Questions for the Lore Masters.

Eldorion wrote: What happens when you die in Middle-earth?

I believe Stephen Colbert asked J. Law (or someone) this question... except for the Middle-earth part  

Yeah more lore! Great work again Eldo! Of course Loremasters rarely agree on everything... so I'm gonna add my two cents about a couple o things. I'm not sure we actually disagree, but here's my thoughts on those couple o things. GI is Glorfindel I, and GII is... well... Glorfindel II.

In The Converse of Manwë and Eru (an appendix to the Athrabeth in HoMe X), Tolkien suggested that the Elvish fëa could be given a new, identical copy of its hröa based on memories of the body that were “imprinted” on the soul. Whether the creation of the new hröa was done by the Valar or by the incorporeal fëa itself is unclear. There are contradictory notes on this matter and since Tolkien never published any of them we can’t speak with certainty. In any event, it does not appear that Tolkien intended to alter the idea that the Valar could refuse to allow a specific fëa to re-embody (cf. HoMe X, Later versions of the Story of Finwë and Míriel; TS, Of the Return of the Noldor).

While I agree with this conclusion about the Valar and judgement, for myself, I would be "more certain" (how's that for splitting hairs) about how the new hroa is reborn. I think when dealing generally with the notable pond of posthumously published stuff we do have a sorta built in degree of uncertainty, but some fish are younger than others, and to me, the notion that it was the Valar who restored the hroa seems to be Tolkien's final idea.

Granted, the very late Glorfindel essays make no mention that a houseless fea could restore his or her own body, but in GI it is the "duty" of the Valar to restore the Elves, if they [the Elves] desired it (outside of other considerations of course, like with Feanor for example)... and in GII it's again the duty of the Valar, by command of the One, to restore Elves to bodily life...

... I dunno, to me it doesn't seem like Tolkien would put it this way if the Elvish fea could restore itself. Some confusion entered into Morgoth's Ring when Christopher Tolkien noted his father's second thought (in this context, second after the Valar restoring bodies) -- that the fea could restore its hroa itself -- and then he [Christopher Tolkien] mistakenly points to this second thought being his father's "firm and stable view on the matter" based on an incorrect memory of the Glorfindel essays.

But the Glorfindel essays, as Christopher Tolkien later corrected, concern the Valar restoring Elvish bodies. I know you know this Eldo, and granted one could argue that due to brevity a second way might possibly be in play here, but considering the gap in time between LACE and GI and GII, and the rather direct references to it being the Valar's duty to restore the Elvish body, I think the Valarin restoration idea became Tolkien's "latest" view here, and give it good authority within the posthumously published pond.

Well maybe it's just a hair "more" certain that you put it? Or not... I actually got a bit less certain as I wrote this  

And of course, this much based on my particular "weights and measures" in the canon arena!

A recently disembodied Elvish fëa could refuse the summons to Mandos, however, and remain in the area where they died. Usually this occurred among the Elves of Middle-earth, either those who still could not bear to leave it behind or those already in some way corrupted by the Shadow., or notes to AFAA

Just today I noticed that in GII Tolkien wrote that after his bodily death Glorfindel would "according to the laws established by the One be obliged at once to return to the land of the Valar."

Hmm, not summoned -- as in LACE or the Athrabeth notes (unless "obliged" is there too?). Anyway, if I read this without LACE, would I have much reason to think Glorfindel had no choice but to heed a law established by Eru? Is there something to this maybe, or have I forgotten something obvious -- if I haven't forgotten an obvious thing, in any case I'm not sure I could raise this one sentence to claim that the refusal of the summons was an abandoned idea, and all that goes with it, but still it seems a rather interesting way to put things if the spirits of Elves could, in theory, refuse.

Anyway, now I am (possibly) causing "uncertainty" where earlier I thought "more" certainty could be employed! The joys of discussing these posthumously published texts I guess!

(...) For their part, the Elves believed that since they were tied to the world they were destined for utter destruction, body and soul, when Arda ended, but that humans would live forever with Ilúvatar beyond the limits of the physical world.

Hmm, I would rather say that utter destruction, or ceasing to exist even spiritually, was one reasonable idea that an Elvish mind must confront (just as Men must confront this possibility), but in my opinion only some Elves believed this to be their destiny. That is, outside the Athrabeth, a number of possible destinies are noted, of Elvish origin, in which the Elves do not perish when the world ends.

Granted, Finrod first seems to suggest that an "utter death" is the Elvish belief -- at least in the Athrabeth itself (meaning, not looking at other texts written at around the same time), but even in the Athrabeth, Finrod not only speaks of his vision of the Elves living on with Men after the Great End, but describes estel to Andreth -- all before he learns of the Old Hope (the belief that Eru will enter his creation and so on) -- stating that estel does not come from experience, nor will it be defeated by the ways of the world. Finrod says...

"If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy. Amdir you have not, you say. Does no estel at all abide?" Finrod to Andreth, Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth

So, all I'm saying is that I think Tolkien employs Finrod to generally touch upon variant notions of Elvish belief beyond the Great End, a couple of which are to be found in the "roughly written notes" at the end of the manuscript of LACE, or there are references to Elvish thought in general in the Author's Commentary to the Athrabeth, and the author's notes on the commentary.

I only stress this as some folks (not necessarily you Eldo, as above I realize you are only briefly trying to boil down certain ideas in the Athrabeth) seem to take it as a given that the Elves believe they will cease to be at the Great End, and that this is why they call death the "gift" of Men...

... which I think is off target: Elves with estel believe that they too will exist after the end (and they have various theories about that life). The "gift" rather is the early release from Arda Marred (simplifying things a bit here, admittedly). Of course some Men look at the certainty of Elvish bodily restoration and continued life in Arda Marred as a "gift" as well, and desire it, but in any case I believe the message is that both Men and Elves have, or must have, estel when it comes to living a different type of existence (an existence outside of time and hopefully with Eru, or at least in Arda Unmarred) after death...

... in the case of Elves, the death they will encounter at the End Times.

Anyway, although that seems like a lot it's just my minor comments about small sections of your whole post. I enjoyed it, as always, and admire your ability to be both informative, interesting, and clear.

Very interformaclear, if I may make up a word.

For the record, I actually like and prefer LACE's notion of the Houseless (Elves who remained in Middle-earth without hroar) and the Lingerers, but I'm just wondering aloud here about that, and very possibly wrongly.

Thank you as always for your thoughtful and thorough comments, Elthir (and of course for your kind words as well). I spent a good deal of time trying to figure out how to word things in a way that would properly convey the degree of uncertainty and fluidity in the textual situation. It's hard to do justice to that within the limits of a (relatively) short piece intended for more general consumption. It bothers me sometimes when I read articles that seem to imply that there was a definite answer to when I don't think there was. But of course trying to piece together easily digestible answers from a multitude of posthumously published texts always runs the risk of this and I have to rely on my judgment for where to draw the line. Well, that's the case while I'm writing; I'm lucky to also have access to your judgment as feedback.

My reading of LACE is that even in the conception where the houseless fëa is responsible for its own re-embodiment, this is only possible after returning to Mandos and receiving the permission of the Valar. Otherwise there's no reason for rogue fëar in Middle-earth to have to try to take over another's body. And the permission of the Valar is clearly required since e.g. they told Míriel that there were no take-backs once Finwë remarried. With that in mind, the difference between the Valar creating the new hröa vs the disembodied fëa doing so itself seems somewhat inconsequential. Which is not to say that you're wrong to raise questions here! But even in The Converse of Manwë and Eru where the Valar seem to be made responsible for the reincarnation of Elves, the process is still dependent on the "imprint" of the hröa left upon the fëa:

Eru said: 'I give you authority. The skills ye have already, if ye will take heed. Look and ye will find that each spirit of My Children retaineth in itself the full imprint and memory of its former house; and in its nakedness it is open to you, so that ye may clearly perceive all that is in it. After this imprint ye may make for it again such a house in all particulars as it had ere evil befell it. Thus ye may send it back to the lands of the Living.'

So the LACE and Athrabeth versions both seem to be indicating a cooperative effort in the process of embodiment, at least to my reading. But this is not necessarily entirely consistent with the "Last Writings" on Glorfindel, as you point out.

GII wrote:When Glorfindel of Gondolin was slain his spirit would according to the laws established by the One be obliged at once to return to the land of the Valar.

Whether this is inconsistent with LACE and the Athrabeth is, I think, dependent on whether we're talking about axani or únati here. The use of the word "law" suggests to me that the obligation to go to Mandos is an axan (what we might call a "legal obligation" in the real world) rather than something impossible to resist. LACE is pretty clear that resisting the summons is a sign of rebellion IIRC. On the other hand, the Athrabeth states that the Elves believed that the human fëa's summon to Mandos was an únat (without using that precise word), but this makes sense since the human soul is not by nature tied to Arda in the same way as the Elves'. I suppose the word "obligation" in GII can be read either way and I'm not necessarily an objective judge here since I'm inclined to go with the interpretation that doesn't require me to rewrite things.

You are of course correct regarding Elves and estel and since I did mention that towards the end of the essay I should really reword the earlier sentence to make it clear that it's only one perspective among the Elves.

Dammit, I'm gonna have to rewrite something after all.

Eldorion wrote: My reading of LACE is that even in the conception where the houseless fëa is responsible for its own re-embodiment, this is only possible after returning to Mandos and receiving the permission of the Valar. Otherwise there's no reason for rogue fëar in Middle-earth to have to try to take over another's body. And the permission of the Valar is clearly required since e.g. they told Míriel that there were no take-backs once Finwë remarried.

I agree that permission is required. In the case of LACE itself the Houseless could not be reborn: "*For only those who willingly go to Mandos may be reborn." [footnote to Laws And Customs], although in this context reborn meant actual rebirth as an Elf-child.

[for anyone reading] In the Appendix to the Athrabeth, Christopher Tolkien notes that after writing LACE his father's views concerning the fate of Elves who had died underwent a radical change. CJRT then relates a version of a text The Converse of Manwe and Eru [which Eldo quoted from above] in which rebirth of an Elf is still present, but those who desired actual rebirth must be surrendered to Eru, while restoration of the body is given to the Valar.

Seemingly it's then that Tolkien has this "second thought". CJRT describes it: "In what appears to be a second thought my father then asked whether it might not be possible that the houseless fea was itself allowed (being instructed) to rebuild its hroa from its memory (...)."

So even in this newer context I agree that one must be allowed and instructed...

With that in mind, the difference between the Valar creating the new hröa vs the disembodied fëa doing so itself seems somewhat inconsequential. Which is not to say that you're wrong to raise questions here! But even in The Converse of Manwë and Eru where the Valar seem to be made responsible for the reincarnation of Elves, the process is still dependent on the "imprint" of the hröa left upon the fëa: [snip quote] So the LACE and Athrabeth versions both seem to be indicating a cooperative effort in the process of embodiment, at least to my reading. But this is not necessarily entirely consistent with the "Last Writings" on Glorfindel, as you point out.

I also agree that the idea in Glorfindel I and II (though not dealt with there in detail) includes the notion of the Elven imprint of the hroa in its memory or spirit. It's still a cooperative thing if you look at it this way, but the only distinction I draw is that the Elf (naturally) retains the imprint, and the Valar rebuild the hroa from it. From the wording in GI and II, it just seems to me that the Elves are dependent upon the Valar for actual restoration -- meaning it's not the duty of the Valar to instruct but to restore, and Manwe could also delay restoration, depending upon the fea's individual case of course.

I guess what also influences me is the time period between these papers about reincarnation and the Glorfindel texts. It's years later when Tolkien tackled the Glorfindel question, and I have to wonder if this second thought had any real impact here, especially as I agree with you: if the fea needs to be allowed to rebuild itself, and needs to be instructed (by the Valar I assume) in any case, then... well... why not just have the Valar do it? They have power over the "substance" of Arda after all, and Eru said that they have the skills to restore the Elvish hroa.

In the end, as I say I'm admittedly hair-splitting regarding your essay. I see nothing wrong with your characterization, and in general I rather like it when folks are cautious about stating things with too much certainty. That gets quite subjective of course. This to me is just part of the problem when dealing with the posthumously published texts, and why I can't stamp them with canon.

GII wrote:When Glorfindel of Gondolin was slain his spirit would according to the laws established by the One be obliged at once to return to the land of the Valar.

Eldo wrote: Whether this is inconsistent with LACE and the Athrabeth is, I think, dependent on whether we're talking about axani or únati here. The use of the word "law" suggests to me that the obligation to go to Mandos is an axan (what we might call a "legal obligation" in the real world) rather than something impossible to resist. LACE is pretty clear that resisting the summons is a sign of rebellion IIRC. On the other hand, the Athrabeth states that the Elves believed that the human fëa's summon to Mandos was an únat (without using that precise word), but this makes sense since the human soul is not by nature tied to Arda in the same way as the Elves'. I suppose the word "obligation" in GII can be read either way and I'm not necessarily an objective judge here since I'm inclined to go with the interpretation that doesn't require me to rewrite things.

Yep, not only are you likely right about this, but I prefer that you be right.

I like the Primary World connections with the Houseless and the Lingerers, as I say. And this "what if" (based on "obliged") reminds me somewhat of the argument (made elsewhere and long ago now, and I can't recall who raised the possibility) that Tolkien maybe altered Glorfindel's battle with a Balrog, changing the evil foe to a lesser, but still powerful, demon of Thangorodrim. My response... maybe... but I think probably not, and in any case not much to go on (as with obliged).

I can be influenced by my own 'test' in that I sometimes like to read a given text as if no other pertinent text existed (unless author published), because maybe Tolkien had either forgotten "the other one" or abandoned it wholly. Okay... but maybe not too!

You are of course correct regarding Elves and estel and since I did mention that towards the end of the essay I should really reword the earlier sentence to make it clear that it's only one perspective among the Elves.

Dammit, I'm gonna have to rewrite something after all.

At least you can do it easily with your communications skills. That we agree on this is good. I've met with folks who disagree... well of course I have, this being the world wide web... but to my mind they aren't thinking enough like Elves.



"And lastly there is the oldest and deepest desire, the Great Escape: the Escape from Death. Fairy-stories provide many examples and modes of this – which might be called the genuine escapist, or (I would say) fugitive spirit. But so do other stories (notably those of scientific inspiration), and so do other studies. Fairy-stories are made by men not by fairies. The Human-stories of the elves are doubtless full of the Escape from Deathlessness."

JRR Tolkien, On Fairy Stories

Elthir wrote:I guess what also influences me is the time period between these papers about reincarnation and the Glorfindel texts. It's years later when Tolkien tackled the Glorfindel question, and I have to wonder if this second thought had any real impact here, especially as I agree with you: if the fea needs to be allowed to rebuild itself, and needs to be instructed (by the Valar I assume) in any case, then... well... why not just have the Valar do it? They have power over the "substance" of Arda after all, and Eru said that they have the skills to restore the Elvish hroa.

In the end, as I say I'm admittedly hair-splitting regarding your essay. I see nothing wrong with your characterization, and in general I rather like it when folks are cautious about stating things with too much certainty. That gets quite subjective of course. This to me is just part of the problem when dealing with the posthumously published texts, and why I can't stamp them with canon.

Trying to avoid giving the implication that there is an indisputable "canon" seems to be a problem I keep running into when trying to write succinct-ish summaries of Lore topics. I enjoy hearing your perspective even on relatively minor points like this. I did actually add a brief note to the version of this essay posted on my blog mentioning that Tolkien seemed to endorse the Valar-created-hröa idea in GII but otherwise left that section alone. Your point that I've bolded above is a reasonable one and is the same direction my thoughts were moving in the more I thought about this when writing my first response.

Yep, not only are you likely right about this, but I prefer that you be right.

Much "obliged".

I like the Primary World connections with the Houseless and the Lingerers, as I say. And this "what if" (based on "obliged") reminds me somewhat of the argument (made elsewhere and long ago now, and I can't recall who raised the possibility) that Tolkien maybe altered Glorfindel's battle with a Balrog, changing the evil foe to a lesser, but still powerful, demon of Thangorodrim. My response... maybe... but I think probably not, and in any case not much to go on (as with obliged).

I can't say I've heard of that theory before, but I can see where the idea comes from in GII. I will admit to finding the idea of two Balrogs dying in or around Gondolin seems kinda strange in light of the late comments about there being only a handful of them, given that apparently none died in earlier wars.

At least you can do it easily with your communications skills. That we agree on this is good. I've met with folks who disagree... well of course I have, this being the world wide web... but to my mind they aren't thinking enough like Elves.

Aw shucks.

I can't say I've heard of that theory before, but I can see where the idea comes from in GII. I will admit to finding the idea of two Balrogs dying in or around Gondolin seems kinda strange in light of the late comments about there being only a handful of them, given that apparently none died in earlier wars.

Yep... if I recall correctly, the original argument [possibly lost in the mists of time now] was that since there were now [seemingly] so few Balrogs compared to earlier notions, maybe Tolkien changed his mind about this long-imagined-to-be-true conflict and made Golden-hair's foe a great Maia-orc for instance... the other part of it being that Tolkien uses "demon" throughout the Glorfindel essays and notes [granting that a Balrog is a demon of power itself], and although there are only a few instances of the word anyway, in one example he appears to have revised the term Balrog to demon.

Tolkien did note that the battle may need revision... which I find a little humorous... just considering style alone it would!

Plus he needed to add that now famous cloak of shadow wings too

can one of the Loremasters tell me how to spell the word pixie in Sindarin.

serious question btw. I am doing a tattoo.

its serious, I really am having a tattoo. and I don't want it to be saying poobrain in Sindarin.

Mrs Figg wrote:  its serious, I really am having a tattoo. and I don't want it to be saying poobrain in Sindarin.

Can't help you sorry...maybe Elthir will know

If you're asking Elthir, be sure you remember to specify the colour of the pixie.

The languages have never been my specialty, but with a cursory bit of looking I haven't been able to find any direct translation of pixie from Tolkien (or any usage of the English word at all). Since Tolkien was largely rebelling against the diminutive Elves of Victorian-era fairy tales, pixies don't play a part in the mythology. However, this rebellion was not quite as strict in the very early days of the mythology, and The Book of Lost Tales includes references to sprites, dryads, and similar creatures. The word "fairy" itself was reserved for the beings Tolkien later referred to as Elves or Eldar (among other names).

According to the (in my experience generally reliable) Elfdict.com, one of the issues of Parma Eldalamberon (an academic journal focusing on Tolkien's languages that sometimes publishes previously unseen material from Tolkien's papers) mentions the word fairy as a meaning for Im, a word in Noldorin, which was an early version of the language that Tolkien eventually called Sindarin. However, it appears to be more of an alternate name for the regular Tolkien Elves rather than a different class of being. I am not aware of any other names for the sprites or similar BoLT-era spirits besides those in English.

However, a consistent theme in Tolkien's mythology from The Book of Lost Tales to his post-LOTR "Silmarillion" writings is that those Elves who lingered in Middle-earth after the end of the Third Age would eventually physically fade and presumably be the origin of IRL human legends about elves and fairies and such. These Elves would primarily not be Eldar (High Elves), but rather Silvan Elves. The exact ethnic background of the Silvan Elves is a subject of debate, but they were probably Nandorin in origin, possibly with some Avari. Their rulers in the Second and Third Ages were usually Sindarin in origin. The Silvan Elves by the time of LOTR spoke a dialect of Sindarin and their name in that tongue was tawarwaith.

https://www.elfdict.com/w/fairy
https://www.elfdict.com/w/tawarwaith

cheers Eldo.
My cat has died and I want to have a tattoo with her name which was Pixie. I want to do the tattoo in white and in Sindarin because its for me and nobody needs to know what it says but me, and/or fellow Tolkienistas. But if the word doesn't exist could I invent it using the letters of the Sindarin alphabet?

Im so sorry for your loss Figgs

thanks Az. its pretty hard to believe I will never see her again.

Bye bye Kitty...

Oddly enough, I was moving things around on my shelves and a print out of the tengwar alphabet fell out. {{{Once upon a time I was trying to learn, nearly had }}}

If there isn't a Sindaring word for Pixi, you can write it with tengwars. Tengwars are phonetic, so it would spell 'piksi'.

Oh darn... look what I found. The kids today have it so easy...    
http://www.arno.org/tengwar/ Just go there and type in 'pixi' and it turns out exactly as I thought it would. I feel so old and useless now...

thanks Amarie. I couldn't get the translation thingie to work, but thanks anyway. its the script I need to find.

I'm so sorry for your loss, Mrs Figg.

Below is what the word "pixie" looks like written out phonetically using the Tengwar, or Elvish alphabet. Well, technically it's "piksi" since there are slightly different rules for the Tengwar than the Roman alphabet, as Amarië mentioned. I used a different tool than the one Amarië posted that doesn't have drop-shadows but it gives nearly the same result.*



Once again, I'm no expert, but I double-checked against LOTR Appendix E and I believe this is correct. This is the tool I used:

http://www.jenshansen.com/pages/online-english-to-elvish-engraving-translator

*using the link Amarië posted, which is also good, will show something different if you type "pixi" instead of "piksi"; the one I posted shows the same for both. I went with my gut but you can play around with it if you like, or maybe someone will correct me...

Eldorion wrote:I'm so sorry for your loss, Mrs Figg.

Below is what the word "pixie" looks like written out phonetically using the Tengwar, or Elvish alphabet. Well, technically it's "piksi" since there are slightly different rules for the Tengwar than the Roman alphabet, as Amarië mentioned. I used a different tool than the one Amarië posted that doesn't have drop-shadows but it gives nearly the same result.*



Once again, I'm no expert, but I double-checked against LOTR Appendix E and I believe this is correct. This is the tool I used:

http://www.jenshansen.com/pages/online-english-to-elvish-engraving-translator

*using the link Amarië posted, which is also good, will show something different if you type "pixi" instead of "piksi"; the one I posted shows the same for both. I went with my gut but you can play around with it if you like, or maybe someone will correct me...

that's brilliant Eldo! its just what I was looking for thanks. when I get it done I will post a photo.

{{Sorry to hear about your cat Figg }}}

"(... *using the link Amarië posted, which is also good, will show something different if you type "pixi" instead of "piksi" (...)"

I went back to check 'piksi', and both versions are technically correct, that one does give a more newbie result. The one Eldo posted is the best choice.
*nerdy nostalgia feelz*

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{Sorry to hear about your cat Figg   }}}

thanks Petty.

heres my Pixie. I love her very much.

Pretty kitty and awesome ears! Clearly a pixie.

{{{A lovely picture Figg. }}}