SWG Re-Read - Ainulindalë Discussion Post

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Hi, folks! This is our first Discussion post. It includes a short summary, stuff we found interesting, notes on earlier versions and a couple of questions to get you started. The Discussion post for "Valaquenta" will be posted later, as well as the Fanworks post for both chapters. Thank you for your patience!

Important: This is not a spoiler-free zone. It is hard to discuss any chapter in depth without referring to things that happen in later chapters. Proceed at your own risk!

Many thanks to lignota for creating the header banner for this post! More banners and icons will be forthcoming in a later post.

Ainulindalë – The Music of the Ainur




Summary

The "Ainulindalë", although not part of the Silmarillion proper, sets the stage for the story ahead. We are introduced to a creator god, Eru Ilúvatar, and the Ainur, "the offspring of his thought". The creation of the universe is presented as a sort of symphony in three movements. It begins harmonious, but as each theme progresses, a powerful Ainu named Melkor tries to introduce new thoughts into the music, causing discord. Twice, Eru interrupts the discord to impose new themes of his own; when his third theme again has to struggle against the tune introduced by Melkor, Eru stops the music. He then shows the Ainur a vision of their music made real: the world and its history. The Ainur also see things that they did not come up with, most notably the Children of Ilúvatar, i.e. Elves and Mortals. Amazed by the vision and enamoured with the Children, several of the Ainur – including Melkor - wish to go into this world. Eru then makes it real; however, the Ainur who enter it find that none of the history they've seen has actually happened yet. They begin to shape the world, always disturbed by Melkor who wants to shape and rule the world alone.



Observations

Interestingly, the earliest in-universe author of the "Ainulindalë" is Rúmil, a Noldorin elf, who cannot have been present for the events he describes. The text is therefore set up to be a third-hand retelling ("yet did Manwë Súlimo, Lord of Elves and Men, whisper them to the fathers of my father in the deeps of time" (The Book of Lost Tales 1) rather than an eyewitness account (as it could have been if Tolkien had given, say, Vairë as the author). This, along with several remarks by Tolkien in "Myths Transformed", suggests that the "Ainulindalë" has never been meant to be a factual account of "Creation". Even within the fantastical context of the Legendarium, "The Music of the Ainur" is supposed to be a myth, which the characters may or may not believe or even know about.



Our Favourite Quotes

"And he spoke to them, propounding to them themes of music; and they sang beore him, and he was glad.But for a long while they sang only each alone, or but few together, while the rest hearkened; for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Ilúvatar from which he came, and in the understanding of their brethren they grew but slowly. Yet ever as they listened they came to deeper understanding, and increased in unison and harmony."

"In the midst of this strife, whereat the halls of Ilúvatar shook and a tremor ran out into the silences yet unmoved, Ilúvatar arose a third time, and his face was terrible to behold. Then he raised up both his hands, and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar, the Music ceased."

"And amid all the splendours of the World, its vast halls and spaces, and its wheeling fires, Ilúvatar chose a place for their [Elves and Men's] habitation in the Deeps of Time and in the midst of the innumerable stars."



Earlier Versions

Different versions of Tolkien's creation myth can be found in various volumes of the History of Middle-earth series. Following the nomenclature offered by Christopher Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring, these are:
"Ainulindalë A", woven into the framework of Ælfwine's/ Eriol's "fieldwork" on Tol Eressëa, written between 1918 and 1920 and published in HomE 1: The Book of Lost Tales 1.
"Ainulindalë B", written in 1930; this is the "Flat World Version" sent to Katherine Farrer in 1948. It has been published in HoME 5: The Lost Road and Other Writings.
"Ainulindalë C*", based on B but with some drastic changes which we will discuss later. This is the "Round World Version" that Katherine Farrer read in 1948. It has been published in the "Ainulindalë" section of HoME 10: Morgoth's Ring.
"Ainulindalë C", rewritten from C* after its return, probably influenced by Katherine Farrer's commentary. Tolkien kept most of the changes that he had made to B, but returned to a "flat" view of the world. This can likewise be found in Morgoth's Ring.
"Ainulindalë D", finished before 1951, which appears to be Tolkien's final extant revision of the text; also in Morgoth's Ring.
Christopher Tolkien also mentions an additional manuscript from 1946, of which only one single page has survived. (Morgoth's Ring, Part One: Ainulindalë.)

If one disregards changes of wording and of names as well as other small additions and omissions, the ideas presented in the "Ainulindalë" have changed remarkably little throughout the decades. There are only a few truly noteworthy changes:

In its first appearance, the "Ainulindalë" is told to Eriol/ Ælfwine by Rúmil himself. In later versions, Rúmil continues to be named as the author, but the text is no longer presented as a narration framed by the Eriol story, but as a formal chronicle: "This was written by Rúmil of Tûn (The Lost Road and Other Writings)"; "This was written by Rúmil of Túna and was told to Ælfwine in Eressëa (as he records) by Pengoloð the Sage"(Version C) (who however does not speak to Ælfwine in person; rather, Ælfwine had access to and translated his works) (Morgoth's Ring). No in-universe author is given for the version in The Silmarillion.

Before Version C*, Eru immediately after the Third Theme "gives Being" to the music; the Ainur see the World, rather than a vision of it. Accordingly, the Valar do not find the world "unshaped" as they do in C*, C, D and the final version; neither have they seen its history unfold.
As the name "Round World Version" suggests, Version C* paints the image of a world that is round from the beginning, rather than being made so in the Drowning of Númenor. The sun exists right from the start; the moon comes into being when the Valar expel Morgoth's first stronghold into space. It is said to be "clean, yet utterly barren... a mirror to the greater Earth, catching the light of the Sun, when she is invisible". In this version, the Great Lamps never appear. As Tolkien did not further follow the idea, it is impossible to say what he would have done about the Two Trees.

It is notable that the events that, in the published Silmarillion, form Chapter 1 ("Of the Beginning of Days") are part of the "Ainulindalë" in Versions C*, C and D. These versions will therefore be relevant when we discuss Chapter 1, too.



Food for Thought

In 1948, Katherine Farrer, who had a chance to read both the "Flat World Version" and the "Round World Version" long before publication, expressed that she much preferred the "Flat World Version" to the one that better fits our modern understanding of the world. Do you agree?

Tolkien himself noted: "The Elvish myths are 'Flat World'. A pity really but it is too integral to change it." Why do you think Tolkien would have preferred to give the Elves a 'round' world view, if it had not been too complicated to implement the change? What changes would have to be made to the Legendarium to make a 'Round World' myth work?

How effective do you find the "Ainulindalë" as a creation story? Imagine that you are a young Elf (or Man) of the First, Second or Third Age who, when asking how the World came into being, is presented with the "Ainulindalë" story. Do you think you'd consider your question answered in a satisfying manner?

In- universe, Eru asserts that no part of the music could be played without his consent, and that every theme, even Melkor's, ultimately originates from him. Nonetheless, he appears upset about the discord caused by Melkor. Why do you think that is?

In a similar vein, we are told that the Ainur see the world "unfold its history", including the coming of the Children of Ilúvatar. However, there is no mention of the Dwarves, even though they should surely appear in a vision of the world's history. Likewise, the Valar's continual struggle against Melkor should have been visible - as a warning, so to say. Nonetheless, it all seems to come as a surprise to the Valar. What do you make of that?

Do you think the characters of the Silmarillion are aware of the mythical nature of the "Ainulindalë", or do you think they accept it as true history? In what way would it be significant how they view the traditional text?

Did you know that the "Ainulindalë" was supposed to be purely myth or did you treat it as factual history? Knowing the former, will your treatment of it change?

Can you see any parallels to real-world mythologies or legends that may have influenced Tolkien?



Works Cited

The Silmarillion. "Ainulindalë".

The History of Middle-earth: The Book of Lost Tales 1. "II: The Music of the Ainur".

The History of Middle-earth: The Lost Road and Other Writings. "IV: Ainulindalë".

The History of Middle-earth: Morgoth's Ring. "Part One: Ainulindalë" and "Part Five: Myths Transformed".



Please note: We don't know everything and it's perfectly possible that we missed something. These summaries and questions are by no means supposed to be complete and exhaustive. If you have looked further into this particular topic or would like to discuss something that we've overlooked, please share it!

Comments

[dawn_felagund]

Okay, part the second, on the connection between Ainulindalë and world creation myths ...

(I'm basically summing of the paper I just wrote and presented but am assuming that people participating in this discussion probably won't have time for that 17-minute video I posted up there ... ;)

There are some connections that I have found, but they are relatively minor and the differences between Ainulindalë and world creation myths are significant and, I think, extremely important.

In researching my paper, the connection I saw people wanting to make most often was between the Ainulindalë and the Bible. There are some similarities, but they are relatively minor, and they are again overwhelmed by the differences. For example, in the Ainulindalë, there is both creation from thought (e.g., the Ainur as the children of Eru's thought) and creation from word (in Eru's utterance of "Eä! Let these things be!"), both of which occur in Biblical stories of creation. However, they are also archetypes that occur in dozens of other world creation myths. (In fact, "creation from thought" and "creation from word" are two of the five creation myth subtypes proposed by religion scholar Charles Long because they are so universal.)

And, as I said above, the differences are significant. To name the three that I think are biggest: 1) The Biblical God has a high level of personal involvement in the world He created (to the extent of even having a son on earth!) whereas Eru is distant and becomes involved only at the behest of Manwë, 2) evil enters the world during the creation itself through Melkor's discord, not through the fall of humankind (so the subsequent falls of both Elves and Men could be said to derive from the Music itself and are not rebellions against God's will), and 3) Eru does very little creation of actual Arda but, rather, delegates this to the Ainur.

(Continued ...)

[dawn_felagund]

I think this last difference is vitally important. Most of the labor of creation belongs to the Ainur, through the Music. (Actually, Tolkien would and did call this "subcreation" because what the Ainur created still could not have life of its own until he made it so, hence "Eä!") I think there are two reasons why Tolkien did this.

First of all is that it let him play with a pagan-like pantheon without directly contradicting his own Catholic beliefs. Tolkien wrote (but never sent) a fascinating letter (#153) to Peter Hastings, a Catholic bookshop owner who took issue with several aspects of LotR, namely the reincarnation of the Elves, which he felt was contrary to God's design and therefore "overstepped" (in his words) the role of a writer. Tolkien replied that subcreation in the form of his imagined world of Middle-earth, even when it was contrary to what he believed to be true of the primary world, was "a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety." In other words, God could make reincarnation work if He wished to do so but chose another avenue for primary creation.

I think this can be applied to the Ainulindalë as well. Eru shares the omnipotence of the Biblical God: He creates through both thoughts and words. So no one can accuse Arda of being without God-with-a-capital-G in the sense that Tolkien believed. However, as "a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety," Tolkien's vision also happens to include a pantheon of subcreators who align more with the Finnish and Germanic myth cycles that fascinated Tolkien.

Secondly, the use of subcreators is important because it establishes subcreation as one of the central themes of Tolkien's work. Creation myths express a culture's core values, and subcreation therefore becomes central to the myths and history of Middle-earth. Creation-through-art is certainly found in world myth--creators often create the world from clay, for example--but, interestingly, creation-through-song is extremely rare. And so Tolkien establishes music and poetry as central as well to his imagined world.

What I find fascinating about the Ainulindalë is the way that it touches on world myth just enough that it "feels real" as a creation story. Even its deviations--like creation from music--bear enough of a resemblance to what we can see in world myth as to not feel wholly invented. Within that, Tolkien's legendarium is not incompatible with a Christian worldview but, at the same time, is not a part of the Christian mythos. This makes the unique aspects of Ainulindalë feel all the more important (Tolkien himself, in "On Fairy-Stories," said he believed the differences between myths were more important than the similarities) and emphasized these differences in such a way as to express what themes he personally felt were essential to his legendarium.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

And, as I said above, the differences are significant. To name the three that I think are biggest: 1) The Biblical God has a high level of personal involvement in the world He created (to the extent of even having a son on earth!) whereas Eru is distant and becomes involved only at the behest of Manwë, 2) evil enters the world during the creation itself through Melkor's discord, not through the fall of humankind (so the subsequent falls of both Elves and Men could be said to derive from the Music itself and are not rebellions against God's will), and 3) Eru does very little creation of actual Arda but, rather, delegates this to the Ainur.

I agree completely that there are very few parallels to Genesis (or its retellings), and those that are there (ONE creator god, whose Word gives existence) are really just there to cover Tolkien's back.

I do have to disagree on point 2), though, and I am not convinced by point 1. For the latter, these things happen at completely different times (by Tolkien's count, the high involvement of the Abrahamic God isn't recorded before the fourth or even fifth age), so it's a bit like the argument for a "round world" myth: A world that starts out flat can become round (as Arda indeed does in the Akallabêth if it hasn't been so before). A creator god who is mostly uninvolved in the first couple of ages might still change his mind later on, out of necessity or even just plain boredom. Four-dimensional thinking, so to say!

As for point 2), evil does NOT enter the world through the Fall of Man in the Biblical tradition, either. Man merely falls prey to Evil through the Fall (by failing to exercise his precious Free Will in order to say "No thanks, I really don't care for apples all that much" ;)). God has made the snake as well as paradise, so evil has already been there, either right from the start or from Day 6. So this is in fact rather a similarity than a difference - especially if one also takes into account the non-Biblical (2nd century CE), but very traditionally Catholic account about the rebellion of angels, in which the most powerful of angels (Lucifer, "the lightbearer") rebels and thereby becomes Satan, or the devil. If that ain't Melkor's story in a nutshell, I don't know what is...

[dawn_felagund]

A creator god who is mostly uninvolved in the first couple of ages might still change his mind later on, out of necessity or even just plain boredom. Four-dimensional thinking, so to say!

Good point. To the best of my knowledge, he never expressed such an intention, although I'm sure the possibility probably crossed his mind as a sort of CYA. I always get the impression that he was rather uneasy--especially later in his life--with the implications of the mythology he created, and I think the letter to Peter Hastings shows how stridently he was willing to defend the possibility of aligning his mythology with his own spiritual beliefs, even if that myth is non-Christian.

However, I think my point still stands. People who stretch to draw parallels between the Ainulindalë and the Bible tend to overlook what I (admittedly not a Christian and certainly not a Biblical scholar) see as key differences, one of which is that the Bible involves a very involved God and Ainulindalë does not. They don't make the argument that the Ainulindalë could be compatible with the Christian mythos in a later age--they'd have no argument from me there because, as above, I think Tolkien was careful to make this point true--but they argue that Tolkien placed intentional Biblical parallels in Ainulindalë, which I think his letters and Ainulindalë itself pretty strongly disprove.

God has made the snake as well as paradise, so evil has already been there, either right from the start or from Day 6.

Point taken, but I still think they're quite different explanations for the entry of evil into the world. I agree that the Fall of Angels (which Tolkien certainly mentions in conjunction with the story of the Ainur [Letter 131] and so I don't doubt was on his mind when writing Melkor's story) is as close to a direct parallel to Melkor's story as we get ... but as you note, this isn't a Biblical story. :) Instead, there is evil woven into the Music itself from the beginning versus relatively late creation of "evil" (the serpent) and humankind succumbing to its temptation. The very notion of Arda Marred suggests to me a world that had no chance to be free of evil whereas, presumably, the Christian tradition suggests that a different decision by Adam and Eve could have resulted in just that, and we could all be lounging around in Eden right now, eating fruit in the buff. ;) So, again, a major difference between the stories is often overlooked in trying to prove a congruence--and an intentional one at that!--between them.

(Thank you for this discussion; your comments continue to help me sharpen my thinking as I prepare to revise the Ainulindalë essay yet again, for print this time. :)

[greenknight33.livejournal.com]

God has made the snake as well as paradise, so evil has already been there, either right from the start or from Day 6.

Although, theologically speaking, this argument is far from settled in the Christian tradition. There are many theologians that would argue that the serpent in Genesis 3 was not an animal created by God, but was a spiritual being , or to put it more bluntly, Satan in disguise. This point, which has been argued for quite some time, ultimately limits God’s involvement in the Adam and Eve episode and the fall of humankind/introduction of original sin. The argument, as I understand it, goes something along the lines of why would a God that served as the father of humanity create a fruit that would so easily tempt his creation to turn to a dark path? Not only that, but why would he also place an animal near this fruit to drive humanity to its demise? In the line of inquiry where the serpent is actually Lucifer, evil does indeed enter the world via humanity’s inability to avoid temptation since the serpent does not force either Adam or Eve to eat of the tree, but merely offers a suggestion that they do so. As such, it was the wrong choice that serves as the source of evil, not the existance of the serpent/the devil. It is all rather pedantic, but it is nonetheless a valid theological discussion that has been around since at least the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

The finer points of Christian theology aside, I think a broader argument against any supposed link between the Ainulindalë and the Bible has to come via an examination of Tolkien’s broader life work. While he was a Christian to be sure, his work was that of a philologist, student of history/literature, and creator. To beat a dead horse, he is on record as being vehemently opposed to allegory, and while volumes of information are available that shed light on his thoughts of the northwestern European mythic cycles he adored, little exists to suggest that the man was any sort of Biblical scholar or theologian. Given the combination of his creative nature and his fascination with pagan northern myth, to me it seems like it would have been quite a letdown for one so obsessed with the finer points of his academic studies to throw all of this out the window when fashioning his own creation story and go with the safe route, one that would seamlessly parallel the Bible. It makes no sense. The more I read the Ainulindalë the more I am compelled to think that the story is purely his own, while it is spiked with the undercurrents of known mythic legend to make it feel real.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

You're right.
Well, I'm still unconvinced by the "evil enters the world through humanity's wrong choice" argument, because clearly evil was already there, and all humanity did was succumb to it. But as you say, it's all rather pedantic.

The more I read the Ainulindalë the more I am compelled to think that the story is purely his own

Oh, absolutely! Merely informed by bits and pieces from various (!) mythological sources that Tolkien was familiar with. But he put the pieces together in a unique way, and filled the gaps with his own ideas. (And I definitely agree that it's important to keep that last bit in mind, rather than just search for the parallels to various primary-world myths, whether Biblical or otherwise!)

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

However, I think my point still stands.

It does! To be honest, I suspect that people who link the Ainulindalë to "Genesis" actually mean that some parts of it fit neatly with the Biblical (or even just Catholic) tradition. And that certainly applies. But you're right - if that's what they mean, that's what they should say!

I still think they're quite different explanations for the entry of evil into the world

Hmm, not necessarily explanations - IIRC (and I am not a Bible scholar either), it's never really explained at all in Genesis how evil does come into the world. (As Bobby points out below, it isn't actually said anywhere that God made the serpent, or what the serpent is, really). I think the common line of reasoning is "If God is almighty and made everything, and evil does exist, then God must have made it, too", which is again in line with "no part of the music could be played without [Eru's] consent" - but again, this is not strictly speaking Biblical, but rather later Christian philosophy.

In conclusion, I agree with your point that there is no exceedingly large congruence between Ainulindalë</i and the creation part of Genesis. (Glad if you find this helpful! Thank you, in turn, for helping me to disentangle "Genesis" and "general Catholic tradition" in this context -- I hadn't realised how much I was lumping the two together until now, and I'm not even Catholic!)

[dreamflower]

I think for many readers who make the comparison to Genesis, it has more to do with tone and style than content. For those of us who grew up in a time when (at least for Protestant Christians) the language of the KJV was instantly recognizable it's inevitable.

(Though since Tolkien was Catholic, his version would doubtless have been slightly different--if I am not mistaken, Catholics of his generation used the Douay version. Yet it remains that the language of late 16th to early 17th c. English is the sort of language that most modern English speakers think of as "religious" or "Biblical".)

Tolkien, of course, was a genius at language tone. He probably knew exactly the reaction of someone to the "High Language" he used. The reaction to it if he had affected a more modern and casual style instead would have been quite different.

The subject matter of a Creation myth would also play into that, cementing the surface similarities in most readers' minds.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Oh God, the Douay version. I had to do a presentation on that once! IIRC, though, the English wasn't actually much different from the Authorised Version (more "modern" in parts, but as you say, still early 17th century at best). More Latinate terms & phrases, of course, but on the whole... most modern readers probably wouldn't notice. (Tolkien, obsessed with languages present, past and imaginary, naturally would have.)

You're probably on to something that many people who make the connection do so a) because it's a creation story and b) because of the "religious" style of language! As you say, though, that's more of a superficial similarity, and can moreover be explained by the sort of style Tolkien was aiming for in the first place - that of the older English chronicles, for instance, which when translated into modern English sounds reasonably like what people nowadays consider "Biblical English". Pretty much any Early Modern English prose text sounds much like that, of course, but since most people's contact to Anglo-Saxon and Middle English is limited to poetry, and their experience with Early Modern English is limited to the King James Bible and Shakespeare... well, the Ainulindalë isn't Shakespeare, so it must be the other. XD

That said, I still suspect that these people (like I) unconsciously lump further Christian or Catholic traditions together with the actual Genesis text, so they're bound to find more similarities than there actually are...

[dreamflower]

It's a shame that so many today find that archaic language inaccessible. While there is much to be said for translating a religious text such as the Bible into more current language, the side effect has been to make a lot of other non-religious works more inaccessible.

I was in my teens before I read Tolkien. Prior to that my favorite book was Howard Pyle's version of Robin Hood, a nineteenth century work, but written entirely in sixteenth century language. Because I was familiar with the KJV from Sunday School and church, as a fifth grader that "speaking forsoothly" never gave me pause. I ate it up with a spoon, and any words not immediately familiar, were still understandable in context. Among my other favorite books was Ivanhoe. Shakespeare never gave me any trouble either. Most of my age-mates didn't need footnotes with Shakespearean language either, for the most part.

I find it distressing that a lot of that literature is now dismissed as "silly" or "boring" by young people who can't understand it as easily.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

It really is sad. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I never found Shakespeare or the Romantic poets - or Tolkien, once I discovered him - hard to read in the original language. Admittedly, I didn't start reading English books in English until I was 15... but still! As I don't believe I'm particularly brilliant (reasonably smart, yes, linguistic genius, no), I really don't see why other people shouldn't be able to wrap their minds around archaic language (whether "real" or "fake", that is, whether Chaucer or Morris).

As I am a bit of an arrogant snot, I tend to privately accuse those who claim they can't understand it of pure laziness. Grr!

(Now, not everybody has to like archaic language. I happen to like it a lot, but I understand that other people may find a more modern style more appealing. But I do think it can be understood just as easily!)