Tolkien's cosmology

[Ricardo]

The talk about the great hall of speculation made me think, and I am dangerous when I think.

Well, here is the thing, I know Tolkien at some point wanted his stories to be interpreted as a very distant past, a precursor of our own world.

He toyed with the idea of Arda being always round and the that sun always existed, but the whole idea creates way way too many problems.

Reconciling Tolkien's world with the real world is impossible, without taking away all the magic, everything that makes us love his world.

We would need to follow reality, and reality tells us that Earth has existed for 4 billion years, give or take, always a sphere (more or less) and it orbits around the sun, not the other way around, and the sun has existed way longer than earth.

Let's go from big to small. A flat Arda is incompatible with reality, the light of the trees is also incompatible.

Tolkien once asked some of his publishers I think if Arda should be flat or round, they said flat, it's part of the myth, it's part of the magic.

We need the trees, without trees there are no silmarils and without silmarils we have nothing.

Sure, Iluvatar (God?) did made Arda round, but since we know that Earth has been like that for 4 billion years, and that the sun used to orbit Arda, to change all of that we would have to set the events of the Legendarium like over 10 billion years ago, "only" 3 billion years after the big bang (again, give or take). Tolkien said the events of LOTR happened around 16,000 years before Christ, that's impossible, then Earth would have been flat like year 20,000 AD, hmmm no.

Even if we get around those little problems, then it's the matter of geology, let's see, Middle Earth is obviously Europe, the Harad would be Africa and the Rhun Asia, we don't know much about those but Middle Earth has a completely different geology than Europe.

There isn't a river going north to south, there aren't mountains north to south west of the river, there aren't mountains in the north east. Arda doesn't have a Great Britain, or Ireland, or Iceland.

Sure, geological changes happen but they take a long time, and if it happened it was million of years ago, not 16,000.

Now, if we think that Iluvatar remade Arda once again to make it look like modern day Earth, then there isn't really a connection between Tolkien's world and ours, maybe Arda existed in the same place but by no means Earth is Arda.

Again, trying to do this would robe the legendariums of all its mystique, all its charm, I don't think I would be interested in reading that, and I don't think Tolkien would have liked it (Peter jackson probably would).

The conclusion is, Arda, Aman, Ea here, Earth, the Sun, the Universe there, they are incompatible. Tolkien's a wonderful fantasy world, but it's not our world.

 

[Elthir]

He toyed with the idea of Arda being always round and the that sun always existed, but the whole idea creates way way too many problems.

Amalcarin has written some nice posts about this matter, if anyone missed this thread, and is interested.

“It Always Had Been a Vast Globe...”

Abstract. The article purports to present an exhaustive list of references to the Round World cosmology in the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien from the 1940s to the 1970s and to demonstrate that he firmly adhered to the new cosmology during the last decade and a half of his life and solved the...

thetolkien.forum

Reconciling Tolkien's world with the real world is impossible, without taking away all the magic, everything that makes us love his world.

For myself, I doubt Tolkien's popularity would have suffered much (if at all) if he had revised these two matters (pre-existing Sun and Moon and always round Earth) to replace the old, and published his own Ainulindale and Quenta Silmarillion. . .

. . . but I see no late evidence (within Tolkien's revised characterization of the Legendarium) of outright replacement in any case. Tolkien's later characterization of the mythology preserves the older cosmology alongside a variant.

We would need to follow reality. . .

I don't think this necessarily follows. Why would the revision of these two specific conceptions mean that readers would (again, necessarily) need to try to resolve the various examples that you've posted here regarding the Primary World?

In any case, here's a bit from Tolkien, a citation from Morgoth's Ring, the Myths Transformed section: "Their [the Western Eldar as opposed to Men and (as JRRT puts it) the "Wild Elves"] legends should have a closer relation to the knowledge now possessed of at least the form of the Solar System (= Kingdom of Arda); though it need not, of course, follow any "scientific" theory of its making or development."

Tolkien once asked some of his publishers I think if Arda should be flat or round, they said flat, it's part of the myth, it's part of the magic.

Tolkien gave a Round World version of Ainulindale to Katherine Farrar, and she responded to JRRT, seemingly in October 1948. She indeed said that she liked the flat versions best, and her answer reads: "The hope of Heaven is the only thing which makes modern astronomy tolerable: otherwise there must be an East and a West and Walls: aims and choices and not an endless circle of wandering."

We need the trees, without trees there are no silmarils and without silmarils we have nothing.

I don't understand this statement, as the Two Trees and the Silmarils are in both cosmologies.

Again, trying to do this would robe the legendariums of all its mystique, all its charm, I don't think I would be interested in reading that, and I don't think Tolkien would have liked it (Peter jackson probably would).

All its mystique and charm? I'm not going to force you to defend the hyperbole here, as I guess you're just trying to press a point, but anyway it seems strange to me that you'd add that you don't think Tolkien would have liked it. . . he being the one who, I argue, ultimately settled upon the idea of a multi-perspective Legendarium.

Anyway, Katherine Farrar's opinion noted, Tolkien yet would go on to revise an already published, explicit reference to the Elves existing before the raising of the Sun and Moon. Of course, I can't speak to whether or not he liked doing so, but I will add that simply doing so does not mean JRRT was necessarily going to, or needed to, fully rewrite Quenta Silmarillion.

As far as I'm currently aware, nothing Tolkien himself ever published (again, outside of a description within The Hobbit, which description JRRT revised for the Third Edition) is explicitly "once-flat-world" or "once-a-world-without-a-sun".

But let's imagine that Tolkien fully revosed (to use my preferred form of the verb) his First Age writings to fall better in line with what the Western Eldar knew, and he himself published it - in that case its mystique and charm would be based (if indeed subjectively in any event), on what "it is", not in contrast to something readers wouldn't even be aware of!

And although no one asked, Beren, Túrin, and Tuor could use within their Great Tales. . .

. . . even if there's more than one version about what that sun "really" is, or when it really arose.

 

[Ricardo]

Amalcarin has written some nice posts about this matter, if anyone missed this thread, and is interested.

“It Always Had Been a Vast Globe...”

Abstract. The article purports to present an exhaustive list of references to the Round World cosmology in the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien from the 1940s to the 1970s and to demonstrate that he firmly adhered to the new cosmology during the last decade and a half of his life and solved the...

thetolkien.forum

For myself, I doubt Tolkien's popularity would have suffered much (if at all) if he had revised these two matters (pre-existing Sun and Moon and always round Earth) to replace the old, and published his own Ainulindale and Quenta Silmarillion. . .

. . . but I see no late evidence (within Tolkien's revised characterization of the Legendarium) of outright replacement in any case. Tolkien's later characterization of the mythology preserves the older cosmology alongside a variant.

first, thanks for all citations that I was too lazy to search for.

My point is that with a pre-existing sun, there were no need for the lamps, or the trees.

I don't think this necessarily follows. Why would the revision of these two specific conceptions mean that readers would (again, necessarily) need to try to resolve the various examples that you've posted here regarding the Primary World?

if the idea Tolkien's world was a predecessor of our own world and hence, it would need to fit what we know about our world.

In any case, here's a bit from Tolkien, a citation from Morgoth's Ring, the Myths Transformed section: "Their [the Western Eldar as opposed to Men and (as JRRT puts it) the "Wild Elves"] legends should have a closer relation to the knowledge now possessed of at least the form of the Solar System (= Kingdom of Arda); though it need not, of course, follow any "scientific" theory of its making or development."
I forgot about this but, of course Tolkien didn't need to follow any scientific theory, there is no magic in science, only that Tolkien's world could not fit in ours, except as a mythology, which was what Tolkien intended.

Tolkien gave a Round World version of Ainulindale to Katherine Farrar, and she responded to JRRT, seemingly in October 1948. She indeed said that she liked the flat versions best, and her answer reads: "The hope of Heaven is the only thing which makes modern astronomy tolerable: otherwise there must be an East and a West and Walls: aims and choices and not an endless circle of wandering."

again, thank you for the citation, that was exactly what I was referring to.

I don't understand this statement, as the Two Trees and the Silmarils are in both cosmologies.

I believe in the pre-existing sun theory, the trees merely capture the light of the sun before Melkor ruined it, in the published Silmarillion, the light of the trees is their own.

For me it's a bit forced if the sun already existed, it's like the trees would be forced into the narrative but they aren't really needed. The whole story of the world falling into darkness when Melkor and Ungoliant killed the trees. The sun raised as a defiance to Melkor, they all lose meaning. The tale, IMO is not as strong.

All its mystique and charm? I'm not going to force you to defend the hyperbole here, as I guess you're just trying to press a point, but anyway it seems strange to me that you'd add that you don't think Tolkien would have liked it. . . he being the one who, I argue, ultimately settled upon the idea of a multi-perspective Legendarium.

the point is that again, IMO the mythology would have lost part of its charm. I can't know what Tolkien would have liked but I think a huge part of the Silmarillion is based in the original conception of the flat world with no sun or moon.

Anyway, Katherine Farrar's opinion noted, Tolkien yet would go on to revise an already published, explicit reference to the Elves existing before the raising of the Sun and Moon. Of course, I can't speak to whether or not he liked doing so, but I will add that simply doing so does not mean JRRT was necessarily going to, or needed to, fully rewrite Quenta Silmarillion.

well, at that time the Silmarillion wasn't a thing and in many topics Tolkien hadn't decided one way or the other. In some cases he had doubts, that's why he asked Katherine Farrar. A lot of Tolkien's essays weren't meant to be published as part of the Silmarillion, they were ideas he worked with. When he did intend something to be published, many times he would write a more condensed version more fitting a publish material.

As far as I'm currently aware, nothing Tolkien himself ever published (again, outside of a description within The Hobbit, which description JRRT revised for the Third Edition) is explicitly "once-flat-world" or "once-a-world-without-a-sun".

No, the whole idea is in the Silmarillion that Tolkien did not publish.

But let's imagine that Tolkien fully revosed (to use my preferred form of the verb) his First Age writings to fall better in line with what the Western Eldar knew, and he himself published it - in that case its mystique and charm would be based (if indeed subjectively in any event), on what "it is", not in contrast to something readers wouldn't even be aware of!

Not sure I follow, western Eldar do you mean in Aman? I think they were fully aware of what happened in the first age and before.

And what readers are aware of, I don't think you can fully understand LOTR without reading the Silmarillion, the stories of the third age rest in the first and second age that are explained in the Silmarillion.

And just 'cause no one asked, Beren, Túrin, and Tuor could use within their Great Tales. . .

. . . even if there's more than one version about what that sun "really" is, or when it really arose.

again, I don't follow here.

 

[Ent]

if the idea Tolkien's world was a predecessor of our own world and hence, it would need to fit what we know about our world.

Ent thinks Tolkien's statements, all combined and consistent throughout all his writings, yield the concept he was working to develop a "Mythology for his own country similar to those other countries had" - as he once wrote.

The key word there is "myth"-ology. Certainly he intended it to 'feel like it could potentially be an earlier history of his own country' in a way - in the same way(s) any mythology does of its own country - none of which 'mirror their own world' exactly, Else they would no longer be classified as 'myth.' but rather as 'history.'

(Dare Ent say, look at the supposedly 'real' history books we are fed for schooling etc., and how far they themselves are from the reality of what was, as well? Not to be overly political here, but all things are not what they seem anyway.)

In any event, whether flat, round, or originally flat and becoming round after the sinking into the seas and sundering of the way back, as one rendering has it, Tolkien did not intend it to 'mirror' - but rather to 'hint'. To 'call into view'. To 'feel reminiscent' or 'feel close enough to invite comparisons and inner desires.'

That's the magic of (good) myth. Especially, the kind of myth Tolkien sought after.

Some myth is so far removed from reality it is easily seen as 'different - unreal - totally disconnected.' This is not nearly as 'close' or 'enduring' or 'retained' as is the world Tolkien draws. It's why his work transcends so many others.

Anyway, flat or round - whether the trees preceded or succeeded the Sun - (it's entirely possible to write the trees to give light to the 'night' for example, and still provide for the rings, etc. before their destruction) - or whether there were no trees at all, and the creation of the Rings was more like the creation of the Seeing Stones - nonetheless, we have what we have, with its mysteries and its beauties - and the whole issue of "What if the world began round" and "What if the world began flat" and "What if there were no trees for the light of the rings" and such like, all have their resident place in The Great Halls.

Speculation is a wonderful thing - and Tolkien left us plenty of it - both intentionally, and unintentionally.

Thus we have this Forum, where we get to discuss it all.

 

[Elthir]

My point is that with a pre-existing sun, there were no need for the lamps, or the trees.

But here too, I don't see why we need the word "need"

And for myself, I find plenty of "magic" within the revised cosmology, including the Two Trees and the Silmarils (of course), but also the Dome(s) of Varda, her "Star-imagines". . . and for example the Sun is still connected to Āzie (Arien), a female Vala, and Varda still makes certain principle stars. . .

. . . I could go on (subjective as the list would be), but what about the part of the argument that the revised cosmology was "meant" to stand alongside the older cosmology in any case - not replace it outright.

if the idea Tolkien's world was a predecessor of our own world and hence, it would need to fit what we know about our world.

Again I think quoting JRRT himself is best here as "my" response to this, especially noting the rather late date of this letter.

"This general idea lies behind the events of The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, but it is not put forward as geologically or astronomically "true"; except that some physical catastrophe is supposed to lie behind the legends and marked the first stage in the succession of Men to the dominion of the world. But the legends are mainly of "Mannish" origin blended with those of the Sindar (Gray-elves) and others who had never left Middle-earth."​

JRRT July 1971, letter 325 to Roger Green - the sections preceding this one deal with the passing Oversea with respect to Elves and "the angelic immortals", and Frodo or other mortals

aside: "Gray-elves" is spelled so in my edition of Letters so I've used it here rather than Grey-elves.

 

[Ricardo]

Ent thinks Tolkien's statements, all combined and consistent throughout all his writings, yield the concept he was working to develop a "Mythology for his own country similar to those other countries had" - as he once wrote.

The key word there is "myth"-ology. Certainly he intended it to 'feel like it could potentially be an earlier history of his own country' in a way - in the same way(s) any mythology does of its own country - none of which 'mirror their own world' exactly, Else they would no longer be classified as 'myth.' but rather as 'history.'

well, that was his original purpose. But I don't think he had an idea of where was all going at the beginning. He started devising stories, that looked unconnected but they were connected. The fall of Gondolin was written when? 1917 or so? One of the most wonderful things about his creation is how he linked all together.

He did intend to make it look more and more as our world, and don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing Tolkien by any means, by the contrary. There is no way to know but I think at some point Tolkien knew that his world was wonderful as it was. My point was to blatantly show how different it is and why that couldn't work, Tolkien knew that, he had a better purpose.

(Dare Ent say, look at the supposedly 'real' history books we are fed for schooling etc., and how far they themselves are from the reality of what was, as well? Not to be overly political here, but all things are not what they seem anyway.)

I am pretty sure that's true, although I don't know concrete examples.

In any event, whether flat, round, or originally flat and becoming round after the sinking into the seas and sundering of the way back, as one rendering has it, Tolkien did not intend it to 'mirror' - but rather to 'hint'. To 'call into view'. To 'feel reminiscent' or 'feel close enough to invite comparisons and inner desires.'

i see what you are saying, and I agree, among all those mythical creatures, orcs, trolls, dragons, elves, dwarves, ents (cough) the prevalent race at the end was the human race, that everyone could identify with. The human heroes weren't too different from real humans, but the elves, and the others gave it that mythical vibe.

That's the magic of (good) myth. Especially, the kind of myth Tolkien sought after.

Some myth is so far removed from reality it is easily seen as 'different - unreal - totally disconnected.' This is not nearly as 'close' or 'enduring' or 'retained' as is the world Tolkien draws. It's why his work transcends so many others.

many myths, like greek or egyptian are very old and were based on what people in ancient times perceived as reality. Lightning was something majestic and dangerous that they couldn't understand, so they attributed it to a god, and dare I say it was used for politicsl purposes to control the masses.

Anyway, flat or round - whether the trees preceded or succeeded the Sun - (it's entirely possible to write the trees to give light to the 'night' for example, and still provide for the rings, etc. before their destruction) - or whether there were no trees at all, and the creation of the Rings was more like the creation of the Seeing Stones - nonetheless, we have what we have, with its mysteries and its beauties - and the whole issue of "What if the world began round" and "What if the world began flat" and "What if there were no trees for the light of the rings" and such like, all have their resident place in The Great Halls.

I guess you mean the silmarils, not rings. Here I don't agree so much. I think the trees were the escense of the mythology, everything else derives from them, and that's why their destruction was so bad, and why the silmarils were so important. Everything is connected, from the very beginning. It's possible but I wouldn't like to change the story of the trees.

Speculation is a wonderful thing - and Tolkien left us plenty of it - both intentionally, and unintentionally.

Thus we have this Forum, where we get to discuss it all.

exactly, Tolkien is long gone and dare I say, I don't think there will be another like him (I am talking to you George RR Martin). It's up to us to continue developing and understanding that world.