"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.” One of my favorite lines in all of fiction, :) God is so good!
Dr. Reeves, I cannot applaud you enough for doing all of the work you do. Please keep putting out videos, I can't guarantee I will see all of them, but I find myself coming back and viewing your videos for more information and insight on my own journey into the Truths of humanity and God. Most teachers and professors I have encountered rarely seem to know as much as you present in all of your videos and content on YT, appreciate it very much.
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." - JRR Tolkien
The Secret Fire reference at 21:30 is actually referring to the Ring of Power Gandalf is secretly keeping and protecting from Sauron. The Ring gives gandalf a lot of his spiritual power and gives him the power of the flame. This allows him to kill the balrog in Moria but it also killed him. For the balrog (Durin's Bane) and Gandalf are both Maiar and Gandalf was sent back by Eru while Durin's Bane was sent back to the abyss of nothingness.
Regarding the section regarding Iluvatar's folding back the sin of Melkor into the music of Iluvatar (44:00) ... my take on it was not merely that Iluvatar was able to "catch" the dissonant notes and fold them in, but rather that those very dissonant notes are required for the ultimate good. Melkor's actions are in fact necessary for the fulfillment of the Good. And in that sense Melkor is a sacrifice of Iluvatar who is cast in the role of "He who is destined to perish that the good may flourish". Notice that Iluvatar's words following the the ceasing of the music: "... And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
To those whom are questioning why this literature is taught in theology, it is because this is the study of the theology of Tolkien's world. It has been found that fictional theology is derived from elements of actual theology, and that the study of actual theology can learn from certain pieces of literature throughout history. By studying these individual elements and philosophical concepts, we can better understand why ancient man and his subsequent cultures developed certain dogmas, rituals, and beliefs. Thus, in understanding our roots in theological history, we can better understand our modern selves.
+James L // Thanks, James. That's a good way to put it. At the seminary one of our mission statements is to 'think theologically', which in this class means we want to be reflective on everything, not just overtly Christian books. :)
Alchemy tried to play with the notion of converting common metals and materials into gold during a time when perpetual motion machines were taken seriously (perpetual motion machines would still have brief periods of popularity among the public until even the 1910's). Astrology is a spiritual pursuit centered around the zodiac and horoscopes. These 'predecessors' were not based on the scientific method (alchemy thought to have begun circa 1900 BC, astrology originating in ancient Babylon). Astrology and alchemy were always at odds with the 'scientists' of their respective days, but with the scientific method (based solely on maths and physics) they had been debunked as homeopathy. The Catholic Church (or just the Church, before the First Schism) had always also opposed both astrology and alchemy as a major patron of the arts and sciences both politically, and by denying alchemists funding and deeming astronomy to be heretical (probably even direct attacks, under the table (its what I'd do - my opinion here)). You cant observe the creation of a daily horoscope though the maths and physics. You can't rationalise alchemy though the same systems either, particularly with systems like the periodic table of elements and chemical balancing contradicting the intermediate concepts in alchemy. The comparison you drew suggests that these things have some sort of blood relation between each other. They may be similar at the simpler levels, but that's about it.
yup. I'm not complaining. just lamenting the fact that this is theology based. would like to see a serious as in depth that was strictly about the material.
Hi Ryan! Ten years ago I considered myself a devout reborn Christian and did one of those read the Bible in a year courses, which included studying various themes of the Bible and being able to recite one verse per week of the year. I only got to 17 before I gave up, but I digress. In 2003 I went through what you would call a breakup with Christ where I literally wondered through a desert of debauchery and drug experimentation, not all bad as I no longer touch them but the experience was great. Thanks to the grace and mercy of God I can say I have come full circle and I find that my Christian faith, although I do not label myself a Christian or subscribe to any faith or religion, has been unfalteringly strengthened. ANYway, since I have come back full circle on my roots I have also been reflecting on what I learned through my Bible studies. While I do not read the Bible anymore (save for when I happen upon one of those Giddeons Bible you get in hotels) I find that there are many gaps in the creation story which the Silmarillion fills wonderfully! Do you get this feeling too?
One thing that it is important to understand about the Silmarillion and the Tolkien legendarium generally, is that Tolkien imagines it in an explicitly pre-Biblical world, where the True God of the universe has not yet revealed himself directly to his creation. At the time of the Silmarillion or The Lord of the Rings, no one has a personal relationship with God with the possible exception of Manwe, who acts as High Priest over creation. Since no one has direct access to Illuvatar, and since no one knows his name, and since no one has received his commandments, and since his character has not been revealed to his creation, the Wise have no choice but to call on the angelic host to whom Illuvatar has delegated authority to act as intermediaries. No one knows how to worship the Creator at this time. God's personal relationship to mankind, really begun with Abraham in the real world, God's revealing his commands done at the time of Moses, and God's ultimate disclosure of his character in the incarnation of Jesus is all in this world's future. So while we can call upon The Father, or Christ Jesus, to intervene on our behalf directly, the inhabitants of this world can only call on the Valar to save them - because only the Valar have seen The Father face to face, and only through him at this time is his Light reflected on the world. This is becomes one of the major themes of the Silmarillion - the spread of that light in reflection, through creation. And that theme likewise echoes in The Lord of the Rings, and is necessary to fully understand some scenes.
Liam Cunliffe It is time for men to lay aside their false religions and false gods. We must return to the True Faith, as revealed by the Prophet J.R.R. Tolkien. Only when we embrace Eru Ilutivar will we know peace in Arada.
Ryan Reeves. Great lecture. I downloaded it and converted it to Mp3 so I can listen to it in my truck. I have a 45 min ride to work. This stuff really gets my mind going. Thanks for the great stuff.
+Jack D. Ripper // I agree about dense but not opaque, though the more I reread it the more I find it just as good as LOTR, etc. And yes the Melkior was a typo that entered into the live lectures. Plenty of people have hated this, and I can agree that it should have been caught. But I've also enjoyed 'crowdsourcing' edits in material and ideas from those who write in here. Even the ones who are grumpier than they should be! So I'm glad your edit feel on me with grace. :)
Ryan Reeves I'm atheist. But the creation myths from around the world fascinates me. I read the Silmarillion when it first came out. I believe the Ainullindale to be the most beautiful. I loved your idea about "sub-creation." My theory that if there is a supreme power, we have to have the spark of that creation within every living thing (as Dan Fogelberg would put it) and that we are but the eyes, ears and fingers. Learning I believe would be the true "sub-creation" and that building (technology and thus, war) would be the antithetical to "God." However, I believe we're all bugs on the wall.
Indeed I find that Tolkien was very resistant to industry and technology and yes, certainly places it as counter to the forces of good. This idea with relation to sub-creation is very interesting!
I'm at 42:52 right now and I don't know if you address this later on but I just want to say, Melkors Rebellion, his dissonance, is actually part of Erus plan, as you say symphonies do use dissonance in them and Eru uses this as well, Tolkien later explains that Melkors dissonance is what creates heat and cold, it's what creates rain and snow and is therefore necessary for Erus image of creation to exist as he wants it. When Eru stops Melkor he says that everything the Ainur are (Including obviously Melkor) is just an extension or stems from Eru himself which means that Melkors dissonance is Erus dissonance embodied just as all the other Ainur are his other melodies, instruments, tools whichever you like, embodied.
That's not quite correct. Melkor's themes were proud, repetitive, puffed themselves up, and were shrill. Symbolically, this represents Melkor's fascination with power, which he imagines in terms of being able to "go to extremes". Illuvatar answers Melkor not in the way Melkor might expect, if Illuvatar were like Melkor, but with subtle, gentle themes. Illuvatar tells Melkor that the loud bombastic piece he played was imagining not heat and cold, but extremes of heat and cold - which would naturally be destructive. But, Illuvatar tells him, those extremes he sought to create were always tempered, and instead of resulting in what he wanted - unbounded power - simply create new forms of beauty that ultimately will rebound not to Melkor's glory but to others. But Melkor wasn't trying to create snow or rains, but bitter cold and burning fire without restraint. Cold and heat were themes that he tried, and failed, to enlarge to serve his own purpose.
I feel like this says not so much about music so much as Tolkien's understanding of it or some heavily opinionated stance he may have had about the changing nature of music in the 20th century and perhaps connecting the increasing presence of and focus on dissonance with the modern world and industrialization etc., which we see pretty clearly set as an evil force (e.g. saruman).
@ Roger and interesting perspective. Given that premise, are all creative things inherently good then, or do you see it as only that which is good creates?
Interesting point. Can you judge the good in a creature by its creativity? In Tolkien yes. Inherently good as in the capacity to will good. Brings up the question is their free will in the Valar.
One of the students asked "Why music?". Because the universe is a symphony of energy vibrating at different frequencies, similar to the sound vibrations we are familiar with. As above, so below. One chord is a proton, another chord is an electron, etc. The first vibration caused by the word of God. (when we speak words we cause vibrations in the air) In some eastern philosophies/religions, the cause of the universe was the primordial sound... Om or Aum. One term used to describe someone like a wizard is Enchanter. Under his spell would be enchantment. The key word here is "chant" from the Latin cantar which means "to sing". Among other examples, I think Tolkien's describing creation as a song or music to be accurate, not merely poetic.
Whoa, this comment is really interesting. Do you have any sources or anything I can read more about the ideas you mentioned? Anything you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated, thanks for your time!
"Way cool"? Sorry, but that phrase makes me chuckle, I agree with you though, the Silmarlairities ( ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ) are rather clear, but the metaphors are not. Its kind of like reading a different, an ever so slightly more cryptic version of The Chronicles of Narnia.
Nice lecture. Good choice on the thumbnail with Arda as a flat world. The question a little before 49:00 "why music?"... I just wanted to add that music makes most sense since Tolkien was a linguist. Music (along with math) are universal languages. Also the sheer beauty of that chapter. It couldn't have been anything else in my opinion.
I really enjoy this lecture. I think Tolkein wrote out of his ruminations over God's relationship with the world. He is one of my favorite theologians & I often reference him when catechizing youth. He puts into artistic words the logic & mystery of the Catholic worldview. This logic & mystery in symbiosis is something I wish Evangelicals would find in coming to the Catholic Church that has preserved this worldview in good times & bad.
48:43 String Theory suggests all matter in the universe is composed by vibrating strings in what can be thought as a symphony. I find the concept of a higher consciousness playing 'notes' or 'particles' to create a reality very appealing. Great lecture! And thanks for sharing it.
While I don't necessarily agree with many of the conclusions reached in this lecture, I do nevertheless find them very interesting and well thought out. As a huge believer of le mort de l'auteur, I don't think i t really _matters_ that Tolkien _expressly_ rejected the notion that he had deliberately created allegory. The experience of any artwork is by necessity a collaboration between the author and the audience, and if someone brings a Christian perspective to a work, it's not surprising that they would read Christian imagery into it. And per le mort de l'auteur, that's a completely valid interpretation. I found this great to watch, so thanks for sharing.
Extremely well done, sir. An uncle of mine had been looking for the similarities between Tolkien's work and Christian belief. I had initially pointed him to the Silmarillion but I think I'll point him here rather than inflicting upon him reading the Silmarillion, which at times reads like the history book it essentially is.
The Tritone was called "Diabolus In Musica" (The Devil in Music). This is commonly taught music theory. It has NEVER been the basis of Heavy Metal (that's based, oddly enough, upon Perfect 4th, and Perfect 5th, "Power Chords" as played distorted through a guitar amp). Tritone harmony was forbidden up to about the time of Palestrina, and Bach, so they were avoided in ancient music like Plainsong, and Modal Harmony "Monk Choir" style music (e.g. music from 1500's). The Tritone is the basis of modern music theory and is prevalent in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Hayden, and all the others (circa 1600 A.D. and later). The tritone is part of what musicians call "Dominant 7th" chords. Dominant 7th chords do need a "resolution". This Dominant => Tonic is also called "cadence" (falling). If you want this illustrated, go to a piano and play an F, together (at the same time) with a B natural. This is a Tritone (so called because the two notes are Three Whole Steps or "tones" apart). You are correct in stating that there is natural DISSONANCE to this sound. Our senses desire a resolution to this dissonance. If, you next play an E natural and a C, together (as a two note chord, just like before). Play the F, B combo, then play the E, C combo. Play these sets of notes back and forth, and you will understand what I'm saying. This sound is also called a "Cadence" in music harmony. Many symphonies end with just this back and forth dissonance and resolution. This signals to an audience to prepare for the END of the musical piece. So the upshot is: 1) Yes, tritone (diminished 5th, augmented 4th - they are the same sound) is dissonant 2) Yes, tritones were called "The Devil in Music" 3) Tritones were no longer considered "forbidden", but instead became an essential part of modern music beginning around 1600 A.D. or so, even in church or ecclesiastical music. 4) Tritones are NOT the basis of Heavy Metal music. . .at all. They are an important part, and part of the basis of ALL modern music, together with harmony based upon thirds (major third, minor third and their relatives minor sixth and major sixth). Again, as an odd note - of all modern music, only some ROCK music has lower amounts of Dominant 7th chords, and thus could be said to be based LESS upon the Tritone. This has to do with the tendency of "Gospel Rock" style to use straight MAJ and MIN chords, together with Sus 4 type chords (these do not have tritone, but play a 4th, instead of the lower major third in the chord - play this followed by a major and you have very "churchy" sounds). Also, some Rock (like Pete Townsend and the Who) are based MAINLY upon Perfect 4th and Sus 4 type harmony, eschewing normal Dominant 7th approaches in many cases. WARNING - Don't confuse loudness or obstreperousness of music with the use of TRITONE. Mozart is just the opposite of obstreperous, and is very soothing, even consciousness lifting, and it is SOAKED in use of TRITONE. Mozart was a master of it's uses. Think of tritones as part of the harmony (theory) toolset. They are used to infuse dissonance, and may then lead to resolution. Do this right, and you "paint" a pleasing and peaceful sound "picture".
Apologies for misstating things. You're clearly a master of musical theory and I am not. The point I am making should be clearer: that the first major Black Sabbath song was based on a classical song that utilized the Tritone. That song, subsequently, is credited with starting heavy metal as a genre....hence the overstated comment from me. Love the comment, though.
Chris is correct that the tritone doesn't appear often in the chords of heavy metal, but it does happen more often in the chord movement, as per your example Black Sabbath. Actually, the most common use in modern music is in Bebop and other instrumental jazz subgenres since the tritone is part of the Dominant 7th chord. But they use it as method of tension and resolution and a way to lift the chordal structure into a "key of the moment" and then drop it back into the home key, usually involving the circle of fifths. Listen to John Coltrane's Giant Steps for a wild but beautiful example of this. Just as in your description the music resolves itself in ways that shouldn't work if you think only in pure diatonics, like the early Renaissance church composers.
bassdroppointsourc has added a nice bit to the discussion. Of course, I'd like to add that I'm a huge fan of J.R.R. Tolkien and have read the trilogy far more than a dozen times. I have much of the other interesting Tolkien supplements, and of course the Silmarillion. I'd suggest that the concept of music, or vibrations being an origin story of the universe is also found in other religious works, and related to the concept of the "music of the spheres", which suggests a sort of "musical" relationship between the orbits of the planets and a related math representation of harmony. Much of music can be represented in math. The frequencies which the human ear finds pleasing have integer multiple arrangements. There is plenty written about math and music.
If you want to have a conversation it helps to get the point and maybe pretend you're talking to real humans not just trolling the internet. The song is Black Sabbath, which is absolutely based on an inverted tritone. Tony Iommi has said in maybe 1000 interviews that he was playing with the tritone when he heard it in a classical song and came up with the main riff. The question of what starts metal music is of course subjective, but there are plenty of historians, musicians, and others who say the song Black Sabbath was the spark.
Ryan Reeves I apologize if you had inferred my comment as trolling when in fact, I was trying to be conversational and engage in a respectful and intellectual dialogue (not something usually found in TH-cam comments, I know). I understand the point of matter quite well, being a student of music, but the point of the matter is being confused: the intervals of notes played simultaneously within chords are not the same as chordal movement or the movement of notes within a riff, which clearly are being conflated here. Having played Black Sabbath I can tell you that it does not contain any tritone chords, but the notes of the riff in E minor end on the flatted fifth B flat- so the movement of the riff has a false resolution to the flat five, but none of the chords that Iommi plays contain both E and B flat at the same time. In any case, the reason I mentioned Giant Steps and similar bebop is its ability to use chords actually containing tritones, in this case dominant 7th chords, and resolving them much like in the Silmarillion where Eru Illuvatar resolves the discordant music of Melkor. All of which I had not thought of until I heard this lecture, which I neglected to add previously, I enjoyed very much.
Very good lecture! I always understood The Silmarillion well enough, but it's nice to know the deeper thoughts of the book, you explain everything really well. One note though, on 34:10 you say Gandalf is not an Ainur, I think you might have mistaken Ainur for Valar, because Gandalf (Olorin) is actually an Ainur, with a lower rank (Maiar).
I wonder why people are giving themselves anti religious pats on the back...its is sad. just enjoy the seminar? na bro, I need to inject my saltiness into this situation so I can feel arrogantly empowered. jeez this is the definition of deep self unfulfilled loathing. Prof. Ryan Reeves, you are a wonderful teacher.
+pencilpauli // Agreed on your points about the blending of the two. The problem with this one lecture is it's about at the half point of the course. We discuss both elements and Tolkien's context, his education in pagan materials, and his desire to mix these worlds in his fantasy. This lecture does bracket some of that out, but mostly for the sake of time, not denial of these elements. Would totally agree with you if this was all I said! :)
This and the next video is an example of how to be a good teacher. Knowing what you're talking about enough to give it to students with an understanding. I read The Silmarillion twice. I still had to look stuff up, but this is home cooked meal explanation goodness. I would love to see Reeves on Colbert. WHO YAH GOT?!
Love and praise the lectures, because they are beautiful,, rich in info and thought and Christian and true and that is why they are so far away from boring and mundain. Congratulations and love to the author and audience!
This is an excellent seminar! And I'm not even a Christian! I've always found Tolkien's musical interpretation of the creation myth to be absolutely beautiful. All of the Ainur make their own part for the symphony and by so doing lay out all that will come into being in the world. Melkor's attempts to lead the symphony astray are constantly thrown back in his face. Altering the final product in unintended ways. It's just such an elegant story.
A huge problem with corelating much of Tolkien to Christianity is that it's only semi-accurate because what Tolkien was doing is reworking Germanic Mythology which we, and by extension he, know are largely unknown with much of what we do know of it being Christianized, so obviously there are going to be some references somewhere, but a lot of what is discussed here doesn't really work to call to mind Christianity at all. In fact it is much more in line with Hinduism in how the deities work. Though I do find it funny that you pretty much argue that Tolkien is putting forth that the christian god is a child that refuses to let anyone to turn on and listen to their radios. Just because its a supreme deity doing it, doesn't make it any less petulant.
At the beginning the dark lord was known as Melkor,but after he made a deal with Ungoliant to push the world into darkness and after stoling the 3 silmarions,the Ainurs hate him and call him Morgoth,a perfect name for somebody which is as evil as Lucifer.Sauron was also known before he became evil as Mairon(the admirebel one),but after being corrupted my Melkor/Morgoth,he became known as Sauron.
Beren Lúthien & the Silmarils of Fëanor , this book is the bedrock of JRR`S lore . This is not read & understood in one read through . I read each chapter over & over to understand some of what is in there & made notes . I see it now on the book shelf , hard bound & a nut still not cracked completely . Every winter I open it once more ( notes in hand ) . Her robe was blue as summer skies, but grey as evening were her eyes; her mantle sewn with lilies fair, but dark as shadow was her hair. Her feet were swift as bird on wing, her laughter lighter than the spring
Curious way of interpreting the Silmarillion. The way I interpret it, Melkior tries for independence from his father (Iluvatar) and to achieve this, he starts fighting his own nature. Iluvatar warns him that the struggle will do him no good, but Melkior persists. To show Melkior his error, Iluvatar takes the fire of creation and places it at the center of the world and allows the Ainur to form this world according to their own part in the greater symphony. He visualizes that which did not have a vision yet to make it clear to Melkor what his struggle will result in. What struck me then the most, of all that happened after, is that Tolkien explicitly says that even in the corruption by Melkor, even in the struggle, there is beauty. In the imperfection of humanity (the second of the races to awaken, and in a sense the lesser one, because they are mortal) there is a strength. Humanity thrives where the immortal elves do not, because they struggle. Even though Melkior went against his own nature and his father (which did not end well for him) he in a way still enhanced the greater creation, because his corruption constrasted and therefore enhanced the beauty of the rest of creation. This is why I feel Iluvatar allowed it. In a literary sense, any character in a story never truly becomes inspiring or intruiging if they do not have something to struggle against. I think, as a writer, Tolkien looked upon humanity the same way. We struggle in life, and the struggle may hurt us, but the hurt contrasts the happy and serene parts of our life and enhances them. The whole world he build, I believe was created in his own quest to think about life in general and the things he had happen to him in specific. In that way you are quite correct there is a theological side to the story, heavily influenced by Christianity because Tolkien was a Christian himself. The core of the story though, translates to any culture and any religion, because it is a story mostly about struggle (both with the world and with ones own nature), which is universal.
Excellent comment, I agree totally. I also like to point how the rings were created on search of extasis by the inmortal and the trouble that come out from those actions.
Many people think it's a hard read, but once you grasp the overall story it is deeper than the abyss and higher than the firmament. My Favorite book of all time.
Absolutely adored this lecture! When i was a bit younger my atheism was simple but for some time now after watching many of your lectures and other peoples lectures i have a better grasp of religion and while am still an atheast i do now respect and value religion and what it can brink to the world instead of dismissing it as the fantasies of stupid unknowlegable people from the past.
... I read the Silmarillion in one sitting. It's not at all nearly as difficult a book as people make it out to be. It's very good though! It's written from a distant perspective. It's also not a novel, it is a series of different sorts of stories. The later bits are adaptations of epics, while many of the earlier ones are exposition heavy descriptions of nations and their formations. The whole thing has a cohesive plot though, it's about the loss and recovery of the Silmarils, and that drives the plot of every chapter for the rest of the book; except the Akallabeth.
This was incredibly interesting. While not religious myself, I can appreciate the beauty of the comparisons and applaud the literary slant that you took Ryan. One thing, however, that I found incorrect at the end. When talking about Sauron's approach to the rings, you state that he "learned the craft" and corrupted the good rings that were being made. I would love to hear your thoughts on the actual events in Tolkien's universe. Sauron "repents" to to the Valar and returns to Middle Earth under a more positive guise and teaches the art of creating rings of power to the elves. Because he does so, he is able to secretly forge the One Ring using the same arts and subvert the works of the lesser rings. The differences is distinct in my eyes because Sauron is ultimately responsible for the problems of the Third Age, not a "little corrupter" as you referenced. It doesn't take away from the overall comparison, but I think it's worth consideration.
+Corey Tomlinson Sauron does NOT repent - at the end of the First Age he is too proud to submit to the judgement of the Valar and goes into hiding in the east and soon sets himself up as the new dark lord. He does pretend to surrender to the Numenorians, but only does so to get access to the king and subvert the Numenorians to the worship of Melkor. Interestingly, this is the ONLY time in Tolkien where there is "worship" as such and the ONLY temple/church - and it's dedicated to MELKOR rather than Eru. It is then used to "sacrifice" those who continue to follow the Valar and remain Elf-friends. Tolkien doesn't belabor the point, but it's definitely there - and important.
I only made the point because pride and possessiveness are the primary "sins" for Tolkien - all the failures, from Isildur to Denethor, and Saruman and Sauron himself, come from one, the other, or both. The ring itself is the ultimate metaphor - it possesses the possessor, and while seeming to convey power (and hence enhance pride) it actually lessens the person wielding it.
this man is a either computer brain or a genius. The Silmarillion i found to be a complex or complicated book and took all my concentration to read it as a young man, about 40 years ago. I luved all the books.
Very hard book to comprehend. I love Tolkien's stuff. This book took me several tries and lots of concentration to read. You can't be even slightly distracted and still understand this book..
You described the way of thinking of The Holy Trinity as water as a certain kind of heresy, I can't catch the word you used, could you elaborate a little bit?
+procrastinator99 // Hey there. It's called Modalism or Sabellianism from the ancient church period. It basically tries to deal with the question of God in the Bible through a human analogy that is too easy to misunderstand. The issue is in the New Testament God and Christ are speaking about each other, Jesus prays to the Father and speaks of him as different, and the same goes for the Holy Spirit. To put it simply: there's one God but he's talking to himself. :) Modalism would make the natural reading of these verses a joke, because it would be God playacting as all 3 persons, and so it's almost as if he's lying when other persons of the Trinity are referred to separately.
Thank you for the correction on the word, I tried replaying that section of the video a couple times, but just couldn't get it :). So, is what you're saying that God in each part of the Trinity is more separate than what the "Water States" analogy implies? Or is it that the analogy somehow insults Him? Sorry if I'm missing your point. I've never taken any Theology class, and haven't heard a Christian oppose the "Water Analogy" so strongly. I'd also like to add that if at any point in this discussion I demean or disrespect your beliefs, that that is not my intention at all, I do genuinely want to understand what you believe, and how it fits together for you. :)
+procrastinator99 Also, all cards on the table, (I want to be as open and honest as I can here so that you know where I'm coming from on my misunderstandings, etc.) I am an Atheist, and have not been a part of a Faithful community. So, I'm about as much of an outsider to these sorts of concepts as I can be. But I do genuinely want to know how this concept of "water analogy as heretical" comes about.
Two ideas. One, perhaps Tolkien chose music as the method of creation because music is the expression of dynamic vibration, which is the underlying terrain on which manifestation occurs. Two, perhaps Eru allows for Morgoth to do what he does, because that in itself is another form of resolution. How can Eru be good if there isn't an evil force to oppose him? In order for resolution to occur, duality has to exist.
Damn, I like this...where can I take or attend these classes!? I've purchased The Silmarillion and gone through it 4 times without fully understanding the concept coming across and this is really helping me makes sense on what Tolkien was trying to make with this book...I'll put it on my favourites list and go through it a couple more times! Good job Ryan...2 thumbs up!
Tolkien took from Celtic, Germanic, Zorastrian and his experiences on the Western Front in WWI plus what he learnd in South Africa amongst the native peoples and added Judeo-Christian beliefs to create the Silmarillion, ie the Bible of Middle Earth. But it make a good topic for theological discussion.
How does Ungoliant fit into this? She's not of Morgoth's discord and in many way his superior, but more primordial. An unintelligent agent, profoundly mysterious that can corrupt and overpower even Melkor, evil incarnate. She was eventually destroyed by Melkor's host of Balrogs, demons of light and fire.
I've often said that Brian Henson's kind of like Christopher Tolkien in the sense of continuing his father's legacy. Also as a Tolkien fan seeing this this I'm like, "Man, I wish I could've attended this class."
i have seen too many people complaining about how difficult Tolkien's prose is. Please do one about the Lord Of The Rings. Can't stop watching your videos.
Yeah the perils of live extemporaneous teaching. :) I hit it as a typo in the slide and then pronounced it as it was on the screen, all the while my head is going 'that's not it'. By then I was on to the theological point, though.
The soul and the secret fire are separate things. The souls of living things are supposed to be created from the secret fire (also known as the flame imperishable). From a christian stantpoint, the Flame is more of a 'holy spirit' type deal.
On the secret fire, Tolkien actually refers to it as quasi-Holy Spirit in his letters. His clarity on it shifts over time, so it's not exact, and I tried to modulate what I was saying to make sure it was analogous to how we might describe it. But Tolkien makes the Holy Spirit connection losely himself, so I riffed on it a bit. But I wouldn't want to suggest that it's an identical connection, only an shading of what Tolkien is saying.
Oh yeah absolutely, Tolkien was good like that haha. Most of the things that seem to be losely based on Christianity or certain historical events and things have to be just considered losely based, or even merely inspired things in his mythology. Because as we all know, Tolkien disliked allegory and never intended his work to be so. Anyway, it was a good lecture though, I wish I could study this kind of stuff all day haha
HazmatSuitUp Thanks! Glad you liked it overall. That's why I posted the videos: I always wanted classes like this and so now that I get to teach them, I wanted them public.
As to "why music?" I love that question, and I'd love to put in my two cents...not only can music be contributed to by different bodies at once, but the element of time exists in music, and so music is a non-physical and somewhat mysterious way to construct.
" 'Anon we may', said Finrod, ' but as yet we walk in the shadows of fear. Thus far, then, I perceive that the great difference between Elves and Men is in the speed of the end. In this only. For if you deem for the Quendi that there is no death ineluctable, you err.' " -Athrabeth Finrod a Andreth
It is much easier to read if you're a history buff, especially one who is knowledgeable of medieval history where people had many names and epithets. The Silmarillion is a series of short stories of different styles, some being short stories with a narrative, and others as expository stories.
Are you serious? Not only is there fucked up shit in the bible, the fucked up shit the churches do but religious wars and the fact people believe there's a man in the sky who made everything, the earth, which he made before he made light so he made that shit in the fucking dark which is hilarious!! I could go on but you get the hint
Just about every religion has the same effect to it and it's very arrogant to just flat out say this as if you know for a fact religions hold no water. While most religions do contradict and seem farfetched, you never will know until you actually die. It's just completely beyond you.
You've never heard of literary studies? A good portion of my English courses were literary studies of some kind. They ran the gamut, from SciFi studies to Shakespeare - but analyzing how good books are written is kinda the name of the game. If it's just the subject matter you object to, may I remind you that even Shakespeare has fairies and ghosts.
Hey there. I actually don't have the source in my files, but I have been scouring the internet for about a year picking up copyright free pictures and Photoshopping them, so it's likely something of mine. If you want it, shoot me an email and I can send it to you. As I said, they are copyright free.
Very interesting work and analysis! As an atheist I was more interested in the actual literature itself but I was intrigued by your analysis and comparisons to theology, history and spiritualism. Keep up the good work sir!
+Liam Iverson Why isn't there a hindu and celtic comparison..? Those topics are in there too... you can equate it to a lot of things though Tolkien was from the west so christianity is the first religion people thing about......
+Tikaani Laogai Most religions consist of similar views, practices, philosophies so by taking inspiration from one religion your bound to incorporate views of others.
Liam Iverson Yes. I agree. There is overlapping. But there are ideas not found in christianity too. I guess wiccans and hindus don't busy themselves with Terry's books and that's why there isn't a video about it :)
It does not say that Melkor wanted to create dissonance. He started by wanting to emulate and create beautiful music, but it led to dissonant, jarring music because he was sinning by not following the will of God, or, rather, he was sinning by wanting to not follow the will of God; for, paradoxically, and as Tolkien specifically states, the end result was an even more glorious music, so Melkor ended up following the will of God despite himself. This goes back to the idea of subcreation as an impulse put in us by the Creator, something inherently good which in Melkor is perverted because he tries to take control of the music away from Illuvatar and to control others, rather than following and allowing himself to be controlled by the will of God. Thus, our greatest moments of creativity come when we surrender control to the impulse within, which many artists and writers have described as seeming to come from some entity other than the self, and our most sterile works come when we become self-willed and seek to control and dominate others.
I might be off here, but I had the impression that the "satan"-character in the book of job was not the same entity as Satan that shows up in the new testament. that the character in Job is more like the critic in an oral dissertation. I know there are translations of the book of Job where instead of using the word "satan" they put in the translation "the adversary" which appears to be an angel with the function of being critical.
The difference between Tolkien and Christianity is that Tolkien considered death a gift to humans (tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Gift_of_Men) but Christianity considers death a curse/punishment (see 50:48) which needs to be defeated in some sense. And this is what I do not like about theology and humanities in general. The focus is on confirmation of beliefs/hypothesises rather than attempts to refute lies/confabulations. So we constantly form echo chambers in which one person's imagination is cited by others, and the most cited imagination becomes canon.
Death = Gift vs death = curse... 1st off, I've never read anywhere nor heard in any church that death was either a "curse" either a "gift". 2nd, *your perception is wrong.* On the contrary both offer the same promise of an after-death. Here's the whole sentence... In Eru Ilúvatar, from the Quenta Silmarillion, "Of the Beginning of Days": _The Gift of Men is death-the inheritance of Ilúvatar's Younger Children, _*_which allows them to go beyond the confines of Arda, this world._* Something else: it _"allows them"_ thus it's a _"gift"_. In some pseudo-christian sects, it has become a belief system where the World and the living is dark in essence, as it's ruled and thus created by Satan, while Salvation can only be found when we die, after death, via the "gift" of death. To some extent/extreme, this allows to disrespect the living... For instance it has lead Christianity into some deviant path here and there, like the years of Spanish Inquisition throughout Europe by the end of Middle-Age.. Also note that all respective monotheistic religions have some "version" accommodating for such "approach", for such deviant dualism (Joan of Arc had to be burned, many innocent and intelligent people had to be sacrificed, as Jesus had to be crucified)... 30:48 is a phrase out of a hat trick. That's his personal view. Like it's also his personal view that he projects on all readers, about how we should get bored reading the book (he says this in other words at the beginning). He's not a "Jack omniscient guru" you know., theology is by itself self-centered in regards to the emitter's own stance and opinions: for such topic, we can only make parallels with opinions, not facts.
+HawkFest Your perception is wrong. Adam and eve were "cursed" with death when eve decided to eat from the tree of knowledge. God decided humanity didn't need him anymore at that point so he took away their immortality. So the story goes. Don't jump to conclusions and rationalize bashing people.
Frank Hobbs "My" Bible (if I should "choose" what scriptures I would follow - and which I left in a closet a while ago), is the New Testament. Even in my Catholic school (where there also was Muslims and Jewish students, as the religious course could be replaced with a "Philosophy for the youth" course - or morals), even there our science teachers were teaching science, including the Theory of Evolution, as matters of facts, observations and plain logic (demonstrative techniques). None of the "fathers" told us to «not believe» what the science teachers taught us, there was no question about taking the book of Genesis for factual truth in replacement of science, from what we considered as the "primitive" Bible.. In short (no insult intended, just a figure of speech) : you have perceptions, I have reasoning. ;-)
+Frank Hobbs He didn't take away their immortality. That's impossible. Immortal means incapable of dying. They died, therefore, never were immortal. What He took away was their access to the tree of life, which would have kept them alive perpetually.
Galatians Ch. 3 in the New Testament declares that any who fail to obey all of the law are under a curse. That curse is death. Jesus died to free us from that curse.
Love this video, reading the book now and it helps understand what's going on. Side note, 40:30 Black Sabbath's first song they wrote was Wicked World, not Black Sabbath that uses that tritone. Something small but I'm a big enough fan to comment on it. :P
+Adrian Bury Melchior is also the correct spelling of the name that sounds like Melkor. See Melchior Hoffman for example, an anabaptist prophet. Kinda funny that Melkor, the dark lord, shares the same name as an Anabaptist preacher, given that tolkien was a devout Catholic.
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author". - J.R.R Tolkien
Bayden Austring // Elsewhere he describes how his work is not an Allegory, but it is certainly allegorical. And those who interpret his works in this way he encourages it: “the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ‘literature’, that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read ‘just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it” -J.R.R. Tolkien. I deal with this explicitly in the opening lectures on Tolkien and allegory (another video in the playlist). He openly hated Allegory, as he always tended to see it as a bland attempt to jam a story on top of a philosophical principle. He didn't like C.S. Lewis' works for this reason. What he demands is that his works be read as literature first and then, only after, read with a look at themes and concepts that build out elements that echo ideas and realities of this world. This is why in this course we are discussing themes and trends in Tolkien, in order to treat them as literature. The bits about theological elements are obviously my take on it. In the lectures here and there, I slip occasionally into using too simplistic a 1-to-1 connection to a point I'm making and a point from one of Tolkien's themes, but this is not reading LOTR as an Allegory.
Typo in the slide that I started to read live during the lecture. Probably autocorrect since one my research areas is the Reformation and Melchior Hoffman. :)
That's a great lecture however I would like to make a small correction about the map. The map you show is also only a fraction of the whole world of Tolkien. This is a full map here www.elvenesse.net/maps/Arda_FirstAge.gif
+Silmarien Ingoldo // Yep glad you posted. Maps are bound by copyright at times, and everyone hates the 'two lung' map. I'm perfectly happy to take that criticism about the imagery.....I guess because I didn't draw it, so it doesn't offend me. :)
The Problem with Evil ? It's a purpose , to ensure movement , if you resolve the song , it will end , Evil ( the bending of notes) allows it to continue perpetually so creation doesn't become stagnant and disperse . Also it allows good to "Rise up" not in just a " cream to the top" but in a creative sense themselves , in effect teaching the sub-creators to be better creators . Or so I see it
Here's how, despite so much study and credentials, religion (this guy is evidently christian) tends to bias one's mind and, at least, you end up missing or dis-missing something important. The Valar could be uderstood as angels, but also as Olimpian or Asgardian gods. Tolkien DOES flirt with paganism or rather *Henotheism* ( belief in and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.) He might have been a christian but with an obvious love for Scandinavian mythology. This is important because Aulë created, WITHOUT the knowledge of Eru-Iluvatar, the dwarves. By himself. That means they are not just sub-creators incapable of creating by themselves, but also creators on their own right. Even the Elves themselves. Feanor creates the Silmarils, with a power so high it could outpower the Valars (it burns Melkor's hand). So in fact Tolkien also flirts with Gnosticism. It is kind of sad that because you are in a christian environment (there´s crosses hanging from the walls) you need to curve or bias what you say to avoid saying that OH, BLASFEMY! GNOSTICISM! PAGANISM! Next thing will be to put a trigger warning on the covers like some other people do.
+ Hitchpster the wrench in your comment is that Iluvatar was decidedly the one who created all the other beings and the only one who can create life. So he is way above the Valar making it like the relation between God and Angels. Also when the Silmaril burns Melkore he was no longer good thus the light inside the Silmaril, which came from sacred trees, is what burns him. Oh and i havent finished the video but in case he doesn't mention it Tolkien was Catholic.
Melkor is burned by the Silmarils because Varda had hallowed them so that "thereafter no mortal flesh, nor hands unclean, nor anything of evil will might touch them, but it was scorched and withered". However, they chose not to burn Beren's hands when he rescued one of them from Melkor's iron crown.
Aule was impatient and wanted to teach his crafts to others, thus he wanted the children of Iluvatar to come hastily. And when they did not come he tried to created his own. Aule created the dwarves yes, but they did not have the secret fire that can only be given by Iluvatar since it rests within him. And thus they were no more than thralls to Aules will. They could only move according to his will, nothing more. His folly was that he tried to create life beyond Iluvatar and Iluvatar knew of this false creation as well, since his eyes saw everything that happens in Arda. Iluvatar asked him why he did this, created these beings that had no will of their own and also asked if he wanted thralls like Melkor? And Aule confessed his folly and his sin and resolved to destroy his creations but they coiled at the sight of his raised hammer and begged to be saved. Iluvatar had given them the secret fire and thus adopted in a way, Aules creations. So no. Aule did not just up and create the dwarves as a finished product, he just made hollow shells out of earth because he didn't know how to truly give them life. And none of this happened without Iluvatars knowledge. Aule created them without the knowledge of the other VALAR, whom he was hiding from. And the Silmarils Feanor created out of the light of the two trees of Valinor that the Valar Yavannah created. They had no power of their own before Varda hallowed them, which made all evil things unable to grasp them without hurt, thus the burning of Melkors hands. The Silmarils led to the eventual downfall of the house of Feanor, since he grew arrogant and forgot where he had gotten the means to create these jewels, and often switched from greedily guarding them to vainly displaying them. And so Morgoths darkness crept into his heart and he fell. Similarily Fingolfin even thought he was clearly mightier than Morgoth in battle and wounded him seven times and STILL could not kill him. Since Morgoth was a Valar and could not be slain by no elf or man. You shove a lot of hate for Christians in your comment man. I don't know why but i don't really care, just don't shove strawmen and adhominems into my face ya'hear?
You dive in a lot of interpretation and hermeneutics there, including of my own comment. In that vein, I could say that if the dwarves "coiled at the sight of his raised hammer and begged to be saved", like you yourself said, they were a lot more than empty shells. I have every right to think Tolkien was saying something there. Hate for Christians? Nah. Hate for prejudice? yes. The one that leads an scholar to dismiss and important aspect of literature because "ohmygerd, what would, the bishop or the pastor say if I imply that Tolkien flirted with poly/henotheism?" -- Its the same thinking that leads to have dioramas of humans riding dinosaurs in some "museums" :)
I'm sorry, but why did you choose to use the off spelling use of 'Melkior', when in every single last literal and contextual example of Morgoth's alternate name is 'Melkor', with no i in it. I would like to know what source material you used to come about using this version of the name that you used during this video. Thanks.
I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything, so pardon me if it may sound that way, but it couldn't have simply been a typo, as in the the video, you are even clearly saying 'Melkior' when referring to Melkor. Perhaps the reason that you began saying it that way was from an initial typo that you had read and went from that, but there are just so many literary examples of this work that I have a difficult time understanding how it could have perpetuated from a single instance of a typo. Oh well.
Not sure if you edited it this way but the audio cuts every time you finish a sentence or pause. It's a bit jarring when listening. Besides that, great lecture.
I too am an Atheist, and I too love Tolkien, but I found your ideas very interesting. I also appreciated that you didn't force the Christianity on us, the audience.
I am a Pagan Priest, and it is interesting how Tolkien combined Pagan and Christian theological concepts; i prefer to focus on the massive Pagan ideas he made popularly acceptable after 1600+ years of persecution, but i agree with your Christian points as well (since Tolkien was Christian and it does show in this book).
Gandalf is one of the Ainur. Ainur = Valar and Maiar. Maybe you mean the Aratar = greatest of the Valar: Manwë, Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna, Aulë, Mandos, Nienna and Oromë. And at first also Melkor/Morgoth.
Nice lecture, also as for why does Eru even allow Melkor to enter Arda, even after all his attempts to corrupt the world, (though maybe it's discussed in the following parts) I believe there is a part when Eru shows the images of the created world to the Ainur and I guess he addressed that to Manwe and Ulmo (spirits of wind/skies and water) the clouds that bring rains and ices and says that it wasn't in his music initially, but it was brought by Melkor, yet, it is still beautiful and only made the world richer, I guess it might be compared to the idea that God sees devil turning good things evil, and kinda, since it's already happened, uses it in the world too, not directly and maybe not completely, but kinda using the evil (twisted so from good) for the good (which is his creation) anyway, although it wasn't originally a part of the plan.
Mmm… please double-check your Elvish. There are a lot of things misspelled: "Silmaril," spelled "Simaril," and ”Númenor,” spelled without the accent. Aside from that, though, this was very true to the book and you presented some very interesting thoughts of the deeper meaning in the legendarium. :) Thanks.
Interesting work. Having read the Silmarillion before reading the Trilogy, I had assumed that when Gandalf made the claim of being the keeper of the secret fire he was referring to the ring in his keeping, Narya. One of the three things made for the elves. I like your supposition though.
"Why music?" - Note, the story of Ainulindalë was told by the Ainur to the elves in the same fashion it's presented in The Silmarillion. It's possible that the "music of creation" is entirely a metaphor, used to explain the story of creation to the elves in a way that they could most easily comprehend.
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.”
One of my favorite lines in all of fiction, :) God is so good!
Dr. Reeves,
I cannot applaud you enough for doing all of the work you do. Please keep putting out videos, I can't guarantee I will see all of them, but I find myself coming back and viewing your videos for more information and insight on my own journey into the Truths of humanity and God. Most teachers and professors I have encountered rarely seem to know as much as you present in all of your videos and content on YT, appreciate it very much.
Tolkien and Lewis are two of the brightest minds in the past hundred years. Wish I coulda known them in person.
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." - JRR Tolkien
Absolutely!
I don't get why atheist have such a problem
The Secret Fire reference at 21:30 is actually referring to the Ring of Power Gandalf is secretly keeping and protecting from Sauron. The Ring gives gandalf a lot of his spiritual power and gives him the power of the flame. This allows him to kill the balrog in Moria but it also killed him. For the balrog (Durin's Bane) and Gandalf are both Maiar and Gandalf was sent back by Eru while Durin's Bane was sent back to the abyss of nothingness.
Regarding the section regarding Iluvatar's folding back the sin of Melkor into the music of Iluvatar (44:00) ... my take on it was not merely that Iluvatar was able to "catch" the dissonant notes and fold them in, but rather that those very dissonant notes are required for the ultimate good. Melkor's actions are in fact necessary for the fulfillment of the Good. And in that sense Melkor is a sacrifice of Iluvatar who is cast in the role of "He who is destined to perish that the good may flourish". Notice that Iluvatar's words following the the ceasing of the music: "... And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
This is a class that I would have loved to take!! those people are so lucky
Thanks! It was a lot of fun to teach.
I'm an atheist and I loved this, thank you very much, this was inspiring.
To those whom are questioning why this literature is taught in theology, it is because this is the study of the theology of Tolkien's world. It has been found that fictional theology is derived from elements of actual theology, and that the study of actual theology can learn from certain pieces of literature throughout history. By studying these individual elements and philosophical concepts, we can better understand why ancient man and his subsequent cultures developed certain dogmas, rituals, and beliefs. Thus, in understanding our roots in theological history, we can better understand our modern selves.
+James L // Thanks, James. That's a good way to put it. At the seminary one of our mission statements is to 'think theologically', which in this class means we want to be reflective on everything, not just overtly Christian books. :)
+James L "Theology is a branch of Fantasy Literature" - J.L. Borges
Theology is the Queen and Mother of all sciences! Look it up yourself pal, I'm not doing the leg work for you!
Alchemy tried to play with the notion of converting common metals and materials into gold during a time when perpetual motion machines were taken seriously (perpetual motion machines would still have brief periods of popularity among the public until even the 1910's). Astrology is a spiritual pursuit centered around the zodiac and horoscopes.
These 'predecessors' were not based on the scientific method (alchemy thought to have begun circa 1900 BC, astrology originating in ancient Babylon).
Astrology and alchemy were always at odds with the 'scientists' of their respective days, but with the scientific method (based solely on maths and physics) they had been debunked as homeopathy.
The Catholic Church (or just the Church, before the First Schism) had always also opposed both astrology and alchemy as a major patron of the arts and sciences both politically, and by denying alchemists funding and deeming astronomy to be heretical (probably even direct attacks, under the table (its what I'd do - my opinion here)).
You cant observe the creation of a daily horoscope though the maths and physics. You can't rationalise alchemy though the same systems either, particularly with systems like the periodic table of elements and chemical balancing contradicting the intermediate concepts in alchemy.
The comparison you drew suggests that these things have some sort of blood relation between each other. They may be similar at the simpler levels, but that's about it.
yup. I'm not complaining. just lamenting the fact that this is theology based. would like to see a serious as in depth that was strictly about the material.
Hi Ryan! Ten years ago I considered myself a devout reborn Christian and did one of those read the Bible in a year courses, which included studying various themes of the Bible and being able to recite one verse per week of the year. I only got to 17 before I gave up, but I digress. In 2003 I went through what you would call a breakup with Christ where I literally wondered through a desert of debauchery and drug experimentation, not all bad as I no longer touch them but the experience was great. Thanks to the grace and mercy of God I can say I have come full circle and I find that my Christian faith, although I do not label myself a Christian or subscribe to any faith or religion, has been unfalteringly strengthened. ANYway, since I have come back full circle on my roots I have also been reflecting on what I learned through my Bible studies. While I do not read the Bible anymore (save for when I happen upon one of those Giddeons Bible you get in hotels) I find that there are many gaps in the creation story which the Silmarillion fills wonderfully! Do you get this feeling too?
One thing that it is important to understand about the Silmarillion and the Tolkien legendarium generally, is that Tolkien imagines it in an explicitly pre-Biblical world, where the True God of the universe has not yet revealed himself directly to his creation. At the time of the Silmarillion or The Lord of the Rings, no one has a personal relationship with God with the possible exception of Manwe, who acts as High Priest over creation. Since no one has direct access to Illuvatar, and since no one knows his name, and since no one has received his commandments, and since his character has not been revealed to his creation, the Wise have no choice but to call on the angelic host to whom Illuvatar has delegated authority to act as intermediaries. No one knows how to worship the Creator at this time. God's personal relationship to mankind, really begun with Abraham in the real world, God's revealing his commands done at the time of Moses, and God's ultimate disclosure of his character in the incarnation of Jesus is all in this world's future. So while we can call upon The Father, or Christ Jesus, to intervene on our behalf directly, the inhabitants of this world can only call on the Valar to save them - because only the Valar have seen The Father face to face, and only through him at this time is his Light reflected on the world. This is becomes one of the major themes of the Silmarillion - the spread of that light in reflection, through creation. And that theme likewise echoes in The Lord of the Rings, and is necessary to fully understand some scenes.
Finally, a Seminary willing to teach the Silmarillion. The Revolution has begun. Praise be upon the Valar.
Liam Cunliffe It is time for men to lay aside their false religions and false gods.
We must return to the True Faith, as revealed by the Prophet J.R.R. Tolkien.
Only when we embrace Eru Ilutivar will we know peace in Arada.
+Waltham1892 there is no religion in the similrilian
Troll God APOSTATE! HEATHEN! HERETIC!
***** HERESY!
+Troll God I thınk he ıs pullıng your leg ! (jokıng)
Ryan Reeves. Great lecture. I downloaded it and converted it to Mp3 so I can listen to it in my truck. I have a 45 min ride to work. This stuff really gets my mind going. Thanks for the great stuff.
That's awesome. No swerving on the road! :)
Every time I read it, I read it straight through. It's dense, but not opaque.
edit: It's "Melkor" not "Melkior."
+Jack D. Ripper // I agree about dense but not opaque, though the more I reread it the more I find it just as good as LOTR, etc. And yes the Melkior was a typo that entered into the live lectures. Plenty of people have hated this, and I can agree that it should have been caught. But I've also enjoyed 'crowdsourcing' edits in material and ideas from those who write in here. Even the ones who are grumpier than they should be! So I'm glad your edit feel on me with grace. :)
Ryan Reeves I'm atheist. But the creation myths from around the world fascinates me. I read the Silmarillion when it first came out. I believe the Ainullindale to be the most beautiful. I loved your idea about "sub-creation." My theory that if there is a supreme power, we have to have the spark of that creation within every living thing (as Dan Fogelberg would put it) and that we are but the eyes, ears and fingers. Learning I believe would be the true "sub-creation" and that building (technology and thus, war) would be the antithetical to "God."
However, I believe we're all bugs on the wall.
Indeed I find that Tolkien was very resistant to industry and technology and yes, certainly places it as counter to the forces of good. This idea with relation to sub-creation is very interesting!
I'm at 42:52 right now and I don't know if you address this later on but I just want to say, Melkors Rebellion, his dissonance, is actually part of Erus plan, as you say symphonies do use dissonance in them and Eru uses this as well, Tolkien later explains that Melkors dissonance is what creates heat and cold, it's what creates rain and snow and is therefore necessary for Erus image of creation to exist as he wants it. When Eru stops Melkor he says that everything the Ainur are (Including obviously Melkor) is just an extension or stems from Eru himself which means that Melkors dissonance is Erus dissonance embodied just as all the other Ainur are his other melodies, instruments, tools whichever you like, embodied.
That's not quite correct. Melkor's themes were proud, repetitive, puffed themselves up, and were shrill. Symbolically, this represents Melkor's fascination with power, which he imagines in terms of being able to "go to extremes". Illuvatar answers Melkor not in the way Melkor might expect, if Illuvatar were like Melkor, but with subtle, gentle themes. Illuvatar tells Melkor that the loud bombastic piece he played was imagining not heat and cold, but extremes of heat and cold - which would naturally be destructive. But, Illuvatar tells him, those extremes he sought to create were always tempered, and instead of resulting in what he wanted - unbounded power - simply create new forms of beauty that ultimately will rebound not to Melkor's glory but to others. But Melkor wasn't trying to create snow or rains, but bitter cold and burning fire without restraint. Cold and heat were themes that he tried, and failed, to enlarge to serve his own purpose.
I feel like this says not so much about music so much as Tolkien's understanding of it or some heavily opinionated stance he may have had about the changing nature of music in the 20th century and perhaps connecting the increasing presence of and focus on dissonance with the modern world and industrialization etc., which we see pretty clearly set as an evil force (e.g. saruman).
I have read this to mean that Melkor is discordant, yet also brash and repetitious. Evil is never creative. It only twists and mocks
@ Roger and interesting perspective. Given that premise, are all creative things inherently good then, or do you see it as only that which is good creates?
Interesting point. Can you judge the good in a creature by its creativity? In Tolkien yes. Inherently good as in the capacity to will good.
Brings up the question is their free will in the Valar.
One of the students asked "Why music?". Because the universe is a symphony of energy vibrating at different frequencies, similar to the sound vibrations we are familiar with. As above, so below. One chord is a proton, another chord is an electron, etc. The first vibration caused by the word of God. (when we speak words we cause vibrations in the air) In some eastern philosophies/religions, the cause of the universe was the primordial sound... Om or Aum.
One term used to describe someone like a wizard is Enchanter. Under his spell would be enchantment. The key word here is "chant" from the Latin cantar which means "to sing".
Among other examples, I think Tolkien's describing creation as a song or music to be accurate, not merely poetic.
Whoa, this comment is really interesting. Do you have any sources or anything I can read more about the ideas you mentioned? Anything you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated, thanks for your time!
Never thought of it that way, that is fascinating. Amazing I'm still learning things about Tolkien thirty years after first reading.
When I first listen to the Silmarillian (on CD) I thought it was so much like the Bible. Way cool.
"Way cool"? Sorry, but that phrase makes me chuckle, I agree with you though, the Silmarlairities ( ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ) are rather clear, but the metaphors are not. Its kind of like reading a different, an ever so slightly more cryptic version of The Chronicles of Narnia.
Cryptic yes. There are so many parts that I want to know more about but the story just stops. Did you listen to the whole thing? "Silmarillion"
No, but I've read the first part a while time ago. Had it on loan from a buddy of mine.
Nice lecture. Good choice on the thumbnail with Arda as a flat world. The question a little before 49:00 "why music?"... I just wanted to add that music makes most sense since Tolkien was a linguist. Music (along with math) are universal languages. Also the sheer beauty of that chapter. It couldn't have been anything else in my opinion.
Music can shape matter/stuff so i guess music is the best choice to create something :)
I really enjoy this lecture. I think Tolkein wrote out of his ruminations over God's relationship with the world. He is one of my favorite theologians & I often reference him when catechizing youth. He puts into artistic words the logic & mystery of the Catholic worldview. This logic & mystery in symbiosis is something I wish Evangelicals would find in coming to the Catholic Church that has preserved this worldview in good times & bad.
I've listened to so many Ryan Reeves videos, but this is the first time actually seeing him. Great gift this guy has. Love his teaching style.
The Silmarillion is totally doable in one go.
48:43 String Theory suggests all matter in the universe is composed by vibrating strings in what can be thought as a symphony. I find the concept of a higher consciousness playing 'notes' or 'particles' to create a reality very appealing. Great lecture! And thanks for sharing it.
While I don't necessarily agree with many of the conclusions reached in this lecture, I do nevertheless find them very interesting and well thought out. As a huge believer of le mort de l'auteur, I don't think i t really _matters_ that Tolkien _expressly_ rejected the notion that he had deliberately created allegory. The experience of any artwork is by necessity a collaboration between the author and the audience, and if someone brings a Christian perspective to a work, it's not surprising that they would read Christian imagery into it. And per le mort de l'auteur, that's a completely valid interpretation.
I found this great to watch, so thanks for sharing.
Extremely well done, sir. An uncle of mine had been looking for the similarities between Tolkien's work and Christian belief. I had initially pointed him to the Silmarillion but I think I'll point him here rather than inflicting upon him reading the Silmarillion, which at times reads like the history book it essentially is.
The Tritone was called "Diabolus In Musica" (The Devil in Music). This is commonly taught music theory. It has NEVER been the basis of Heavy Metal (that's based, oddly enough, upon Perfect 4th, and Perfect 5th, "Power Chords" as played distorted through a guitar amp).
Tritone harmony was forbidden up to about the time of Palestrina, and Bach, so they were avoided in ancient music like Plainsong, and Modal Harmony "Monk Choir" style music (e.g. music from 1500's). The Tritone is the basis of modern music theory and is prevalent in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Hayden, and all the others (circa 1600 A.D. and later). The tritone is part of what musicians call "Dominant 7th" chords. Dominant 7th chords do need a "resolution". This Dominant => Tonic is also called "cadence" (falling).
If you want this illustrated, go to a piano and play an F, together (at the same time) with a B natural. This is a Tritone (so called because the two notes are Three Whole Steps or "tones" apart). You are correct in stating that there is natural DISSONANCE to this sound. Our senses desire a resolution to this dissonance. If, you next play an E natural and a C, together (as a two note chord, just like before). Play the F, B combo, then play the E, C combo. Play these sets of notes back and forth, and you will understand what I'm saying. This sound is also called a "Cadence" in music harmony. Many symphonies end with just this back and forth dissonance and resolution. This signals to an audience to prepare for the END of the musical piece.
So the upshot is:
1) Yes, tritone (diminished 5th, augmented 4th - they are the same sound) is dissonant
2) Yes, tritones were called "The Devil in Music"
3) Tritones were no longer considered "forbidden", but instead became an essential part of modern music beginning around 1600 A.D. or so, even in church or ecclesiastical music.
4) Tritones are NOT the basis of Heavy Metal music. . .at all. They are an important part, and part of the basis of ALL modern music, together with harmony based upon thirds (major third, minor third and their relatives minor sixth and major sixth).
Again, as an odd note - of all modern music, only some ROCK music has lower amounts of Dominant 7th chords, and thus could be said to be based LESS upon the Tritone. This has to do with the tendency of "Gospel Rock" style to use straight MAJ and MIN chords, together with Sus 4 type chords (these do not have tritone, but play a 4th, instead of the lower major third in the chord - play this followed by a major and you have very "churchy" sounds). Also, some Rock (like Pete Townsend and the Who) are based MAINLY upon Perfect 4th and Sus 4 type harmony, eschewing normal Dominant 7th approaches in many cases.
WARNING - Don't confuse loudness or obstreperousness of music with the use of TRITONE. Mozart is just the opposite of obstreperous, and is very soothing, even consciousness lifting, and it is SOAKED in use of TRITONE. Mozart was a master of it's uses. Think of tritones as part of the harmony (theory) toolset. They are used to infuse dissonance, and may then lead to resolution. Do this right, and you "paint" a pleasing and peaceful sound "picture".
Apologies for misstating things. You're clearly a master of musical theory and I am not. The point I am making should be clearer: that the first major Black Sabbath song was based on a classical song that utilized the Tritone. That song, subsequently, is credited with starting heavy metal as a genre....hence the overstated comment from me. Love the comment, though.
Chris is correct that the tritone doesn't appear often in the chords of heavy metal, but it does happen more often in the chord movement, as per your example Black Sabbath. Actually, the most common use in modern music is in Bebop and other instrumental jazz subgenres since the tritone is part of the Dominant 7th chord. But they use it as method of tension and resolution and a way to lift the chordal structure into a "key of the moment" and then drop it back into the home key, usually involving the circle of fifths. Listen to John Coltrane's Giant Steps for a wild but beautiful example of this. Just as in your description the music resolves itself in ways that shouldn't work if you think only in pure diatonics, like the early Renaissance church composers.
bassdroppointsourc has added a nice bit to the discussion. Of course, I'd like to add that I'm a huge fan of J.R.R. Tolkien and have read the trilogy far more than a dozen times. I have much of the other interesting Tolkien supplements, and of course the Silmarillion.
I'd suggest that the concept of music, or vibrations being an origin story of the universe is also found in other religious works, and related to the concept of the "music of the spheres", which suggests a sort of "musical" relationship between the orbits of the planets and a related math representation of harmony. Much of music can be represented in math. The frequencies which the human ear finds pleasing have integer multiple arrangements. There is plenty written about math and music.
If you want to have a conversation it helps to get the point and maybe pretend you're talking to real humans not just trolling the internet.
The song is Black Sabbath, which is absolutely based on an inverted tritone. Tony Iommi has said in maybe 1000 interviews that he was playing with the tritone when he heard it in a classical song and came up with the main riff.
The question of what starts metal music is of course subjective, but there are plenty of historians, musicians, and others who say the song Black Sabbath was the spark.
Ryan Reeves I apologize if you had inferred my comment as trolling when in fact, I was trying to be conversational and engage in a respectful and intellectual dialogue (not something usually found in TH-cam comments, I know). I understand the point of matter quite well, being a student of music, but the point of the matter is being confused: the intervals of notes played simultaneously within chords are not the same as chordal movement or the movement of notes within a riff, which clearly are being conflated here. Having played Black Sabbath I can tell you that it does not contain any tritone chords, but the notes of the riff in E minor end on the flatted fifth B flat- so the movement of the riff has a false resolution to the flat five, but none of the chords that Iommi plays contain both E and B flat at the same time.
In any case, the reason I mentioned Giant Steps and similar bebop is its ability to use chords actually containing tritones, in this case dominant 7th chords, and resolving them much like in the Silmarillion where Eru Illuvatar resolves the discordant music of Melkor. All of which I had not thought of until I heard this lecture, which I neglected to add previously, I enjoyed very much.
Very good lecture!
I always understood The Silmarillion well enough, but it's nice to know the deeper thoughts of the book, you explain everything really well.
One note though, on 34:10 you say Gandalf is not an Ainur, I think you might have mistaken Ainur for Valar, because Gandalf (Olorin) is actually an Ainur, with a lower rank (Maiar).
I wonder why people are giving themselves anti religious pats on the back...its is sad. just enjoy the seminar? na bro, I need to inject my saltiness into this situation so I can feel arrogantly empowered. jeez this is the definition of deep self unfulfilled loathing. Prof. Ryan Reeves, you are a wonderful teacher.
+pencilpauli // Agreed on your points about the blending of the two. The problem with this one lecture is it's about at the half point of the course. We discuss both elements and Tolkien's context, his education in pagan materials, and his desire to mix these worlds in his fantasy. This lecture does bracket some of that out, but mostly for the sake of time, not denial of these elements. Would totally agree with you if this was all I said! :)
I thought the map that is being used is considered one of the least accurate maps of Arda made?
It is, horribly inaccurate and it makes me go mad every time I see it...
Joe Westerland he does mention it's an idealised map, and there are other versions
By chance do you know where I can find an accurate representation?
47:44 Melkor is like those dubstep artists that corrupts original songs and "recreates" it in their own style.
I'm so glad I found this video! I've never considered Tolkien's work in this light. It's pretty fascinating!
What would I give to have such a seminary in my university
This and the next video is an example of how to be a good teacher. Knowing what you're talking about enough to give it to students with an understanding. I read The Silmarillion twice. I still had to look stuff up, but this is home cooked meal explanation goodness. I would love to see Reeves on Colbert. WHO YAH GOT?!
Love and praise the lectures, because they are beautiful,, rich in info and thought and Christian and true and that is why they are so far away from boring and mundain. Congratulations and love to the author and audience!
This is an excellent seminar! And I'm not even a Christian!
I've always found Tolkien's musical interpretation of the creation myth to be absolutely beautiful.
All of the Ainur make their own part for the symphony and by so doing lay out all that will come into being in the world. Melkor's attempts to lead the symphony astray are constantly thrown back in his face. Altering the final product in unintended ways.
It's just such an elegant story.
I agree. My favorite section of the book. The question of the ultimate source of "evil" is difficult and I think goes unanswered. Excellent lecture.
What's with every comment starting of "I'm not a Christian" is there SOMTHING I'm missing
Did you watch the video? This is a seminar on the Christian roots of Tolkien's mythos.
A huge problem with corelating much of Tolkien to Christianity is that it's only semi-accurate because what Tolkien was doing is reworking Germanic Mythology which we, and by extension he, know are largely unknown with much of what we do know of it being Christianized, so obviously there are going to be some references somewhere, but a lot of what is discussed here doesn't really work to call to mind Christianity at all. In fact it is much more in line with Hinduism in how the deities work.
Though I do find it funny that you pretty much argue that Tolkien is putting forth that the christian god is a child that refuses to let anyone to turn on and listen to their radios. Just because its a supreme deity doing it, doesn't make it any less petulant.
At the beginning the dark lord was known as Melkor,but after he made a deal with Ungoliant to push the world into darkness and after stoling the 3 silmarions,the Ainurs hate him and call him Morgoth,a perfect name for somebody which is as evil as Lucifer.Sauron was also known before he became evil as Mairon(the admirebel one),but after being corrupted my Melkor/Morgoth,he became known as Sauron.
Beren Lúthien & the Silmarils of Fëanor , this book is the bedrock of JRR`S lore . This is not read & understood in one read through . I read each chapter over & over to understand some of what is in there & made notes . I see it now on the book shelf , hard bound & a nut still not cracked completely . Every winter I open it once more ( notes in hand ) . Her robe was blue as summer skies,
but grey as evening were her eyes;
her mantle sewn with lilies fair,
but dark as shadow was her hair.
Her feet were swift as bird on wing,
her laughter lighter than the spring
Curious way of interpreting the Silmarillion. The way I interpret it, Melkior tries for independence from his father (Iluvatar) and to achieve this, he starts fighting his own nature. Iluvatar warns him that the struggle will do him no good, but Melkior persists. To show Melkior his error, Iluvatar takes the fire of creation and places it at the center of the world and allows the Ainur to form this world according to their own part in the greater symphony. He visualizes that which did not have a vision yet to make it clear to Melkor what his struggle will result in. What struck me then the most, of all that happened after, is that Tolkien explicitly says that even in the corruption by Melkor, even in the struggle, there is beauty. In the imperfection of humanity (the second of the races to awaken, and in a sense the lesser one, because they are mortal) there is a strength. Humanity thrives where the immortal elves do not, because they struggle. Even though Melkior went against his own nature and his father (which did not end well for him) he in a way still enhanced the greater creation, because his corruption constrasted and therefore enhanced the beauty of the rest of creation. This is why I feel Iluvatar allowed it. In a literary sense, any character in a story never truly becomes inspiring or intruiging if they do not have something to struggle against. I think, as a writer, Tolkien looked upon humanity the same way. We struggle in life, and the struggle may hurt us, but the hurt contrasts the happy and serene parts of our life and enhances them. The whole world he build, I believe was created in his own quest to think about life in general and the things he had happen to him in specific. In that way you are quite correct there is a theological side to the story, heavily influenced by Christianity because Tolkien was a Christian himself. The core of the story though, translates to any culture and any religion, because it is a story mostly about struggle (both with the world and with ones own nature), which is universal.
Excellent comment, I agree totally. I also like to point how the rings were created on search of extasis by the inmortal and the trouble that come out from those actions.
Secret Fire is also a reference to Narya, the Ring of Fire, that was given to him by Cirdan
Many people think it's a hard read, but once you grasp the overall story it is deeper than the abyss and higher than the firmament. My Favorite book of all time.
Don't you just feel better as an atheist when an opportunity to bash the bible comes along
Absolutely adored this lecture!
When i was a bit younger my atheism was simple but for some time now after watching many of your lectures and other peoples lectures i have a better grasp of religion and while am still an atheast i do now respect and value religion and what it can brink to the world instead of dismissing it as the fantasies of stupid unknowlegable people from the past.
... I read the Silmarillion in one sitting. It's not at all nearly as difficult a book as people make it out to be. It's very good though! It's written from a distant perspective. It's also not a novel, it is a series of different sorts of stories. The later bits are adaptations of epics, while many of the earlier ones are exposition heavy descriptions of nations and their formations. The whole thing has a cohesive plot though, it's about the loss and recovery of the Silmarils, and that drives the plot of every chapter for the rest of the book; except the Akallabeth.
I'm not a Christian anymore but videos like this make me wish I were.
Great work.
then re-convert
"You dont wanna read the whole book in one setting." What? I devoured this book. I liked it even more than Lord of the Rings.
This was incredibly interesting. While not religious myself, I can appreciate the beauty of the comparisons and applaud the literary slant that you took Ryan. One thing, however, that I found incorrect at the end. When talking about Sauron's approach to the rings, you state that he "learned the craft" and corrupted the good rings that were being made. I would love to hear your thoughts on the actual events in Tolkien's universe. Sauron "repents" to to the Valar and returns to Middle Earth under a more positive guise and teaches the art of creating rings of power to the elves. Because he does so, he is able to secretly forge the One Ring using the same arts and subvert the works of the lesser rings. The differences is distinct in my eyes because Sauron is ultimately responsible for the problems of the Third Age, not a "little corrupter" as you referenced. It doesn't take away from the overall comparison, but I think it's worth consideration.
+Corey Tomlinson Sauron does NOT repent - at the end of the First Age he is too proud to submit to the judgement of the Valar and goes into hiding in the east and soon sets himself up as the new dark lord. He does pretend to surrender to the Numenorians, but only does so to get access to the king and subvert the Numenorians to the worship of Melkor. Interestingly, this is the ONLY time in Tolkien where there is "worship" as such and the ONLY temple/church - and it's dedicated to MELKOR rather than Eru. It is then used to "sacrifice" those who continue to follow the Valar and remain Elf-friends. Tolkien doesn't belabor the point, but it's definitely there - and important.
My mistake - I combined the two events (the repent of Melkor and the dissembling of Sauron) together. Thanks for the correction!
I only made the point because pride and possessiveness are the primary "sins" for Tolkien - all the failures, from Isildur to Denethor, and Saruman and Sauron himself, come from one, the other, or both. The ring itself is the ultimate metaphor - it possesses the possessor, and while seeming to convey power (and hence enhance pride) it actually lessens the person wielding it.
this man is a either computer brain or a genius. The Silmarillion i found to be a complex or complicated book and took all my concentration to read it as a young man, about 40 years ago. I luved all the books.
Very hard book to comprehend. I love Tolkien's stuff. This book took me several tries and lots of concentration to read. You can't be even slightly distracted and still understand this book..
i certainly made you work at it. Luved them all the books.
You described the way of thinking of The Holy Trinity as water as a certain kind of heresy, I can't catch the word you used, could you elaborate a little bit?
+procrastinator99 Monolistic, was maybe the word?
+procrastinator99 // Hey there. It's called Modalism or Sabellianism from the ancient church period. It basically tries to deal with the question of God in the Bible through a human analogy that is too easy to misunderstand. The issue is in the New Testament God and Christ are speaking about each other, Jesus prays to the Father and speaks of him as different, and the same goes for the Holy Spirit. To put it simply: there's one God but he's talking to himself. :) Modalism would make the natural reading of these verses a joke, because it would be God playacting as all 3 persons, and so it's almost as if he's lying when other persons of the Trinity are referred to separately.
Thank you for the correction on the word, I tried replaying that section of the video a couple times, but just couldn't get it :). So, is what you're saying that God in each part of the Trinity is more separate than what the "Water States" analogy implies? Or is it that the analogy somehow insults Him? Sorry if I'm missing your point. I've never taken any Theology class, and haven't heard a Christian oppose the "Water Analogy" so strongly. I'd also like to add that if at any point in this discussion I demean or disrespect your beliefs, that that is not my intention at all, I do genuinely want to understand what you believe, and how it fits together for you. :)
+procrastinator99 Also, all cards on the table, (I want to be as open and honest as I can here so that you know where I'm coming from on my misunderstandings, etc.) I am an Atheist, and have not been a part of a Faithful community. So, I'm about as much of an outsider to these sorts of concepts as I can be. But I do genuinely want to know how this concept of "water analogy as heretical" comes about.
Two ideas.
One, perhaps Tolkien chose music as the method of creation because music is the expression of dynamic vibration, which is the underlying terrain on which manifestation occurs.
Two, perhaps Eru allows for Morgoth to do what he does, because that in itself is another form of resolution. How can Eru be good if there isn't an evil force to oppose him? In order for resolution to occur, duality has to exist.
This is absolutely golden. Christian here... So many messages and references to God's work in Tolkien's books! It gives me goosebumps!
The creation and the whole music thing was so unbelievably beautiful to me when I first read it that I could barely get through it!
Damn, I like this...where can I take or attend these classes!? I've purchased The Silmarillion and gone through it 4 times without fully understanding the concept coming across and this is really helping me makes sense on what Tolkien was trying to make with this book...I'll put it on my favourites list and go through it a couple more times! Good job Ryan...2 thumbs up!
Tolkien took from Celtic, Germanic, Zorastrian and his experiences on the Western Front in WWI plus what he learnd in South Africa amongst the native peoples and added Judeo-Christian beliefs to create the Silmarillion, ie the Bible of Middle Earth.
But it make a good topic for theological discussion.
Finally, found a video that truly explains the magic of The Silmarillon.
How does Ungoliant fit into this? She's not of Morgoth's discord and in many way his superior, but more primordial. An unintelligent agent, profoundly mysterious that can corrupt and overpower even Melkor, evil incarnate. She was eventually destroyed by Melkor's host of Balrogs, demons of light and fire.
I've often said that Brian Henson's kind of like Christopher Tolkien in the sense of continuing his father's legacy. Also as a Tolkien fan seeing this this I'm like, "Man, I wish I could've attended this class."
i have seen too many people complaining about how difficult Tolkien's prose is.
Please do one about the Lord Of The Rings.
Can't stop watching your videos.
And here I am, high as fuck, watching this....
+Anima Mundi more like gay as fuck
Morgoth's first name is Melkor , not Melkior.
Yeah the perils of live extemporaneous teaching. :) I hit it as a typo in the slide and then pronounced it as it was on the screen, all the while my head is going 'that's not it'. By then I was on to the theological point, though.
The soul and the secret fire are separate things. The souls of living things are supposed to be created from the secret fire (also known as the flame imperishable). From a christian stantpoint, the Flame is more of a 'holy spirit' type deal.
Also, there's no 'i' in Melkor.
HazmatSuitUp Good catch on that. Not sure why I added the 'i' in the live lecture. Likely fatigue! :)
On the secret fire, Tolkien actually refers to it as quasi-Holy Spirit in his letters. His clarity on it shifts over time, so it's not exact, and I tried to modulate what I was saying to make sure it was analogous to how we might describe it. But Tolkien makes the Holy Spirit connection losely himself, so I riffed on it a bit. But I wouldn't want to suggest that it's an identical connection, only an shading of what Tolkien is saying.
Oh yeah absolutely, Tolkien was good like that haha. Most of the things that seem to be losely based on Christianity or certain historical events and things have to be just considered losely based, or even merely inspired things in his mythology. Because as we all know, Tolkien disliked allegory and never intended his work to be so.
Anyway, it was a good lecture though, I wish I could study this kind of stuff all day haha
HazmatSuitUp Thanks! Glad you liked it overall. That's why I posted the videos: I always wanted classes like this and so now that I get to teach them, I wanted them public.
As to "why music?" I love that question, and I'd love to put in my two cents...not only can music be contributed to by different bodies at once, but the element of time exists in music, and so music is a non-physical and somewhat mysterious way to construct.
" 'Anon we may', said Finrod, ' but as yet we walk in the shadows of fear. Thus far, then, I perceive that the great difference between Elves and Men is in the speed of the end. In this only. For if you deem for the Quendi that there is no death ineluctable, you err.' " -Athrabeth Finrod a Andreth
It is much easier to read if you're a history buff, especially one who is knowledgeable of medieval history where people had many names and epithets. The Silmarillion is a series of short stories of different styles, some being short stories with a narrative, and others as expository stories.
It's so funny how people get so offended by Christianity and just the thought of it.
it is in fact sad, because you immediately know how horrible, evil and damaging christianity is that people become disgusted at the very thought of it
Why is Christianity horrible, evil and damaging?
Are you serious? Not only is there fucked up shit in the bible, the fucked up shit the churches do but religious wars and the fact people believe there's a man in the sky who made everything, the earth, which he made before he made light so he made that shit in the fucking dark which is hilarious!! I could go on but you get the hint
Halcyon I am serious, but apparently you are not. You provide a series of judgements but no evidence
Just about every religion has the same effect to it and it's very arrogant to just flat out say this as if you know for a fact religions hold no water.
While most religions do contradict and seem farfetched, you never will know until you actually die. It's just completely beyond you.
literally from a seminary and people are complaining because they point out the religious parallels that Tolkien used.... smh
It is mind boggling.
OMG as much I look on this channel, it gets better! Now I need time to watch so many videos!
Mr. Reeves,
Tokien used "music" for his description of creation probably because he was might be aware of the creation story in Hinduism.
Cheers!
Great! An academic study and lecture about fantasy and fantastic stories. To give it the respect of reality is to want others to believe in Woo.
You've never heard of literary studies? A good portion of my English courses were literary studies of some kind. They ran the gamut, from SciFi studies to Shakespeare - but analyzing how good books are written is kinda the name of the game. If it's just the subject matter you object to, may I remind you that even Shakespeare has fairies and ghosts.
Mr. Reeves, would it be possible to provide the names and artists of some of the artwork displayed? (Like the piece @44:04) Thanks!
Hey there. I actually don't have the source in my files, but I have been scouring the internet for about a year picking up copyright free pictures and Photoshopping them, so it's likely something of mine. If you want it, shoot me an email and I can send it to you. As I said, they are copyright free.
Not necessary, was just interested in looking for other work by the artist. Thanks for response and the vids.
Very interesting work and analysis! As an atheist I was more interested in the actual literature itself but I was intrigued by your analysis and comparisons to theology, history and spiritualism. Keep up the good work sir!
+Liam Iverson Why isn't there a hindu and celtic comparison..? Those topics are in there too... you can equate it to a lot of things though Tolkien was from the west so christianity is the first religion people thing about......
+Tikaani Laogai Most religions consist of similar views, practices, philosophies so by taking inspiration from one religion your bound to incorporate views of others.
Liam Iverson Yes. I agree. There is overlapping. But there are ideas not found in christianity too. I guess wiccans and hindus don't busy themselves with Terry's books and that's why there isn't a video about it :)
its a christian seminary, so they would focus on christian references.
It does not say that Melkor wanted to create dissonance. He started by wanting to emulate and create beautiful music, but it led to dissonant, jarring music because he was sinning by not following the will of God, or, rather, he was sinning by wanting to not follow the will of God; for, paradoxically, and as Tolkien specifically states, the end result was an even more glorious music, so Melkor ended up following the will of God despite himself. This goes back to the idea of subcreation as an impulse put in us by the Creator, something inherently good which in Melkor is perverted because he tries to take control of the music away from Illuvatar and to control others, rather than following and allowing himself to be controlled by the will of God. Thus, our greatest moments of creativity come when we surrender control to the impulse within, which many artists and writers have described as seeming to come from some entity other than the self, and our most sterile works come when we become self-willed and seek to control and dominate others.
I might be off here, but I had the impression that the "satan"-character in the book of job was not the same entity as Satan that shows up in the new testament. that the character in Job is more like the critic in an oral dissertation. I know there are translations of the book of Job where instead of using the word "satan" they put in the translation "the adversary" which appears to be an angel with the function of being critical.
The difference between Tolkien and Christianity is that Tolkien considered death a gift to humans (tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Gift_of_Men) but Christianity considers death a curse/punishment (see 50:48) which needs to be defeated in some sense.
And this is what I do not like about theology and humanities in general. The focus is on confirmation of beliefs/hypothesises rather than attempts to refute lies/confabulations. So we constantly form echo chambers in which one person's imagination is cited by others, and the most cited imagination becomes canon.
Death = Gift vs death = curse...
1st off, I've never read anywhere nor heard in any church that death was either a "curse" either a "gift".
2nd, *your perception is wrong.* On the contrary both offer the same promise of an after-death. Here's the whole sentence...
In Eru Ilúvatar, from the Quenta Silmarillion, "Of the Beginning of Days":
_The Gift of Men is death-the inheritance of Ilúvatar's Younger Children, _*_which allows them to go beyond the confines of Arda, this world._*
Something else: it _"allows them"_ thus it's a _"gift"_. In some pseudo-christian sects, it has become a belief system where the World and the living is dark in essence, as it's ruled and thus created by Satan, while Salvation can only be found when we die, after death, via the "gift" of death. To some extent/extreme, this allows to disrespect the living... For instance it has lead Christianity into some deviant path here and there, like the years of Spanish Inquisition throughout Europe by the end of Middle-Age.. Also note that all respective monotheistic religions have some "version" accommodating for such "approach", for such deviant dualism (Joan of Arc had to be burned, many innocent and intelligent people had to be sacrificed, as Jesus had to be crucified)...
30:48 is a phrase out of a hat trick. That's his personal view. Like it's also his personal view that he projects on all readers, about how we should get bored reading the book (he says this in other words at the beginning). He's not a "Jack omniscient guru" you know., theology is by itself self-centered in regards to the emitter's own stance and opinions: for such topic, we can only make parallels with opinions, not facts.
+HawkFest
Your perception is wrong. Adam and eve were "cursed" with death when eve decided to eat from the tree of knowledge. God decided humanity didn't need him anymore at that point so he took away their immortality. So the story goes. Don't jump to conclusions and rationalize bashing people.
Frank Hobbs
"My" Bible (if I should "choose" what scriptures I would follow - and which I left in a closet a while ago), is the New Testament. Even in my Catholic school (where there also was Muslims and Jewish students, as the religious course could be replaced with a "Philosophy for the youth" course - or morals), even there our science teachers were teaching science, including the Theory of Evolution, as matters of facts, observations and plain logic (demonstrative techniques). None of the "fathers" told us to «not believe» what the science teachers taught us, there was no question about taking the book of Genesis for factual truth in replacement of science, from what we considered as the "primitive" Bible..
In short (no insult intended, just a figure of speech) : you have perceptions, I have reasoning. ;-)
+Frank Hobbs
He didn't take away their immortality. That's impossible. Immortal means incapable of dying. They died, therefore, never were immortal. What He took away was their access to the tree of life, which would have kept them alive perpetually.
Galatians Ch. 3 in the New Testament declares that any who fail to obey all of the law are under a curse. That curse is death. Jesus died to free us from that curse.
This lecture is bliss.
Love this video, reading the book now and it helps understand what's going on. Side note, 40:30 Black Sabbath's first song they wrote was Wicked World, not Black Sabbath that uses that tritone. Something small but I'm a big enough fan to comment on it. :P
Morgoth's name is Melkor. Melchior was a later name for one of the magi. Otherwise, I am greatly enjoying this series.
+Adrian Bury // Yep, total typo on the slide led to 'typo' in how I pronounced it. Doh! :)
+Adrian Bury Melchior is also the correct spelling of the name that sounds like Melkor.
See Melchior Hoffman for example, an anabaptist prophet. Kinda funny that Melkor, the dark lord, shares the same name as an Anabaptist preacher, given that tolkien was a devout Catholic.
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author". - J.R.R Tolkien
Bayden Austring // Elsewhere he describes how his work is not an Allegory, but it is certainly allegorical. And those who interpret his works in this way he encourages it: “the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ‘literature’, that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read ‘just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it” -J.R.R. Tolkien.
I deal with this explicitly in the opening lectures on Tolkien and allegory (another video in the playlist). He openly hated Allegory, as he always tended to see it as a bland attempt to jam a story on top of a philosophical principle. He didn't like C.S. Lewis' works for this reason. What he demands is that his works be read as literature first and then, only after, read with a look at themes and concepts that build out elements that echo ideas and realities of this world. This is why in this course we are discussing themes and trends in Tolkien, in order to treat them as literature. The bits about theological elements are obviously my take on it. In the lectures here and there, I slip occasionally into using too simplistic a 1-to-1 connection to a point I'm making and a point from one of Tolkien's themes, but this is not reading LOTR as an Allegory.
Great class and good job.
Thanks! Appreciate it!
Is it good watching this before reading the Silmarillon?
How did the "i" get to Melkor I will never know. :) Other than that - very interesting.
Typo in the slide that I started to read live during the lecture. Probably autocorrect since one my research areas is the Reformation and Melchior Hoffman. :)
so in depth and interesting. The speaker did a really good job. I read the book many years ago, but this really made it come alive for me.
That's a great lecture however I would like to make a small correction about the map. The map you show is also only a fraction of the whole world of Tolkien. This is a full map here www.elvenesse.net/maps/Arda_FirstAge.gif
+Silmarien Ingoldo // Yep glad you posted. Maps are bound by copyright at times, and everyone hates the 'two lung' map. I'm perfectly happy to take that criticism about the imagery.....I guess because I didn't draw it, so it doesn't offend me. :)
Was Tolkien popular when he lived? Or did he become popular only after his death?
Really only after (and then only slightly compared to his other works). Really the serious cult following of LOTR came in the 70s.
Great talk ... Question, Melkior tries to disrupt Iluvatars song three times, any connection to the three ages ?
To James L,
What is the theology of ancient MesoAmerican cultures before the influence of Eastern Roman Catholic/Christian influence?
The Problem with Evil ? It's a purpose , to ensure movement , if you resolve the song , it will end , Evil ( the bending of notes) allows it to continue perpetually so creation doesn't become stagnant and disperse . Also it allows good to "Rise up" not in just a " cream to the top" but in a creative sense themselves , in effect teaching the sub-creators to be better creators . Or so I see it
Here's how, despite so much study and credentials, religion (this guy is evidently christian) tends to bias one's mind and, at least, you end up missing or dis-missing something important. The Valar could be uderstood as angels, but also as Olimpian or Asgardian gods. Tolkien DOES flirt with paganism or rather *Henotheism* ( belief in and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.) He might have been a christian but with an obvious love for Scandinavian mythology. This is important because Aulë created, WITHOUT the knowledge of Eru-Iluvatar, the dwarves. By himself. That means they are not just sub-creators incapable of creating by themselves, but also creators on their own right. Even the Elves themselves. Feanor creates the Silmarils, with a power so high it could outpower the Valars (it burns Melkor's hand).
So in fact Tolkien also flirts with Gnosticism. It is kind of sad that because you are in a christian environment (there´s crosses hanging from the walls) you need to curve or bias what you say to avoid saying that OH, BLASFEMY! GNOSTICISM! PAGANISM! Next thing will be to put a trigger warning on the covers like some other people do.
+ Hitchpster the wrench in your comment is that Iluvatar was decidedly the one who created all the other beings and the only one who can create life. So he is way above the Valar making it like the relation between God and Angels. Also when the Silmaril burns Melkore he was no longer good thus the light inside the Silmaril, which came from sacred trees, is what burns him. Oh and i havent finished the video but in case he doesn't mention it Tolkien was Catholic.
Melkor is burned by the Silmarils because Varda had hallowed them so that "thereafter no mortal flesh, nor hands unclean, nor anything of evil will might touch them, but it was scorched and withered". However, they chose not to burn Beren's hands when he rescued one of them from Melkor's iron crown.
Wizard Suth I had forgotten about Varda hollowing them. Thanks for the clarification.
Aule was impatient and wanted to teach his crafts to others, thus he wanted the children of Iluvatar to come hastily. And when they did not come he tried to created his own.
Aule created the dwarves yes, but they did not have the secret fire that can only be given by Iluvatar since it rests within him. And thus they were no more than thralls to Aules will. They could only move according to his will, nothing more.
His folly was that he tried to create life beyond Iluvatar and Iluvatar knew of this false creation as well, since his eyes saw everything that happens in Arda. Iluvatar asked him why he did this, created these beings that had no will of their own and also asked if he wanted thralls like Melkor? And Aule confessed his folly and his sin and resolved to destroy his creations but they coiled at the sight of his raised hammer and begged to be saved. Iluvatar had given them the secret fire and thus adopted in a way, Aules creations.
So no. Aule did not just up and create the dwarves as a finished product, he just made hollow shells out of earth because he didn't know how to truly give them life. And none of this happened without Iluvatars knowledge. Aule created them without the knowledge of the other VALAR, whom he was hiding from.
And the Silmarils Feanor created out of the light of the two trees of Valinor that the Valar Yavannah created. They had no power of their own before Varda hallowed them, which made all evil things unable to grasp them without hurt, thus the burning of Melkors hands. The Silmarils led to the eventual downfall of the house of Feanor, since he grew arrogant and forgot where he had gotten the means to create these jewels, and often switched from greedily guarding them to vainly displaying them. And so Morgoths darkness crept into his heart and he fell.
Similarily Fingolfin even thought he was clearly mightier than Morgoth in battle and wounded him seven times and STILL could not kill him. Since Morgoth was a Valar and could not be slain by no elf or man.
You shove a lot of hate for Christians in your comment man. I don't know why but i don't really care, just don't shove strawmen and adhominems into my face ya'hear?
You dive in a lot of interpretation and hermeneutics there, including of my own comment. In that vein, I could say that if the dwarves "coiled at the sight of his raised hammer and begged to be saved", like you yourself said, they were a lot more than empty shells. I have every right to think Tolkien was saying something there.
Hate for Christians? Nah. Hate for prejudice? yes. The one that leads an scholar to dismiss and important aspect of literature because "ohmygerd, what would, the bishop or the pastor say if I imply that Tolkien flirted with poly/henotheism?" -- Its the same thinking that leads to have dioramas of humans riding dinosaurs in some "museums" :)
He has the worst map in the backround! >:-(
I love this, being an artist myself! I think of my creativity as His life flowing through me and I know my talent comes from Him.
I'm sorry, but why did you choose to use the off spelling use of 'Melkior', when in every single last literal and contextual example of Morgoth's alternate name is 'Melkor', with no i in it. I would like to know what source material you used to come about using this version of the name that you used during this video. Thanks.
it was simply a typo
I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything, so pardon me if it may sound that way, but it couldn't have simply been a typo, as in the the video, you are even clearly saying 'Melkior' when referring to Melkor. Perhaps the reason that you began saying it that way was from an initial typo that you had read and went from that, but there are just so many literary examples of this work that I have a difficult time understanding how it could have perpetuated from a single instance of a typo. Oh well.
look, if you look up in the comments, the lecturer (not me) says it's a typo.
If only this was what I could study :D, amazing breakdown of one of the greatest masterpieces by a fantastic author.
Not sure if you edited it this way but the audio cuts every time you finish a sentence or pause. It's a bit jarring when listening. Besides that, great lecture.
Yes live audio and I'm the 'sound guy' for the team at this time. I had gate muted the thing by accident and couldn't tell until in post. Lame!
Ah I gotcha, luckily it was a great lecture and not much of a bother without headphones.
Very interesting,I've noticed the two crosses on the wall where the monitor is mounted,and they are almost double crosses.....
Interesting course im an atheist but i still find religion and how it effects literature fascinating.
Thanks for the kind words. It's amazing how some people still speak to each as a fellow human these days! :)
I too am an Atheist, and I too love Tolkien, but I found your ideas very interesting. I also appreciated that you didn't force the Christianity on us, the audience.
I am a Pagan Priest, and it is interesting how Tolkien combined Pagan and Christian theological concepts; i prefer to focus on the massive Pagan ideas he made popularly acceptable after 1600+ years of persecution, but i agree with your Christian points as well (since Tolkien was Christian and it does show in this book).
Gandalf is one of the Ainur. Ainur = Valar and Maiar. Maybe you mean the Aratar = greatest of the Valar: Manwë, Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna, Aulë, Mandos, Nienna and Oromë. And at first also Melkor/Morgoth.
Nice lecture, also as for why does Eru even allow Melkor to enter Arda, even after all his attempts to corrupt the world, (though maybe it's discussed in the following parts) I believe there is a part when Eru shows the images of the created world to the Ainur and I guess he addressed that to Manwe and Ulmo (spirits of wind/skies and water) the clouds that bring rains and ices and says that it wasn't in his music initially, but it was brought by Melkor, yet, it is still beautiful and only made the world richer, I guess it might be compared to the idea that God sees devil turning good things evil, and kinda, since it's already happened, uses it in the world too, not directly and maybe not completely, but kinda using the evil (twisted so from good) for the good (which is his creation) anyway, although it wasn't originally a part of the plan.
Mmm… please double-check your Elvish. There are a lot of things misspelled: "Silmaril," spelled "Simaril," and ”Númenor,” spelled without the accent. Aside from that, though, this was very true to the book and you presented some very interesting thoughts of the deeper meaning in the legendarium. :) Thanks.
Interesting work. Having read the Silmarillion before reading the Trilogy, I had assumed that when Gandalf made the claim of being the keeper of the secret fire he was referring to the ring in his keeping, Narya.
One of the three things made for the elves.
I like your supposition though.
"Why music?" - Note, the story of Ainulindalë was told by the Ainur to the elves in the same fashion it's presented in The Silmarillion. It's possible that the "music of creation" is entirely a metaphor, used to explain the story of creation to the elves in a way that they could most easily comprehend.
Can someone please tell me what the setting of the Ainulindale (the music of the Ainur) is ?
Great lecture. Loved the music part... from disharmony with God to "a-tone-ment".