deriving from OE /haelig/. As a noun in more-or-less modern usage, mostly "a holy place" (cf the Hallows of Rath Dinen). All Hallows translates All Saints simply because Latin /sanctus/ = holy: i.e. Saint James = Holy James.
This is an interesting angle on the Ainulindale, and Tolkien's glossing of the Ainur as the Holy Ones. In liturgical English the "saints" (=holy ones) collectively are all those Men whose souls are now in Heaven. (Angels generally get St. as a courtesy title). This may be reflected in the prophecy of the Second Music, which will involve the Ainur *and* the Children of Men.
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
Christopher Kreuzer <spamg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > - The scene where Húrin cries aloud to Turgon in the wilderness, recalling > the scene at the Fen of Serech in the Fifth Battle, also has striking > parallels with scenes from the battle, including the scene where Húrin is > captured at the end of the battle.
: Húrin stood in despair before the silent cliffs of the Echoriath, : and the westering sun, piercing the clouds, stained his white hair : with red. Then he cried aloud in the wilderness, heedless of any ears, : and he cursed the pitiless land; and standing at last upon a high rock : he looked towards Gondolin and called in a great voice: 'Turgon, : Turgon, remember the Fen of Serech! O Turgon, will you not hear in : your hidden halls?' But there was no sound save the wind in the dry : grasses. 'Even so they hissed in Serech at the sunset,' he said; and : as he spoke the sun went behind the Mountains of Shadow, and a : darkness fell about him, and the wind ceased, and there was silence in : the waste. : : Yet there were ears that heard the words that Húrin spoke, [...]
In TRtME, Shippey does an interesting analysis on this scene:
[...] Turgon's pause is there only to allow [Húrin] to make a fateful decision and then regret it -- or, one might say, to prove the adjective 'pitiless' in the passage quoted. It is not the land which has no pity, but Turgon, and the elves and men who rejected Húrin earlier. By similar transference cliffs are 'silent', grasses 'dry', the red sunset and white hair stand for future catastrophe and present despair, while the sun behind 'Shadow' marks the beginning of the end for Gondolin [...]. Over all hangs the implication that the real sunset is in Húrin's heart, a loss of hope to elvish, and natural, indifference. And yet the indifference is illusion, the silence full of ears, the despair a fatal mistake...
The scene is a picture, a posed /tableau/. Yet it centres on an outctry of spontanous passion (like so many scenes of medieval romance). Dynamism is generated from it as soon as one ask the question 'whose fault?' [...]
There are also other "tableaus" in Tolkien's works, though I didn't notice them until I head read this analysis :-)
William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This is an interesting angle on the Ainulindale, and Tolkien's glossing of > the Ainur as the Holy Ones. In liturgical English the "saints" (=holy > ones) collectively are all those Men whose souls are now in Heaven.
I learned in school that "holy" just means "with God" (i.e., in his presence). I am not sure if it applies to Tolkien, because it's Protestant Theology, but...
> This may be reflected in the prophecy of the Second Music, which > will involve the Ainur *and* the Children of Men.
...that would allow a simpler explanation: The Ainur are the "Holy Ones" because they were initially with God. (And the saints are "holy" because they are after their death with God, immediately, while all the others have to wait a bit longer :-) So no need to invoke the prohecy of the Second Music.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:08:43 -0500, Dirk Thierbach
<dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: > (And the saints are "holy" because > they are after their death with God, immediately, while all the others > have to wait a bit longer
That's not precisely the Catholic view. The "saints" properly are all the Faithful, living and dead, although in common usage it's the dead ones who are meant. In colloquial usage the term is limited to that list of persons "canonized" by the Church- this doesn't imply that these are the only ones, still less that the Church "put" them there: it simply means, based on the evidence of intercessory miracles, that we're pretty sure that they are there.
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:08:43 -0500, Dirk Thierbach > <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: >> And the saints are "holy" because they are after their death with >> God, immediately, while all the others have to wait a bit longer :-) > That's not precisely the Catholic view. The "saints" properly are all the > Faithful, living and dead
That would surprise me. I always thought only people who are already dead can be "sanctified" (is that the correct word) by the Pope?
But to equate "all the faithful" with "saints" just looks wrong to me. Sources?
> although in common usage it's the dead ones who > are meant. In colloquial usage the term is limited to that list of > persons "canonized" by the Church- this doesn't imply that these are the > only ones, still less that the Church "put" them there: it simply means, > based on the evidence of intercessory miracles, that we're pretty sure > that they are there.
Yes, of course. But isn't the whole point of praying to a saint, as I have understood it, that they are actually "face to face" with God, so they can "talk" to God on behalf of the one who is praying? That would again make the saints all those who are "with God" (even if the "canonized" ones are only a part of them).
And I would also be surprised if evidence of miracles is still a necessary condition for the present Catholic church.
<dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: > William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:08:43 -0500, Dirk Thierbach >> <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>> And the saints are "holy" because they are after their death with >>> God, immediately, while all the others have to wait a bit longer :-)
>> That's not precisely the Catholic view. The "saints" properly are all >> the >> Faithful, living and dead
> That would surprise me. I always thought only people who are already > dead can be "sanctified" (is that the correct word) by the Pope?
> But to equate "all the faithful" with "saints" just looks wrong to me. > Sources?
>> although in common usage it's the dead ones who >> are meant. In colloquial usage the term is limited to that list of >> persons "canonized" by the Church- this doesn't imply that these are the >> only ones, still less that the Church "put" them there: it simply means, >> based on the evidence of intercessory miracles, that we're pretty sure >> that they are there.
> Yes, of course. But isn't the whole point of praying to a saint, as I > have understood it, that they are actually "face to face" with God, so > they can "talk" to God on behalf of the one who is praying? That would > again make the saints all those who are "with God" (even if the > "canonized" ones are only a part of them).
> And I would also be surprised if evidence of miracles is still a > necessary condition for the present Catholic church.
Then be surprised. It still is. Even for Mother Teresa. (This is not to say that the standards for "miracles" aren't fudged in some cases. Nor that politics aren't involved: backers of particular candidates campaign as intensely as studios at Oscar time. OTOH, the rules for certifying miracles are a LOT tighter than they were in, say, the Middle Ages. The overwhelming majority of claimed wonders are rejected)
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:05:51 -0500, Dirk Thierbach
<dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: > But to equate "all the faithful" with "saints" just looks wrong to me. > Sources?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 946: After confessing "the holy catholic Church," the Apostles' Creed adds "the communion of saints." In a certain sense this article is a further explanation of the preceding: "What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints?" The communion of saints is the Church.
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
Dirk Thierbach <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> writes: > William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:08:43 -0500, Dirk Thierbach > > <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
> >> And the saints are "holy" because they are after their death with > >> God, immediately, while all the others have to wait a bit longer :-)
> > That's not precisely the Catholic view. The "saints" properly are > > all the Faithful, living and dead
> That would surprise me. I always thought only people who are already > dead can be "sanctified" (is that the correct word) by the Pope? > But to equate "all the faithful" with "saints" just looks wrong to me. > Sources?
About any catholic priest or theologican. Paulus would be a good start. William's simply right. Any catholic, probably every Christian, who received the sacrament of baptism is "holy" because they accepted Jesus and take part in his holiness. Catholic saints are just eople who are, according to the rules of the Catholic rules, with certainity in god's presence.
...
> Yes, of course. But isn't the whole point of praying to a saint,
You don't pray "to saints", since that would imply worship. Saints get revered and you pray *with* saints. However, the flock at large is somewhat unclear about these matters.
> as I have understood it, that they are actually "face to face" with > God, so they can "talk" to God on behalf of the one who is praying?
Yes, the canonized saints are.
> That would again make the saints all those who are "with God" (even > if the "canonized" ones are only a part of them). > And I would also be surprised if evidence of miracles is still a > necessary condition for the present Catholic church.
I wouldn't, because the lack of properly verified miracles is one of the reasons why Pope John Paul II hasn't been canonized yet. It was already a concession to start his beautification process early - by church law, it can't be be stared earlier than five years after death.
The church, back in the days when martyer-worship got our of hand, established the rules of canonization to prevent dilution of the theology and estahlishing lots of local minor deities.
These days, only real matyrdrom (like Maximiliam Kolbe) gets you sainthood real fast. Otherwise you need at least one miracle to your name - usually a miracle of healing, verified by real physicians to be unexplainable.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:28:27 -0500, Peter Bruells <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote:
> These days, only real matyrdrom (like Maximiliam Kolbe) gets you > sainthood real fast. Otherwise you need at least one miracle to your > name - usually a miracle of healing, verified by real physicians to be > unexplainable.
IIRC, one miracle just gets you beatification: full canonization requires two. In fact, I'm pretty sure that martyrdom alone just qualifies for blessed status. E.g. my own patron William of Norwich (which I'm not comfortable about, since his "martyrdom" seems to have been the invention of hysterical anti-Semites: in fact, since the Church has absolutely and utterly rejected and condemned the "blood libel," poor little William really ought to be stricken from the Calendar. I would much prefer St. Cloud anyway- a saint because not slaughtering your relatives was apparently 'saintly' conduct for a Merovingian royal.)
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:05:51 -0500, Dirk Thierbach > <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
> > William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:08:43 -0500, Dirk Thierbach > >> <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
> >>> And the saints are "holy" because they are after their death with > >>> God, immediately, while all the others have to wait a bit longer :-)
> >> That's not precisely the Catholic view. The "saints" properly are > >> all the > >> Faithful, living and dead
> > That would surprise me. I always thought only people who are already > > dead can be "sanctified" (is that the correct word) by the Pope?
> > But to equate "all the faithful" with "saints" just looks wrong to me. > > Sources?
> >> although in common usage it's the dead ones who > >> are meant. In colloquial usage the term is limited to that list of > >> persons "canonized" by the Church- this doesn't imply that these are the > >> only ones, still less that the Church "put" them there: it simply means, > >> based on the evidence of intercessory miracles, that we're pretty sure > >> that they are there.
> > Yes, of course. But isn't the whole point of praying to a saint, as I > > have understood it, that they are actually "face to face" with God, so > > they can "talk" to God on behalf of the one who is praying? That would > > again make the saints all those who are "with God" (even if the > > "canonized" ones are only a part of them).
> > And I would also be surprised if evidence of miracles is still a > > necessary condition for the present Catholic church.
> Then be surprised. It still is. Even for Mother Teresa.
Who, however, has already been beatified at top speed.
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:10:58 -0500, Troels Forchhammer > <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>> Thingol's scorn for the dwarves is, of course, an invention by >> CJRT, [...]
> "Christopher's invention" is putting it a bit strongly (unless you > mean by "Thingol's scorn" his particular contemptuous speech > right before his death).
You are right, thanks. I was only referring to the argument over the refitted Nauglamir (I thought I had caught all instances of 'invention' in reference to this, substituting 'addition', though in this case I'm not sure it would have made the intention any clearer).
-- Troels Forchhammer Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com> Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke, /Profiles of The Future/, 1961 (Also known as 'Clarke's third law')
Dirk Thierbach wrote: > Christopher Kreuzer <spamg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> - The scene where Húrin cries aloud to Turgon in the wilderness, >> recalling the scene at the Fen of Serech in the Fifth Battle, also >> has striking parallels with scenes from the battle, including the >> scene where Húrin is captured at the end of the battle.
>> Húrin stood in despair before the silent cliffs of the Echoriath, >> and the westering sun, piercing the clouds, stained his white hair >> with red. Then he cried aloud in the wilderness, heedless of any >> ears, and he cursed the pitiless land; and standing at last upon a >> high rock he looked towards Gondolin and called in a great voice: >> 'Turgon, >> Turgon, remember the Fen of Serech! O Turgon, will you not hear in >> your hidden halls?' But there was no sound save the wind in the dry >> grasses. 'Even so they hissed in Serech at the sunset,' he said; and >> as he spoke the sun went behind the Mountains of Shadow, and a >> darkness fell about him, and the wind ceased, and there was silence >> in the waste.
>> Yet there were ears that heard the words that Húrin spoke, [...]
> In TRtME, Shippey does an interesting analysis on this scene:
Wow. Thanks for pointing this out. Dare I ask whether you find this more convincing than the comparisons I made looking back to the scene at the end of the Fifth Battle? Particularly the contrasting of the "storm of wind" and the "silence in the waste"? And the hope and defiance of Hurin in his youth, compared with the despair of his old age?
> [...] Turgon's pause is there only to allow [Húrin] to make a fateful > decision and then regret it -- or, one might say, to prove the > adjective 'pitiless' in the passage quoted. It is not the land which > has no pity, but Turgon, and the elves and men who rejected Húrin > earlier. By similar transference cliffs are 'silent', grasses 'dry', > the red sunset and white hair stand for future catastrophe and > present despair, while the sun behind 'Shadow' marks the beginning > of the end for Gondolin [...]. Over all hangs the implication that > the real sunset is in Húrin's heart, a loss of hope to elvish, and > natural, indifference. And yet the indifference is illusion, the > silence full of ears, the despair a fatal mistake...
I like this 'transference' idea. And the 'sunset in Hurin's heart' bit is great as well. I'm not so sure about the red sunset, white hair, and 'beginning of the end for Gondolin' bits. Though there is a little bit that I noticed that does seem to recall something about the fate of Gondolin...
> The scene is a picture, a posed /tableau/. Yet it centres on an > outctry of spontanous passion (like so many scenes of medieval > romance). Dynamism is generated from it as soon as one ask the > question 'whose fault?' [...]
That's a lovely concept as well. A 'posed tableau'.
> There are also other "tableaus" in Tolkien's works, though I didn't > notice them until I head read this analysis :-)
I think we all notice them, but we wouldn't have called them tableaux. I would have said they were the bits of the narrative that strongly evoke a frozen _scene_ in my mind, where you can literally see in your mind's eye the pivotal moment of tragedy, hope, or whatever. It is nice to have a name now with which to discuss these moments!
One of the other tableaux I went and looked up relates to the bit from the Hurin at Gondolin tableau mentioned above, where I said I had noticed something that seems to recall the fate of Gondolin:
"...standing at last upon a high rock he [Hurin] looked towards Gondolin and called in a great voice..." (Of the Ruin of Doriath)
This reminded me of another great posed tableau:
"they came at length to [...] the empty waste of Araman which [was] mountainous and cold. There they beheld suddenly a dark figure standing high upon a rock [...] And they heard a loud voice, solemn and terrible, that bade them stand and give ear." (Of the Flight of the Noldor)
Is it really a coincidence that Hurin's pose upon a high rock, calling out to Turgon with the voice of impending doom, signalling the beginning of the end for Gondolin, is like that of Mandos, standing high upon a rock, declaring the Prophecy of the North, which of course includes references to the Fall of Gondolin (not so-much in the published /Silmarillion/, though traces remain there, but in the Book of Lost Tales versions of this Prophecy, where the fate of Gondolin is made explicit)?
On a more general note, one thing that has struck be from looking at the story of Hurin and Morwen is that, unlike Turin (who could be a nasty bit of work sometimes), Hurin and Morwen don't deserve what they get (though maybe some think that Turin didn't deserve any of his fate either).
Looking in particular at Hurin:
1) Gets to go to Gondolin 2) Fights with great valour in the battles 3) Gets captured 4) Endures years of watching his son's life unravel 5) Released by Morgoth 6) Rejected by his people 7) Unwittingly furthers Morgoth's purposes 8) Realises he had been a thrall even after release 9) Commits suicide
So no, not a happy ending. And he doesn't seem to have any fault or anything that would help assuage the tragedy of it all. I suppose at the end, it can be tracked down to Hurin defying Morgoth, and being cursed by Morgoth, as is said in general of the Narn: "it is called the Tale of Grief, for it is sorrowful, and in it are revealed most evil works of Morgoth Bauglir."
<spamg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On a more general note, one thing that has struck be from looking at the > story of Hurin and Morwen is that, unlike Turin (who could be a nasty > bit of > work sometimes), Hurin and Morwen don't deserve what they get (though > maybe > some think that Turin didn't deserve any of his fate either). > Looking in particular at Hurin: > 1) Gets to go to Gondolin > 2) Fights with great valour in the battles > 3) Gets captured > 4) Endures years of watching his son's life unravel > 5) Released by Morgoth > 6) Rejected by his people > 7) Unwittingly furthers Morgoth's purposes > 8) Realises he had been a thrall even after release > 9) Commits suicide > So no, not a happy ending. And he doesn't seem to have any fault or > anything > that would help assuage the tragedy of it all. I suppose at the end, it > can > be tracked down to Hurin defying Morgoth, and being cursed by Morgoth, > as is > said in general of the Narn: "it is called the Tale of Grief, for it is > sorrowful, and in it are revealed most evil works of Morgoth Bauglir." > Christopher
This is why the Wanderingss of Hurin is so interesting- Hurin *is* responsible for the catastrophe of Brethil. Not that the Haladin aren't also in part guilty- but here there's no external Fist of Fate pounding away.
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
>> Chapter of the Week (CotW) - The Silmarillion - Quenta >> Silmarillion (QS), Chapter 22 - Of the Ruin of Doriath.
> A bit belated, I'm afraid, but still.
Your response or my introduction. ;-)
(I know, it's the latter. Belated apologies!)
<snip>
>> - Húrin is lead to Brethil by dreams of Morwen. Whence came these >> dreams?
> Within the context of the story, I could imagine it coming from > several sources for various reasons.
I thought Ulmo, but your other suggestions are interesting. Maybe though, it is just fate. No particular cause, but just an instinct that subconsciously led Hurin to Brethil (I guess he knew from his knowledge of Turin's story the significance of Brethil).
<snip>
> [...] >> Were the night-sentinels sensing this shadow, this curse that >> Morgoth had laid on Húrin and his kin?
> Yes.
> OK, I was tempted to leave it at that, because it seemed to me so > clear that this darkness and shadow are related, and somehow > represents the mark Morgoth has left on Húrin, and I don't see what > else it could be.
I don't think it is that clear at first. It is only with the later line "...his doom drove him on, and the Shadow still followed him." that it becomes obvious that this darkness may be the Shadow of Morgoth, though earlier we were told: "Then Morgoth cursed Hurin and Morwen and their offspring, and set a doom upon them of darkness and sorrow..." (Of the Fifth Battle...)
I agree, though, that once the connection is made, it is obvious.
> [...] >> "...he closed her eyes, and sat unmoving beside her as the night >> drew down. The waters of Cabed Naeramarth roared on, but he heard >> no sound, and he saw nothing, and felt nothing, for his heart was >> stone within him."
> Well, my heart weren't and my eyes didn't stay dry. It's a wonderful > passage that.
> I'm not actually sure that there is any eucatastrophic moments in the > story of Húrin after his release from Angband, but if the ones that > come closest are, IMO, this moment, when he and Morwen share what is > left of the night (followed by the promise of the sanctity of Tol > Morwen), and the moment when Melian finally sets him free of Morgoth > and he is 'his thrall no longer.'
I agree, the 'promise of the sanctity of Tol Morwen' (a lovely phrase) is a eucatastrophic moment. I am wondering whether there are other moments of eucatastrophe in /The Silmarillion/. Count Menelvagor has pointed to the story of Beren and Luthien, though more specific moments from that story should be identified. I think the moment when Beren lifts up his right and then left hand, and names himself Camlost, and Thingol's then looks kindly on him. Maybe also the moment when Luthien sings before Mandos, and the moment when Dior learn's that Beren and Luthien have died. But outside the main stories of Beren and Luthien, and the Turin saga, I wonder what other eucatastrophic moments there are?
Maybe the coda at the end, about Arda Marred? Which seems to imply that the whole story is one long arc leading to ultimate eucatastrophe.
"If it has passed from the high and the beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred"
Or the moment when the dying Trees put forth one last blossoming:
"Yet even as hope failed and her song faltered, Telperion bore at last upon a leafless bough one great flower of silver, and Laurelin a single trait of gold."
Or the moment when Eonwe cries out to greet the coming of Earendil?
"Hail Earendil, bearer of light before the Sun and Moon! Splendour of the Children of Earth, star in the darkness, jewel in the sunset, radiant in the morning!"
But maybe these aren't truly eucatastropic moments. That requires a feeling of despair to be replaced with one of great joy, no? Or is that oversimplifying it?
>> Rather it is the stories within the story that are the points.
<snip>
> Tolkien, IMO, manages to strike an > amazing balance where the war in itself is portrayed as evil and > wasteful, it also draws out both the worst and the best from those > who are caught up in it, and that is what Tolkien shows in his > individual tales from the Beleriandric wars.
And also a balance between the high and remote style, and the intense individual stories. That is an important part of the technique, I feel. Dipping in and out of a rich history, and switching persepctives. This switching narrative style is also seen in LotR as well, as I think you've mentioned before.
<snip>
> What truly separate these two portrayals of Elu Thingol is, IMO, rather > the quest of Beren and Lúthien, and Thingol's own regret[*] at > Túrin's flight from Doriath and refusal to return.
> [*] I'm not sure that 'regret' is the right word -- I want to imply a > sadness and a deep wish that it could have been otherwise, but no > feelings of guilt or shame.
Regret is precisely the right word, IMO. But it can be extensively modified. Regret is not always sad. In essence it is a neutral word that is usually modifeid by an adjective. Thingol here is showing sad regret, maybe remorseful regret (your 'deep wish that it could have been otherwise'). In contrast, you can also have shameful regret, guilty regret, angry regret, exasperated regret, and so on.
> <snip>
>> - Is the ending of Húrin's tale a satisfactory one? A "happy >> ending"?
> I don't think the suicide of 'the mightiest of the warriors of mortal > Men' can count as a happy ending by any stretch of imagination.
> But that doesn't, I think, preclude the story from having > eucatastrophic moments earlier on, though I am not sure that this in > fact does contain any. As stated above my preferrred candidates would > be that last night with Morwen (followed by the promise of the > permanent sanctity of the Stone of the Hapless), and the release from > Morgoth's thralldom under the protection of the Girdle of Melian.
Yes, I agree these have elements of eucatastrophe. Pain and despair followed by peace and/or joy. However, it is difficult to find any happiness for Hurin. Morwen is at peace, but I don't think Hurin truly finds peace until he casts himself in the sea, and that is an unremittingly sad indictment of how his life has been ruined by Morgoth.
>> Despite being Morgoth's thrall "no longer", we are told >> that "all that saw him fell back before his face" (what did they >> see there?).
> The words 'I am his thrall no longer' imply also the realization that > Húrin had been Morgoth's thrall right up until the moment when Melian > opened his eyes. Despite his gesture afterwards, Húrin goes forth > with the realization that even after his release, he has been serving > Morgoth's purposes rather than his own, perhaps recalling other > situations where his deeds can have benefitted Morgoth.
Good points.
> Small wonder if he looks a bit odd ;)
> The big question is what feeling was reflected in that face.
That's exactly what I wanted to get people to think about.
>> He is also described as being "bereft of all purpose and desire"
I think this is what people would see in his face. An aimless despair that is so blank and beyond saving that people fall back from him in horror.
<snip>
> I think the face that the Sindar fell back before was that of one fey > -- of one doomed to die (interestingly this, spelled "fej", in modern > Danish, has the meaning of 'timid' or 'cowardly').
I agree with your despair assessment, but I'm not sure about the 'doomed to die', and a feyness and death wish. That is possible, but not necessary. He could just be a broken shell of a man, with the last shreds of his dignity nearly gone and unable to bring himself to face life anymore.
> The idea here seems to be a complete abandonment of all hope -- both > 'amdir' and 'estel', a dejection and despair so complete that it > would appear nearly contagious -- or at least very scaring to the > elves around him (a quite common human reaction, by the way: we also > typically shy away from e.g. the terminally ill).
Or the suicidal and terminally depressed. A deep sadness etched in his face that nothing would be able to remove. He has resisted for so long that the ending, when it came, was swift and brutal. He was a free man (thanks to Melian), but a completely broken man mentally.
> [... obsession with the Silmaril] >> This is not good! Is this a flaw in Thingol's character? An >> unavoidable fate? An effect special to the Silmaril? The dwarves >> seem to be affected in a similar way.
<snip quote>
> Wether by design or accident, the Silmarils were from their > conception desirable, and since the rape of the Two Trees they were > doubly so. To lust after a Silmaril once you had seen it was, I > think, a natural state of affairs, even if most people were able to > subdue their lust enough not to commit crimes for it.
Thanks. I think that explains lots of things about people's behaviour in this chapter. But it seems to come back to who can subdue their lust for it. Would Beren and Luthien or Dior have lusted for it in the same way that Thingol, Feanor or Melkor did? Or even Carcharoth, for instance.
> But this obsession seems in some ways similar to the obsession, or > addiction, of the One Ring. This is more obvious in Fëanor's reaction > than in Thingol's -- Fëanor hid the Silmarils and didn't even suffer > others to see them, much less hold them, while Thingol at least > didn't stop at letting the dwarves have it in their custody > (admittedly while they were apparently at his mercy in Menegroth).
>> - Why is it significant that Thingol, with his last sight, gazed >> upon the light of the Trees of Valinor, contained in the Silmaril? >> Is there something more here than just the fact that he "alone
Peter Bruells <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote: > Dirk Thierbach <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> writes: >> William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> > That's not precisely the Catholic view. The "saints" properly are >> > all the Faithful, living and dead >> That would surprise me. I always thought only people who are already >> dead can be "sanctified" (is that the correct word) by the Pope? >> But to equate "all the faithful" with "saints" just looks wrong to me. >> Sources? > About any catholic priest or theologican.
I happened to be in the library yesterday, and looked it up. Several lexica of religion agree that there is a concept that (originally) the martyrs went directly to heaven, and hence can intervene directly with God on behalf of those who pray to them. That concept has been later extended to the Saints.
OTOH, I think we agree that the Faithful will have to wait until Resurrection until they see God "face to face".
Hence, obviously to be a Saint (whether canonicized or not) is different from being just a believer.
> Paulus would be a good start.
The lexica also say that this concept can be found already in the bible, for example in Relevations and Matthew. (Sorry, I didn't write don't the exact place).
> William's simply right. Any catholic, probably every Christian, who > received the sacrament of baptism is "holy" because they accepted > Jesus and take part in his holiness.
But that's different from "being a Saint". "Holy" here just means "dedicated to God, belonging to God, participating in God" or something like this. Not in his, well, "direct" presence, if that's the way to put it.
> Catholic saints are just eople who are, according to the rules of > the Catholic rules, with certainity in god's presence.
Yes, but if there is doubt whether someone is in God's presence or not (before Doomsday), then this cannot be a universal attribute, can it? Otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to single out those Saints for which the attribute is certain, and you could pray to anyone of Catholic faith who is dead. No need to have the concept of a "Saint" at all.
> You don't pray "to saints", since that would imply worship.
Exactly :-) (And it was a convenient way to integrate worship of local deities during Christianization). Though of course the Catholic church had to put an end to this later on.
> Saints get revered and you pray *with* saints.
In other words, you ask the Saints to support your plea, yes. That's what I said, didn't I?
>> And I would also be surprised if evidence of miracles is still a >> necessary condition for the present Catholic church. > I wouldn't, because the lack of properly verified miracles is one of > the reasons why Pope John Paul II hasn't been canonized yet.
I really do wonder how one could verify a proper miracle today (miracle in the sense of "something normally impossible"). Unless one uses a very diluted definition of miracle, of course.
> These days, only real matyrdrom (like Maximiliam Kolbe) gets you > sainthood real fast. Otherwise you need at least one miracle to your > name
Hm. First you say one does need a proper miracle, always. Now you say that in some cases you don't. Now I am a bit confused :-)
William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:05:51 -0500, Dirk Thierbach > <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: >> And I would also be surprised if evidence of miracles is still a >> necessary condition for the present Catholic church. > Then be surprised. It still is. Even for Mother Teresa. (This is not to > say that the standards for "miracles" aren't fudged in some cases.
Christopher Kreuzer <spamg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> In TRtME, Shippey does an interesting analysis on this scene: > Wow.
Yes, I also found it an eye-opener. :-)
> Thanks for pointing this out. Dare I ask whether you find this more > convincing than the comparisons I made looking back to the scene at > the end of the Fifth Battle?
Well, I don't think the interpretations contradict each other. I think Shippey's observations hit the spot pretty well. OTOH, it's probably fair game to compare both scenes. I have to admit that I don't think the *parallels* are very strong (some of the symbolism is the same, e.g. the "sunset" and the "shadow", but that symbolism is quite universal). But ...
> Particularly the contrasting of the "storm of wind" and the "silence > in the waste"? And the hope and defiance of Hurin in his youth, > compared with the despair of his old age?
... the *contrast* between both scenes is probably interesting enough in itself.
[...]
>> There are also other "tableaus" in Tolkien's works, though I didn't >> notice them until I head read this analysis :-) > I think we all notice them, but we wouldn't have called them tableaux. I > would have said they were the bits of the narrative that strongly evoke a > frozen _scene_ in my mind, where you can literally see in your mind's eye > the pivotal moment of tragedy, hope, or whatever.
Well, for me, it just didn't happen -- when reading a book, I tend to visualize (or half-visualize) the action, or the surroundings, but certainly not those kinds of "stills". I can recognize them and interpret them in paintings or other images, but I wouldn't have looked for them in prose. Maybe I am just not familiar enough with this kind of art. I really needed to have it pointed out to me, though in retrospect it's quite obvious. Tolkien probably really visualized those "stills" first (maybe in the same way he visualized the landscape), and then just wrote down a description.
> It is nice to have a name now with which to discuss these moments!
Yes, names for concepts are always very important.
> On a more general note, one thing that has struck be from looking at > the story of Hurin and Morwen is that, unlike Turin (who could be a > nasty bit of work sometimes), Hurin and Morwen don't deserve what > they get [...] > And he doesn't seem to have any fault or anything that would help > assuage the tragedy of it all.
Yes, that's why it's called tragedy :-) In other words, shit happens. Look at Job.
> I suppose at the end, it can be tracked down to Hurin defying > Morgoth, and being cursed by Morgoth,
Even without being cursed by Morgoth, people don't always get what they deserve.
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:47:11 -0500, Dirk Thierbach
<dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: >> These days, only real matyrdrom (like Maximiliam Kolbe) gets you >> sainthood real fast. Otherwise you need at least one miracle to your >> name > Hm. First you say one does need a proper miracle, always. Now you say > that in some cases you don't. Now I am a bit confused
Martyrdom has always been considered a little different from "generic" sainthood. A free pass, so to speak.
And the Church does not hold or teach that the dead just lie around until Doomsday- or rather, the church postulated centuries ago that God's time frame is (at the least) orthogonal to Earthly time. Doomsday is "now" to those who die. Which is why traditional Catholics pray for the Dead- on the assumption that they are "currently" in Purgatory (unless they've been canonized).
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:17:47 -0500, Dirk Thierbach
<dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: > Yes, that's why it's called tragedy In other words, shit happens. > Look at Job.
>> I suppose at the end, it can be tracked down to Hurin defying >> Morgoth, and being cursed by Morgoth, > Even without being cursed by Morgoth, people don't always get what > they deserve.
Well, "tragedy" is subject to some rather different definitions. To the Greeks, tragedy was a deliberate punishment by the Gods for a great sin, usually but not always hubris (although by Sophocles' time this view was loosening up). In Shakespeare, the divine element is greatly reduced or eliminated: tragedy is earned, the tragic hero brings about his own destruction through a chain of causation without divine intervention. (This is more or less true even of Macbeth- the Weird Sisters (note the name) don't directly *cause* anything, they just suggest it to him). The Nordic version, Wyrd, is even more impersonal. Wyrd is nearly random, it seems: certainly there's rarely a question of deserving what you get. "Wyrd" selected which poor bastards Grendel ate, but there's never a suggestion that they were asking for it. Shit happens. -- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:47:11 -0500, Dirk Thierbach > <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: >>> These days, only real matyrdrom (like Maximiliam Kolbe) gets you >>> sainthood real fast. Otherwise you need at least one miracle to your >>> name >> Hm. First you say one does need a proper miracle, always. Now you say >> that in some cases you don't. Now I am a bit confused
> Martyrdom has always been considered a little different from "generic" > sainthood. A free pass, so to speak.
From the lexica, I had the impression it was really the other way around: First, only the martyrs were considered "Saints". Then, the notion got extended.
> And the Church does not hold or teach that the dead just lie around > until Doomsday- or rather, the church postulated centuries ago that > God's time frame is (at the least) orthogonal to Earthly > time. Doomsday is "now" to those who die. Which is why traditional > Catholics pray for the Dead- on the assumption that they are > "currently" in Purgatory (unless they've been canonized).
But if they are "currently" in Purgatory, that must mean that they are not directly with God.
And that again means that there *is* a difference between Saints and the remaining Faithful. In other words, not every one of Faithful is a Saint, and one cannot equate them.
<dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: > William Cloud Hicklin <icelofang...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:47:11 -0500, Dirk Thierbach >> <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>> These days, only real matyrdrom (like Maximiliam Kolbe) gets you >>>> sainthood real fast. Otherwise you need at least one miracle to your >>>> name
>>> Hm. First you say one does need a proper miracle, always. Now you say >>> that in some cases you don't. Now I am a bit confused
>> Martyrdom has always been considered a little different from "generic" >> sainthood. A free pass, so to speak.
> From the lexica, I had the impression it was really the other way > around: First, only the martyrs were considered "Saints". Then, the > notion got extended.
>> And the Church does not hold or teach that the dead just lie around >> until Doomsday- or rather, the church postulated centuries ago that >> God's time frame is (at the least) orthogonal to Earthly >> time. Doomsday is "now" to those who die. Which is why traditional >> Catholics pray for the Dead- on the assumption that they are >> "currently" in Purgatory (unless they've been canonized).
> But if they are "currently" in Purgatory, that must mean that they > are not directly with God.
> And that again means that there *is* a difference between Saints and > the remaining Faithful. In other words, not every one of Faithful is a > Saint, and one cannot equate them.
Ok, ok, ok, ok. I see what the problem is. You're trying to set in opposition what are merely a loose and a tight usage of "saint". Correctly, technically, it means the all of Faithful (and I've already cited you the bloody Catechism on that point). But in common usage, people tend to use it only for the dead ones that the church has "certified," e.g. "Lives of the Saints" etc.
-- The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.
|
