|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Aug 9 2009, 7:55am
Post #26 of 41
(644 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Diodorus, Arrian and Ctesias - that's pretty erudite in my book!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But after reading all your posts, I wonder whether the examples you brought do not have a religious basis (which was my claim). Persian kings approaching the gods with humility, Buddhist monks - even the sin of hubris can be seen as a transgression against the gods. Tolkien would be likely to recognise the religious element, and say that it reached it's purest prefection in what he considered the true religion.
But the Roman stoics are an interesting case - which I do not know enough to intelligently comment upon.
Just as a tip: it might be more simple for you to use the "quote" and "reply" options - they are on the toolbar, just after "underline". At least, it will be more easy for me to read.
And another one - many people read the discussions in threaded mode, and anyway one can always refresh one's memory with in 'In Reply to' shortcut, so there is no need to mention who you are replying to.
I know other forums work differently, but it would be such a pity if people will find it difficult to follow your thought-provoking, excellent posts!
"You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you" - Gandalf.
|
|
|
Desicon9
Bree
Aug 9 2009, 5:59pm
Post #27 of 41
(649 views)
Shortcut
|
RE: Dreamdeer's: "You mean you only intended to prove the existence of humility, pity, and mercy? I'm sorry, I thought you intended to prove their predominance as values."
Arrghh! I think you take me too literally here, Dreamdeer, by "existence" I mean its existence as a socially embedded ideal construct, wherein "pity" (eleos or oiktos) was a widely available concept well-discussed, well-defined, and refined which ancient peoples could use daily in a deliberate, cognitive fashion, not just as a reference to some vague basic human instinct of compassion. Does this make it a predominant value? I grant you that what is still moot here, is just how often pity was practiced in the ancient world compared to later times, though I suspect acts of "pity" would have been quite frequent in pre-Christian daily life. But, certainly there were many public discussions in Athens during the Peloponesian war concerning just how much "pity" should be shown to defeated enemies before this pity became detrimental to the imperial aspirations of Athens. In fact there is a whole book devoted to this topic: Pity and Power in Ancient Athens, Rachel Hall Sternburg, 2005. In this volume, Sternburg first discusses what "pity" meant to the ancients:
"... we possess hundreds of references to pity in Greek texts, including plays, treatises, and some intriguing anecdotes in which pity plays a part. In sum, we can attempt a cross-cultural analysis by using the evidence we have to describe the 'folk psychology' of the ancient Greeks -- their everyday understanding of oiktos and eleos." (Sternburg, p. 16)
Sternburg, using these primary Greek and Roman sources, establishes a definition for classical "pity" that seems quite close to modern thought regarding this concept:
"In the field of classical philosophy, Richard Sprabji and others have revived the ancient idea, developed most of all by the Stoics, that emotion is cognitive. Martha Nussbaum, in Upheavals of Thought (2001), argues that affect and cognition work together and that compassion has an evaluative component. It is not a raw instinct, like fear, but something more intellectual: a feeling that rests upon judgment." (Sternburg, p. 2, my emphasis)
Pity, "a feeling that rests upon judgment" rather than a simple emotion, apparently became a touchstone of 5th century BCE Greek ethics, and was used to make judgments of both individual and corporate city state character. "In the courts of law, one way to convince jurors of a man's good character was to praise him for his pity; one way to vilify him was to decry his pitilessness." (Sternburg, p. 4) Isocrates judged the Athenians to be a particularly praise worthy folk, calling "his fellow citizens the most pitying [of the Greeks]," (Isocrates 15.20)
From all of this data regarding ancient "pity", I can only assume that deeper researches for pre-Christian examples of "mercy," and "humility" will yield similar results -- these concepts are not exclusively, or even predominantly Christian; and cannot, in my opinion, be used to validate the original premise in this discussion, that the existence of acts of pity, mercy, and humility in The Hobbit, somehow allow us to view the book as a Roman Catholic/ Christian work.
____________________________
RE: Catharsis
Sternburg points out that Aristotle is discussing just one aspect of Greek pity in this statement regarding catharsis, and the broader social uses of "pity" are left out of his text entirely. Be that as it may, restricting ourselves to Aristotle's statement, I think, Dreamdeer we are finding quite different meanings from the same words.
Regarding "catharsis:" here I think we interpret Aristotle's meaning differently. I see both the purgation and purification aspects as applicable in equal portions. To me the purgation of pity does not mean its negation, it refers to ending the state of anxiety, stress and angst that pity causes. A "proper" tragedic performance will provide some kind of satisfactory redress of the situation that has evoked "pity" in the viewers. A "happy-ending" may be provided that resolves a difficult dilemma, and the audience is purged, not of its ability to feel pity, but purged of the anxiety that "pangs of pity" might have produced. Does that make sense?
Thanks!
p
(This post was edited by Desicon9 on Aug 9 2009, 6:02pm)
|
|
|
Desicon9
Bree
Aug 9 2009, 6:41pm
Post #28 of 41
(643 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Separation of Church and State?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
RE Sador's: "But after reading all your posts, I wonder whether the examples you brought do not have a religious basis (which was my claim)."
Excellent point Sador! I think we can establish, as I was hoping my posts above did, that there is both a religious and a secular aspect for each of these terms in antiquity. Here, as I think you are suggesting, it is important for this discussion to be able to distinguish when a given example is more religiously motivated than not. In some cases, such as Alexander taking on the tattered remnants of Cyrus' shepherd costume, the actual passages in Herodotus and Xenophon make no mention of a religious subtext. Nor in the case of the rusticity of Romulus, Cincinnatus, or Augustus. Nonetheless, ancient pre-Christian cultures rarely made our modern day separation of the secular and religious aspects of society. Just as the Church-dominated culture of the late Roman, Early/ Middle/ and Late Medieval periods made no such real distinction either. So, I do agree with you that precisely defining instances of pity, mercy, and humility that carry no religious connotation may be very difficult.
When we regard the acts of humility, pity, and mercy found in The Hobbit, it is my contention that they carry no religious subtext at all. There is no visible religion here. In LOTR we do have a few examples of religious reference, though they are so vague as to be unattachable to any recognized cultic practice. An appeal is made to the Valar in Ithilien to turn aside the wrath of the great elephant, then Faramir makes a gesture of reverence towards the West before the meal in Henneth Annun, Frodo chants a "prayer" of power to Elbereth, etc.
But we do not even have such incidental religious references in The Hobbit, do we? There is no appeal to religion (Roman Catholic Christianity or Buddhism, or Pagan Nordic, or a cult of the Valar) to accompany or explain Bard's humility, or Bilbo's act of pity in sparing Gollum in the cave. I think what we as readers can do here, is apply a religious aspect to these acts of pity/ mercy/ humility if we wish to. But from the text itself, there is nothing that would allow us to validate such an application, let alone assign it to a specific religion. Consequently, I might decide to "apply" a secular humanist, social utilitarian motive to these examples of pity, mercy, humility in The Hobbit -- while another reader might feel them to reflect the many examples of a religious pagan-Nordic tradition, and yet a third reader might see a Roman Catholic motivation, etc. The Hobbit text, being singularly free of religious expression, allows us (with equal validity) the flexibility to interpret its motivational inspirations according to our own personal belief systems, or no belief system at all.
Thanks for the tip on quotations, I'll see if I can adapt my largely pre-Computer brain to this format... lol
|
|
|
Desicon9
Bree
Aug 9 2009, 6:58pm
Post #29 of 41
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
Grrr, can't get in to the above message to make a "correction."
... "the actual passages in Herodotus and Xenophon make no mention of a religious subtext."
Read Arrian here, not Herodotus!
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Aug 9 2009, 9:15pm
Post #30 of 41
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
I will yield to you the point that the greco-Roman world honored some forms of pity. It still remains that Alexander received quite a bit of criticism for showing pity (and sometimes simple fairness) to non-Greeks, and received less rather than more favor for it.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Aug 9 2009, 9:39pm
Post #31 of 41
(663 views)
Shortcut
|
When we regard the acts of humility, pity, and mercy found in The Hobbit, it is my contention that they carry no religious subtext at all. There is no visible religion here. In LOTR we do have a few examples of religious reference, though they are so vague as to be unattachable to any recognized cultic practice. An appeal is made to the Valar in Ithilien to turn aside the wrath of the great elephant, then Faramir makes a gesture of reverence towards the West before the meal in Henneth Annun, Frodo chants a "prayer" of power to Elbereth, etc.
But we do not even have such incidental religious references in The Hobbit, do we?
The Hobbit places great importance on luck, and then at the end of the story Gandalf states that it has not been just luck, but something closer to Fate or Providence, even though it has been called luck. LotR picks up where The Hobbit leaves off, making it clear from the beginning that Gandalf sees luck as the operation of "Someone" who wanted Bilbo to find the Ring.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Aug 9 2009, 10:01pm
Post #32 of 41
(613 views)
Shortcut
|
the same reaction for showing pity or fairness to Greeks? Is it pity the Greeks did not appreciate, or the non-Greeks? Even modern cultures have different standards for outsiders than insiders -- thus many people do not believe that non-American detainees are entitled to the same rights as Americans, and some argue they are not entitled to any rights at all.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Aug 10 2009, 12:57am
Post #33 of 41
(609 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, you are probably right on that. Which furthers my contention (not aired here) that in many ways Alexander was not only ahead of his time, he's sometimes ahead of our time, too.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Desicon9
Bree
Aug 10 2009, 6:53pm
Post #34 of 41
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank You Curious, for bringing up the matter of Luck!
"Luck," as in "Lief The Lucky," was a particularly Nordic pagan attribute. It was one of the qualities that Vikings would consider before selecting a war leader to whom they would give their allegiance. In this sense, the possession of "luck" was determined empirically, a "lucky" person would, quite simply, be a successful one. A war leader whose ventures seemed always crowned with success (few casualties among the raiders, and lots of loot picked up) was "lucky." A navigator whose ships always seemed to weather the storms and come home safely, was "lucky." But here, I have never been able, from my limited studies of Nordic cultures, to quite understand if this "luck" had a necessary religious component, or was simply a "magical" property. I cannot recall a cult to "luck," or a god/ goddess of Luck to whom the Norse might appeal, just the magical side of this term seems to be found in those sagas I've read.
Bilbo, as the new possessor of Gollum's magical ring, is both the "Luck Winner," and the "Luck Wearer," as such, I think this clearly makes the ring the agent of his luck, and it may be hard to divorce its magic from the personal growth and development of Bilbo. I think it might be argued, that Bilbo does not move from his Shire-born incompetence to become a master burglar and defacto leader of the 13 Dwarves on his own, does he? Before he has the ring, he pluckily tries to be a burglar, tries to pick the Troll's pocket, but is "unlucky" in grabbing a "talking purse," and so botches the job. But after he has the ring, his "luck" does turn for the better, his self-confidence then grows with every new success ( a positive feedback loop!), and the Dwarves come to depend upon his "luck" as much as Bilbo does himself. I think he grows greatly in stature because the "luck" of the ring affords him the chance to reach his full potential more easily/ quickly than he would have without its assistance.
On the other hand, the Romans had a similar concept in the term felix, which did not alone or even predominantly mean "happy," rather its prime meaning was "fortunate." But here, the magical aspect of felix/ luck seems to have been given a religious overwash, even to the creation of a specific goddess, Fortuna -- so that the lucky individual was a "fortunate" one, one who had the favours of Fortuna. Maybe deeper research would find a similar religious, personification for the Norse "Luck?" But until we can establish such, I think I'll (tentatively?) continue to see Norse Luck as the pattern JRRT was following for Bilbo, and hence give it a "magical," rather than a religious context.
RE Curious': "Gandalf sees luck as the operation of 'Someone' who wanted Bilbo to find the Ring."
I think Curious, as you state, you've given us another example of "teleology" in LOTR, where Gandalf does indeed strongly suggest that Bilbo was meant to have the Ring (now capitalized as a proper noun in itself). But does Tolkien make a similar statement in The Hobbit, that Bilbo was meant, by some power, to have the ring? Off hand, the only statement of similar teleology I can recall from The Hobbit, comes on the last page of the text where you paraphrase: "'The the prophecies of the old songs have turned out to be true, after a fashion!' said Bilbo."
'Of course!' said Gandalf. 'And why should not they prove true? ... You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit?' " (The Hobbit, "The Last Stage," p, 317 hardback version)
Here, just speculating, I see the only evidence of a "guiding hand," or "guiding principle" at work in The Hobbit, which MAY be religious, or may refer to the concept of Fate (non-religious?)? Certainly in LOTR I think this "teleological" device becomes fairly common and is there deliberately connected with a religious system. But this connection with "religion" seems only tenuous in The Hobbit, so far as I can see.
RE Gandalf's: "You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck... "
It is interesting here that Gandalf seems to be making a distinction between the "mere luck" that Bilbo found on his journey, and an overarching principle of "destiny." So what is going on here? I can see two possibilities, one magical, one religious. Are we simply dealing with the magical property of foresight? In this case, a seer can see into the future and then he/ she makes valid predictions. So, of course these 'prophecies' come true, they were simply forseen by magical-science, and the course of history will run that way of its own accord. Or do we have, a "guiding force," some conscious will that allows magical foresight, and then subsequently and deliberately moves the course of historical events to fulfill those prophecies? The first would be merely magical, the second religious. Which are we dealing with here?
At any rate, I think you are quite correct here, Curious: something beyond the mere Luck Magic of Bilbo's ring (not yet The Ring) is implied in this closing scene of The Hobbit. In the annotated Hobbit, there may be a statement as to whether or not this teleological passage is a second edition revision, like the altering of the text of Bilbo's ring-finding which was changed to fit the LOTR version? Not clear to me, yet...
Thanks!
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Aug 10 2009, 7:12pm
Post #35 of 41
(605 views)
Shortcut
|
Knowing the truth about the vanishing did not lessen their opinion of Bilbo at all; for they saw that he had some wits, as well as luck and a magic ring - and all three are very useful possessions.
For one thing, Bilbo's being the 'Luck-bearer' is clearly seperate from his having the ring.
And it is also fascinating that luck is consider a "very useful possesion", isn't it? It sounds a bit similar to the Roman term felix, but I'm not sure. I also note that Thorin, in his grandiloquent speech at the start of 'Inside Information', describes Bilbo as "possessed of good luck far exceeding the usual allowance", which is a fun way of stating the same observation.
And I've suggested recently that the last sentence is the culmination of the second part of the book, and for that reason voted the last sentences as one of Bilbo's finest moments.
"And melodies they taught to him/ And sages old him marvels told" - Bilbo's poem of Earendil.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Aug 10 2009, 8:51pm
Post #36 of 41
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
does not say anything about those last lines, which implies that they have not been changed since the original.
Bilbo was selected for luck before he obtained the Ring. Remember that he was lucky enough to escape the trolls, lucky enough to find the key to the trolls' treasure trove, and lucky enough to find Sting all before he found the ring. Furthermore he had some bad luck after he found the ring. I think the ring was a product of his luck rather than the cause of it.
Yes, in The Hobbit Gandalf does not indicate that Someone is behind Bilbo's luck, only that it is more than mere luck, and has something to do with fulfilling prophecies. It could be a more impersonal Fate or Providence -- but at the end of the tale we are told that it is more than luck.
I don't think it is correct to say that Gandalf distinguished "between the 'mere luck' that Bilbo found on his journey, and an overarching principle of 'destiny.'" On the contrary, I think Gandalf is saying that what appeared to be "mere luck" was always and everywhere Bilbo's destiny -- there is in fact no such thing as "mere luck." That message is reinforced in LotR.
Then in the beginning of LotR we are told that it is Someone who was behind Bilbo's adventure -- who that Someone might be we are not told, but afterwards there are a thousand hints that Higher Powers are at work in the world, especially after we read The Silmarillion and realize that the wind and eagles are tied to Manwe, the water to Ulmo, and the stars to Varda. But in addition there are hints that Eru Himself is involved, at the very least in sending Gandalf back from the dead.
(This post was edited by Curious on Aug 10 2009, 8:51pm)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Aug 11 2009, 1:50pm
Post #37 of 41
(625 views)
Shortcut
|
Ne męg werigmod wyrde wišstondan,
ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
For šon domgeorne dreorigne oft
in hyra breostcofan bindaš fęste;
A weary mood won't withstand wyrd,
nor may the troubled mind find help.
Often, therefore, the fame-yearners
bind dreariness fast in their breast-coffins.
That's a stanza from the OE poem The Wanderer. It basically relates that one can try to hide from troubles, or bravely fight on and win in the face of adversity. Interesting concept (sort of an Anglo-Saxon Self-Help manual).
At first blush, one would think that the OE definition of wyrd (which has a prominent place in Beowulf as well) would be Tolkien's primary linguistic focus. He seems to use the words doom and fate interchangeably in his corpus, and I think the word 'luck' is used in 'The Hobbit' because luck is an easier term to comprehend than fate for younger readers, but Gandalf infers that Bilbo's 'luck' is indeed 'fate' or 'doom', doesn't he?
Of course, the entire digression into classical Greek and Roman philosophy in this thread was interesting, but I don't think it hit on Tolkien's main influences for the story. One might do better to study Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy to get a clearer glimpse of the difference between 'fate' and 'providence', or at least one Tolkien would consider. However, there is the Anglo-Saxon 'wyrd' which would also play into the story, particularly since the tale itself, a mock epic, has so many reference points to Icelandic, Germanic and A-S literature. One of the most intriguing aspects of Beowulf is how the Christian gloss of the poem is often at odds with Anglo-Saxon beliefs, particularly in regards to the concept of fate, and this juxtaposition is noticeable throughout Beowulf. The A-S 'wyrd' is a close approximation of Catholic Predestination dogma in that one has a personal wyrd which is subject to one's free will; however, it variates from Catholicism because one's personal wyrd is inhibited or affected by another person's wyrd, and I can see many points in the books (LotR, the Sil and The Hobbit) where this is the case. In The Hobbit, Bilbo's wyrd is definitely affected by the appearance of Gandalf, who sets him off on adventure he would never have taken (Gandalf appealed to Bilbo's 'Tookish' side, which overruled his staid Bagginsish respectability).
So, "Is The Hobbit also a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work"? I am inclined to say no. I think it was more an exercise in Tolkien's overarching literary and philological loves. The fact that he later expressed remorse for using naming conventions from the Völuspį for his dwarves only points to his everchanging point of view regarding the message of his stories, and his continuous effort to set the Guinness Book of World Records for rewrites of a series of books. Christian symbology was not a consideration at this point in the story, and it was an unconscious effort for much of the writing of LotR. As far as I can see, The Hobbit story is more akin to precursors from Old English fairy tales and Icelandic and Germanic sagas, without any subsumed Christian ideals.
Two novel-length stories nominated for 2009 MEFAs--
MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT':
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit
-And-
'TALES OF A DARK CONTINENT':
http://www.fanfiction.net/..._of_a_Dark_Continent
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Aug 11 2009, 3:20pm
Post #38 of 41
(603 views)
Shortcut
|
is not a consciously a religious and Catholic work, but I think it is unconsciously influenced by Tolkien's Christian beliefs. On the other hand, LotR is both unconsciously and consciously influenced by Tolkien's Christian beliefs -- as Tolkien himself says, unconsciously at first, and "consciously in the revision." Letter 142.
Between publishing The Hobbit and writing LotR, in the lecture that later became the essay "On Fairy-stories," Tolkien formulated his theory that fairy tales, or at least his favorite fairy tales, provide a "far off gleam or echo of evangelium." That is, by providing unexpected Consolation for all the ills of the world including death, they give us a glimpse of the message of Jesus. I think he would have classified The Hobbit as such a story after the fact -- the ending of The Hobbit is essentially happy, and the outcome hangs in the balance until the sudden and unexpected arrival of the Eagles and Beorn.
In the case of LotR, he formulated his theory before the fact, and I think he consciously worked Christian themes and symbols into the story, while carefully removing any overt references to Christianity. In addition, he continued to feel the unconscious influence of his Christian beliefs.
In particular, I don't think it is a coincidence that Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn resemble three aspects of Jesus -- a divine being in human flesh, a martyr, and a triumphant king. None of them is a stand-in for Jesus, like Aslan in Narnia, but each of them foreshadows the story of Jesus, and I think Tolkien consciously played up those parallels.
But the contrasts with The Hobbit are striking. Gandalf the Trickster evolves into an Angelic Messenger who returns from death. Bilbo the childlike Burglar evolves into Frodo the Martyr, who gains wisdom through suffering, and must lose the Shire in order to save it. And Bard and Beorn, the grim Warrior and fierce Hero, evolve into Aragorn, the Returning Universal King who is forty generations removed from Elendil, just as Jesus was forty generations removed from David.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Aug 11 2009, 4:00pm
Post #39 of 41
(597 views)
Shortcut
|
But the contrasts with The Hobbit are striking. Gandalf the Trickster evolves into an Angelic Messenger who returns from death. Bilbo the childlike Burglar evolves into Frodo the Martyr, who gains wisdom through suffering, and must lose the Shire in order to save it. And Bard and Beorn, the grim Warrior and fierce Hero, evolve into Aragorn, the Returning Universal King who is forty generations removed from Elendil, just as Jesus was forty generations removed from David.
I think you have 'subconsciously' proven my point. The Hobbit does not have a Christian ethos, and stands in stark contrast to LotR. There is nothing necessarily Catholic regarding 'The Hobbit', and the archetypes you defined ("Gandalf the Trickster... Bilbo the childlike Burglar...Bard and Beorn, the grim Warrior and fierce Hero") are typical motifs of European folklore and not Christian symbology. What folklorish motifs do we see in The Hobbit? Camaraderie, intense and disastrous gold fever/greed (particularly the dwarves, in the best Norse tradition), luck, shapeshifting, dragon's curses, animals that talk or exhibit other humanistic abilities, trickery and deceit, elves that are either fey and sorcerous or childlike and 'elfin' (like trooping faeries or the Good Folk in the Irish/Scottish tradition), dooms (ie., fate), riddles, heroic exploits, simpletons making good (a la Jack and the Beanstalk), revenge, and even an inglorious homecoming (the Sackville-Baggins' auction). It is a fairy tale intermingled with an epic quest, which is why The Hobbit's tone and basic composition is often at odds with LotR, and why Tolkien sought to amend it later on.
Two novel-length stories nominated for 2009 MEFAs--
MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT':
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit
-And-
'TALES OF A DARK CONTINENT':
http://www.fanfiction.net/..._of_a_Dark_Continent
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Aug 11 2009, 4:37pm
Post #40 of 41
(574 views)
Shortcut
|
The Hobbit was only Catholic in retrospect, when Tolkien developed his theory of the "far off gleam or echo of evangelium." And we can certainly debate that theory. The non-Catholic influences are strong.
LotR was Catholic by intent, at least in the revision. There are still many non-Catholic influences, but the Catholic influence is much stronger and more intentional.
|
|
|
|
|
