Eru Iluvatar gives a ‘gift’ to mankind, that of mortality. And Verilyn Flieger tells us in Splintered Light, earlier drafts of Tolkien’s “Music of Ainur”, Eru paired a specific task with his gift: “but to Men I will appoint a task and give a great gift.” We know that this version was eventually reduced simply ‘a gift’, and the explicit mention of the 'task' was omitted. Flieger goes on to assert that “unlike a payment or an exchange, a gift carries with it no obligation and has no strings attached.” (130)
For Flieger, the indeterminateness of the term ‘gift’ is a tool deployed by Tolkien to remind readers that they are equally as in the dark about the fate (and purpose) of this mythological world as our own. However here I disagree with Flieger’s reading of the term ‘gift’ as an explicitly non-contractual and obligation-less concept. I draw specifically on Marcel Mauss’s sociological work The Gift (1925).
In this text, Mauss seeks to create a foundational social theory of reciprocity and gift exchange. The main assertion of his work is that a gift is never free--the gift given is always associated with the giver: “the objects are never completely separated from the men who exchange them.” To this end, Mauss also posits that gift-receivers then enter “gift-debt”, a debt which can only be repaid by a reciprocal exchange. The two parties are thus connected socially by a reciprocal dependence.
Using this framework, we can interpret Eru’s gift as in fact the first part of an explicitly contractual exchange, one with an anticipated return. The ‘return’ on a gift is also unique--it is not a commodifiable or monetary exchange, but rather a personal and spiritual one, an exchange befitting of the relationship between the Creator and his works. Yet if a reciprocal gift is due to Eru, a question arises: can Eru’s creation give back a gift of ‘equivalent value’ to life itself? Indeed, is this not outside of the powers of those created? Moreover, is it perhaps over proud to assume that Eru, God-Creator, is in any way dependent on his creations?
To think through this, I draw on one more Maussian concept, the total prestation. At its core, the total prestation is about the exchange of gifts between groups rather than individuals. Equally as obligatory, total prestations also extend to rituals and even military assistance. An example in Tolkien’s mythos might be the Valar creating Numenor (Land of Gift) as a payment of the gift-debt to the First Men for their assistance in defeating Morgoth. But if this exchange is between creations, what of the ‘gift’ given by the Creator?
The ritual component of the total prestation is interesting here. In both the “Akallabeth” and the “Drowning of Anadune” scant reference is made to the rituals associated with Eru Iluvatar (this in fact seems to be a theme throughout the Legendarium). However, we do know of three annual ceremonies led by the King, and of the ritual of silence which stands in perpetua when atop the sacred mountain of Meneltarma. These duties, besides the promise not to sail west toward the Undying Lands, seem to be the primary obligations of the Numenorians to Eru.
With the coming of Sauron, we know these already scant ritual practices come to a complete stop, culminating with Ar-Pharazon’s construction of the pagan temple to Melkor. If the “gift-debt” to Eru could be reciprocated through the total prestation of ritual and martial deeds, then is not the ultimate folly, the spiritual faux pas, of Numenor its turn away from the ceremonies of Iluvatar? I wonder then if in fact Ar-Pharazon’s prideful sail to Valinor was simply the icing on the cake. The socio-spiritual contract of the ‘gift’ had already been broken when the Numenorians chose to stop fulfilling their ritual obligation to Iluvatar, and thus their fate was sealed.
Returning to Splintered Light’s analysis of the ‘gift’ of Men, it seems that Flieger is suggesting that the idea of ‘the task’ and ‘the gift’ remain tacitly connected in the mythos, even if not textually. It would follow then that in Flieger’s conception, the ‘gift-debt’ of Man would be reciprocated by Man’s singular role in bringing the world to fruition. Yet since Tolkien chooses to omit this connection explicitly, I wonder if he instead wants us to ponder another possible ‘return-gift’, that of ritual obligation. Indeed, is the notion of unquestioning faith and devotion to God not close to the Christian conception of mankind’s debt to the Creator? By redacting the explicit ‘fate’ in Man’s relationship to Iluvatar and Creation, and replacing it with the spiritual obligations of 'the gift' alone, Tolkien brings his legend a bit closer to the original myth of Christianity.
For Flieger, the indeterminateness of the term ‘gift’ is a tool deployed by Tolkien to remind readers that they are equally as in the dark about the fate (and purpose) of this mythological world as our own. However here I disagree with Flieger’s reading of the term ‘gift’ as an explicitly non-contractual and obligation-less concept. I draw specifically on Marcel Mauss’s sociological work The Gift (1925).
In this text, Mauss seeks to create a foundational social theory of reciprocity and gift exchange. The main assertion of his work is that a gift is never free--the gift given is always associated with the giver: “the objects are never completely separated from the men who exchange them.” To this end, Mauss also posits that gift-receivers then enter “gift-debt”, a debt which can only be repaid by a reciprocal exchange. The two parties are thus connected socially by a reciprocal dependence.
Using this framework, we can interpret Eru’s gift as in fact the first part of an explicitly contractual exchange, one with an anticipated return. The ‘return’ on a gift is also unique--it is not a commodifiable or monetary exchange, but rather a personal and spiritual one, an exchange befitting of the relationship between the Creator and his works. Yet if a reciprocal gift is due to Eru, a question arises: can Eru’s creation give back a gift of ‘equivalent value’ to life itself? Indeed, is this not outside of the powers of those created? Moreover, is it perhaps over proud to assume that Eru, God-Creator, is in any way dependent on his creations?
To think through this, I draw on one more Maussian concept, the total prestation. At its core, the total prestation is about the exchange of gifts between groups rather than individuals. Equally as obligatory, total prestations also extend to rituals and even military assistance. An example in Tolkien’s mythos might be the Valar creating Numenor (Land of Gift) as a payment of the gift-debt to the First Men for their assistance in defeating Morgoth. But if this exchange is between creations, what of the ‘gift’ given by the Creator?
The ritual component of the total prestation is interesting here. In both the “Akallabeth” and the “Drowning of Anadune” scant reference is made to the rituals associated with Eru Iluvatar (this in fact seems to be a theme throughout the Legendarium). However, we do know of three annual ceremonies led by the King, and of the ritual of silence which stands in perpetua when atop the sacred mountain of Meneltarma. These duties, besides the promise not to sail west toward the Undying Lands, seem to be the primary obligations of the Numenorians to Eru.
With the coming of Sauron, we know these already scant ritual practices come to a complete stop, culminating with Ar-Pharazon’s construction of the pagan temple to Melkor. If the “gift-debt” to Eru could be reciprocated through the total prestation of ritual and martial deeds, then is not the ultimate folly, the spiritual faux pas, of Numenor its turn away from the ceremonies of Iluvatar? I wonder then if in fact Ar-Pharazon’s prideful sail to Valinor was simply the icing on the cake. The socio-spiritual contract of the ‘gift’ had already been broken when the Numenorians chose to stop fulfilling their ritual obligation to Iluvatar, and thus their fate was sealed.
Returning to Splintered Light’s analysis of the ‘gift’ of Men, it seems that Flieger is suggesting that the idea of ‘the task’ and ‘the gift’ remain tacitly connected in the mythos, even if not textually. It would follow then that in Flieger’s conception, the ‘gift-debt’ of Man would be reciprocated by Man’s singular role in bringing the world to fruition. Yet since Tolkien chooses to omit this connection explicitly, I wonder if he instead wants us to ponder another possible ‘return-gift’, that of ritual obligation. Indeed, is the notion of unquestioning faith and devotion to God not close to the Christian conception of mankind’s debt to the Creator? By redacting the explicit ‘fate’ in Man’s relationship to Iluvatar and Creation, and replacing it with the spiritual obligations of 'the gift' alone, Tolkien brings his legend a bit closer to the original myth of Christianity.
-Paris Bezanis
2 comments:
It is interesting that in Tolkien’s world mortality is a gift from the One God to men, whereas in popular Christian belief mortality is a punishment of the Fall. Why do you think Tolkien chose to consider it a gift? Mauss’s theory is helpful to think about, but I think Flieger’s understanding of ‘gift’ is closest to the Christian conception, to the unconditional love of God in Creation and the sacrifice of Christ. But you point to a perennial question in the study of religion—what can man ‘owe’ to God or the gods? Does the divine need worship, or sacrifice, and how does that work? In the Christian conception, God takes the burden of that debt onto Himself, one could say in order to resolve the tension between unconditional love and the debt human beings incurred. You mention that Ar-Pharazon’s “prideful sail” was just “the icing on the cake,” the ultimate folly being the cessation of the ritual obligation to Iluvatar. But I wonder if Tolkien wouldn’t say that these are both, on a deeper level, the same thing, or at least pointing to the same thing. -LB
You have anticipated the argument of our course! Yes, it is all about worship: the right worship owed to the Creator. We are getting there, but it usually takes people awhile to see that everything Tolkien does is pointing to the question of worship. RLFB
Post a Comment