An Issue in regards to Tolkien's Commentary on the Conversation between Finrod and Andreth

[Rivvy Elf]

Yesterday, I was reading the "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth", a significant part in Morgoth's Ring. The Athrabeth is fascinating because it has in-universe comments and footnotes from Bilbo Baggins and even Sam Gamgee. It revolves around death, revealing that Elves in fact are not technically immortal as well as showing what the wise mortals thought humanity's path was following death (darkness).

Out-of-context, here are the quotes that made me go... 'hmm, not the response I would've went with, Finrod':

"Andreth looked up and her eyes darkened. 'The Valar?' she said. 'How should I know, or any Man? Your Valar do not trouble us—either with care or with instruction. They sent no summons to us.'

'What do you know of them?' said Finrod. 'I have seen them and dwelt among them, and in the presence of Manwë and Varda, I have stood in the Light. Speak not of them so, nor of anything that is high above you. Such words came first out of the Lying Mouth.

'Has it never entered into your thought, Andreth, that out there in ages long past ye may have put yourselves out of their care, and beyond the reach of their help? Or even that ye, the Children of Men, were not a matter that they could govern? For ye were too great. Yea, I mean this, and do not only flatter your pride: too great. Sole masters of yourselves within Arda, under the hand of the One. Beware then how you speak! If ye will not speak to others of your wound or how ye came by it, take heed lest (as unskilled leeches) ye misjudge the hurt, or in pride misplace the blame.

'But let us turn now to other matters, since you will not say more of this.'"

In context, here are the paragraphs before Andreth's commentary on the Valar.

"'Therefore I say to you, Andreth, what did ye do, ye Men, long ago in the dark? How did ye anger Eru? For otherwise all your tales are but dark dreams devised in a Dark Mind. Will you say what you know or have heard?'

'I will not' said Andreth. 'We do not speak of this to those of other race. But indeed the Wise are uncertain and speak with contrary voices; for whatever happened long ago, we have fled from it; we have tried to forget, and so long have we tried that now we cannot remember any time when we were not as we are—save only legends of days when death came less swiftly and our span was still far longer, but already there was death.'*

'Ye cannot remember?' said Finrod. 'Are there no tales of your days before death, though ye will not tell them to strangers?' .

'Maybe,' said Andreth. 'If not among my folk, then among the folk of Adanel, perhaps.' She fell silent, and gazed at the fire.†

'Do you think that none know save yourselves?' said Finrod at last. 'Do not the Valar know?'"

Now in Tolkien's commentary, there's a specific claim he argues that I have to disagree with (I bolded the part I disagreed with):

"For as eventually becomes plain, Andreth had in youth fallen in love with Ægnor, Finrod's brother; and though she knew that he returned her love (or could have done so if he had deigned to), he had not declared it, but had left her—and she believed that she was rejected as too lowly for an Elf. Finrod (though she was not aware of this) knew about this situation. For this reason he understood and did not take offence at the bitterness with which she spoke of the Elves, and even of the Valar."


I strongly disagree with the "he understood the bitterness which she spoke of the Valar" part. Finrod tells Andreth not to bad-mouth the Valar, or any other entity "high above" her when Andreth talked about the perceived lack of care and instruction the Valar had towards humans, cautioning that such argumentation came from Morgoth (the Lying Mouth). Finrod then suggests several alternatives, such as it being humanity's fault, or it not within the jurisdiction of the Valar, or that humanity was too great in their independence in Arda. Finrod then warns that if Andreth is not willing to come forth with the full details on how humanity angered Eru, then to not blame others for the pain of humanity's fall or misinterpret the pain itself. Finrod then changes the subject.

I don't see Finrod balancing his bias with understanding that Morgoth's lies would be quite convincing to anyone who never met the Valar (including the Avari who did not meet Orome!) Needless to say, I don't see evidence that Finrod understands Andreth's bitterness towards the Valar.

My question then would be how did Tolkien believe in that interpretation. Is there another section in the Athrabeth where they talk more on why the Valar (not counting Melkor) did not personally go to, at the very least, greet the humans?

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hello Rivvy! Thanks for posting newly interesting. Wow the Athrabeth, the subject feels quite familiar to me if I read it before. But the Home Editions I don't have where this short story is published. I traced it town detailed explained on Tolkien gateway. Maybe I read it once many years ago in another (Dutch) capacity? Sorry I can't really answer your question at the end. But nay, there is no other section that says the Valar ever tried to see or guide the Atani.

Anyway, I read with interest your post. Off course I can come in where you start to disagree (strongly). Both characters Finrod (middleaged?) and Andreth (old woman) do have a negative gaze (bias) on the situation they are faced with. Knowing much of the human history Andreth is recognised by the elvenking and called Sealind, but still she is subjective to the present day at that time. Finrod with his long livety faced something similar and his seven basic beliefs are explained on Tolkien Gateway. The purpose of the setting is drama to them. It must have been Aegnor who told Finrod at some point of Andreth and why there could be no union between the two. The only thing currently what I can think off how Finrod can possibly know about the love between Aegnor and Andreth, so Finrod understood the bitterness of Andreth, who coupled the judgment she was too lowly for Aegnor than think of a more 'logical' reason. I don't know about the 'wisdom' of Aegnor to walk out the relation.

I am a kind of optimist and love to flip the focus to hope and better times, and sudden actions as love that can happen in times of strive and war. The hope for Aegnor and Andreth could have accumulated in the form of new life, if they had given in their love. The child would have been a signal of union, an half-elf/human, either mortal or immortal (I don't know). I miss the element of renewal of life in this conversation. But I think Tolkien didn't want Andreth to brush that topic to Finrod.

The background of the tales were against the first half of the twentieth century, a time where legally men had all rights and women a few in most lands, except a few where feminine rights were much earlier recognised. Holland was pretty late with legally equalising men and women in 1957, which was also an issue from Brussels. The world of that existed since Roman times disappeared and another emerged. All my grandparents grew up in the first and died in the second. They viewed the world as their parents had done before them, one largely of splendour, glory, hope, strict gender roles, certainty, progress and inventions.

I have written for years upon the fairest Eldar and their almost daily access to the divine powers, which is normal to them and they don't wonder about. Lesser I have written about those who never sat eyes on the Valar or even ever heard their words, and thus can question indeed the interest in those the Valar never meet. Andreth's reasoning is very logical for her point of view, and her experience as mortal woman. Finrod on the other hand comes from a place where he has seen them. Stated is only the Eru had only his hand in the creation of both kindreds and not of the Valar including Melkor participated in that part of the Third Music Theme. Their ultimate fate is not known, only by Eru. The rest what is known is mostly 'speculation' as I see it. But correct me if I am wrong here.

There is one detail Finrod might have known about death, as this happened in his family. His paternal grandfather Finwë did have a first wife Miriel, who chose death after the birth of Fëanor. Of free will she chose death, separating her spirit from her body. Vairë came to her and told her of the sorrow of Finwë, and Miriel refused. Then Mandos summoned her spirit to warn her, but she refused still, and her choice not to be re-emboided was accepted. So Finwë remarried. The Eldar viewed it as highly unusual, but Miriel's case displays that they could perform that act willingly and none of the Valar could punish them for that choice. This detail for Finrod could work in his understanding for Andreth's bitternes for the Valar themselves. But this is connecting loose dots together with logical reasoning, but not with evidence as quotes as I don't have them.

"For as eventually becomes plain, Andreth had in youth fallen in love with Ægnor, Finrod's brother; and though she knew that he returned her love (or could have done so if he had deigned to), he had not declared it, but had left her—and she believed that she was rejected as too lowly for an Elf. Finrod (though she was not aware of this) knew about this situation (Aegnor telling him (?), and Miriel's case). For this reason he understood and did not take offence at the bitterness with which she spoke of the Elves, and even of the Valar."

[Boromir88]

Interesting thread and questions, @Rivvy Elf.

I agree with you that Finrod's quotes don't really match the commentary showing he understood Andreth. It ties in with a thread I was thinking on starting, about characters like Lotho Sackville-Baggins and Rose Cotton. They confuse me, in the story, because their placement seems rather random and what other characters say doesn't necessarily match my own thoughts. I mean Rose doesn't get mentioned until Frodo and Sam are in the middle of Mordor, and suddenly Sam's like "you know I want to see Rose Cotton again." As a reader, I'm confused, thinking who's Rose? Where did that come from?

Maybe Aiks or yourself can speak more towards the writer's process than I could. It seems to me, Tolkien was fully capable of just winging the story when he needed to. Like with winging in Sam's love interest, Rose Cotton. Frodo is losing himself to the Ring, Sam is the character that tries to keep Frodo grounded and connected back to the Shire. So insert, Sam trying to remain connected to the Shire, he's got a love interest back home. It doesn't make sense at the time, but Tolkien just kind of invented a story on the spot, and then fills in the lore and backstories after the fact. "Ok, so Rose is Farmer Cotton's daughter, and the Cotton Family takes a prominent role in saving the Shire from Sharkey's Men."

I haven't read the Athrabeth yet, but I get the same impression with the parts you quoted here. Tolkien was writing out an in-world conversation, and added the depth and commentary after the fact, even if Finrod's actual quotes don't display he understands Andreth. In the commentary it seems like an after the fact point to reveal backstory into Finrod. That is, he understood and wasn't "offended" by what Andreth said, because he knew she thought she was too lowly to be loved by an Elf, and below the consideration of the Valar because they did not come for Men, like they summoned Elves.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Boromir: I cannot say if I know more how Tolkien constructed his story angles than you do. I like your mention of inventing a story on the spot. That I do most of the time myself. And I am not surprised you observed that about Tolkien's angle of writing. It is starting with drawing the trunk of the tree, then the main branches, the side branches and finally the leaves. This is throughout his works, where the details are found in other chapters than in the one they technically belong. With a tale on the spot you can go anywhere as there is no or barely any outlining that says where it has to go to. Interesting what you found. Is it really necessary that a story always ought to make sense? I'll give it more thought later.

[Rivvy Elf]

@Boromir88 Well with LOTR I have to give some leeway to Tolkien here because he didn't have word processing software so he could just quickly go back to the beginning and put in some exposition and edit that in. He does this and he even admits to making continuity errors, like having Glorfindel's horse has a bridle instead of a decorative headstall (Tolkien 211). I'm going to assume it's the same thing, that the chapters in Mordor were written much later than the chapters in The Shire. I only know about this letter because in the fanfiction I'm writing, I justified why an elf's horse has a saddle, included a description of a headstall, and noted that the saddle was specifically for a human and an elf to ride together (the elf riding in the back giving directions to prevent the horse's lower back from being harmed).

I write off the cuff too. The thing is, I realize that eventually and try to work around and explain why said character wasn't referenced earlier in the story. This is going to be the case for one of the characters that I'm introducing in the fiction I'm creating. In retrospect, the better way would have been to make some references to the character early on. But sometimes you're just too deep in the process and... maybe you found a creative way of justifying a certain writing decision after the fact.

There's a couple of simple ways to address the Rosie Cotton and Lotho thing in the 21st century, of course. Having some sort of reference early in the story with Sam mentioning visiting the Cottons would work. The FOTR movie with Rosie Cotton appearing in the birthday party works too. It would have been really annoying to do so in Tolkien's day due to typewriters and stuff, and paper comes from trees after all.

The difference between LOTR and the Athrabeth is length. The Athrabeth is composed of multiple parts: The Convos between Finrod and Andreth, The Tale of Adanel, and Tolkien's commentary/analytical essay in regards to them. The Conversation is 30 pages long, which is long but in comparison to LOTR, very short. I can't give as much leeway to Tolkien here because he's the author of the whole conversation and is writing an analytical essay of the thing he wrote, so proper use of evidence and argumentation then becomes all that more important and inconsistencies stick out even more. It could have been so simple as Finrod acknowledging that the Valar are not all-knowing, but whatever harm they did was always unintentional, in contrast to Melkor whose harm is intentional. Instead Finrod here in this section comes off as a super zealot for his friends, the Valar.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Now in Tolkien's commentary, there's a specific claim he argues that I have to disagree with (I bolded the part I disagreed with):

"[Finrod] understood and did not take offence at the bitterness with which she spoke of the Elves, and even of the Valar."

I strongly disagree with the "he understood the bitterness which she spoke of the Valar" part.

I don't see Finrod balancing his bias with understanding that Morgoth's lies would be quite convincing to anyone who never met the Valar (including the Avari who did not meet Orome!) Needless to say, I don't see evidence that Finrod understands Andreth's bitterness towards the Valar.

My question then would be how did Tolkien believe in that interpretation. Is there another section in the Athrabeth where they talk more on why the Valar (not counting Melkor) did not personally go to, at the very least, greet the humans?

I don't see the problem and wonder if you are confusing understanding and empathy. What is Finrod's bias? He has seen and met the Valar and knows of that which is higher than does Andreth. He explains things to her, pointing to the truth. It is for her to listen, or not.

Maybe a nice, cuddly, kindly Elf would have explained things a little more? Held her hand a bit and listened to her weep? Allowed space to a profound mortal grief and alienation from the world and from the Elves? But Elves are not nice and cuddly, nor especially kindly, so far as I can tell.

'The Elves have their own labours and their own sorrows, and they are little concerned with the ways of hobbits, or of any other creatures upon earth.

[Rivvy Elf]

Now in Tolkien's commentary, there's a specific claim he argues that I have to disagree with (I bolded the part I disagreed with):

"[Finrod] understood and did not take offence at the bitterness with which she spoke of the Elves, and even of the Valar."

I strongly disagree with the "he understood the bitterness which she spoke of the Valar" part.

I don't see Finrod balancing his bias with understanding that Morgoth's lies would be quite convincing to anyone who never met the Valar (including the Avari who did not meet Orome!) Needless to say, I don't see evidence that Finrod understands Andreth's bitterness towards the Valar.

My question then would be how did Tolkien believe in that interpretation. Is there another section in the Athrabeth where they talk more on why the Valar (not counting Melkor) did not personally go to, at the very least, greet the humans?

I don't see the problem and wonder if you are confusing understanding and empathy. What is Finrod's bias? He has seen and met the Valar and knows of that which is higher than does Andreth. He explains things to her, pointing to the truth. It is for her to listen, or not.

Maybe a nice, cuddly, kindly Elf would have explained things a little more? Held her hand a bit and listened to her weep? Allowed space to a profound mortal grief and alienation from the world and from the Elves? But Elves are not nice and cuddly, nor especially kindly, so far as I can tell.

'The Elves have their own labours and their own sorrows, and they are little concerned with the ways of hobbits, or of any other creatures upon earth.

On the contrary, if we take Finrod’s response at face value, it is he who should listen, for are not men above the jurisdiction of the valar and thus the elves? So he should not have been the one to change the subject without the rebuttal of one of the Wise! Especially for Finrod, who has himself placed himself out of the jurisdiction of the Valar while his body is still intact!

I will point out a major issue mortals should have with the Valar. They failed in their assignment of not interfering in human affairs because multiple of their own brethren (Melkor, Mairon) actively interfere in the affairs of mortals. It is their responsibility to prevent that to happen, just as it is to prevent themselves from interfering. What if those rogue Ainur that can be confused as valar?

[Rivvy Elf]

Finrod has no credibility to make such remarks on the Valar because he is still rebelling against them. He left the light. He freakin left his Vanyar lover! He’s not his father. So that was the wrong response to give Andreth, who if they were swapped, would never have left Valinor and stayed with Finarfin to repair the hurt against the Teleri.

Andreth was a woman of despair who no longer had hope, and ironically that would have made her more loyal to the Valar because it was hope that drove most of the elves to rebel. Finrod had more faith in his hope than his loyalty to the Valar.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Um. I'm looking for a bit of support on this one, people.

[Rivvy Elf]

I will add support from the narrative that it took interference from Ulmo, in the case of Tuor, Earendil, and Elwing, all three mortals who normally would’ve followed the fate of Men, Earendil and Elwing, for humanity to be free from Melkor.

Andreth’s argument is valid and should not have been dismissed so easily without rebuttal because later one of the Valar did interfere in the business of mortals. And I will argue Ulmo did the right thing as Ulmo usually does.

Here’s a less biased answer Finrod could’ve given: most of the valar aren’t all-knowing (Melkor lying to them, Finwe’s murder, the First Kinslaying) and Melkor’s influence on Arda was too great for someone like Ulmo to provide them indirect comfort. The Valar struggle to manage the elves and the Valar consider humanity to be higher than them because they are directly under Eru’s jurisdiction. They don’t want to mess up with humanity like they messed up with the elves (by not following Ulmo’s advice).

That’s a much better answer an exile like Finrod could’ve given that would’ve shown understanding.

[Priya]

Hello Rivvy Elf

Finrod has no credibility to make such remarks on the Valar because he is still rebelling against them. He left the light. He freakin left his Vanyar lover! He’s not his father.

Despite being an exile, from what I remember Finrod made no oath to Feanor, and was a reluctant follower wanting his people not to fall prey to Feanor’s impetuous and dubious guidance.

Having willingly taken up the summons and having dwelt with the Valar - it’s clear he had grown to love them. He left Aman with regret.

In all probability Finrod possessed wisdom enough to know that only the Valar (under Eru) could defeat Melkor. So then, why would he criticize them or agree with Andreth’s dissatisfaction?

I don’t see a problem here.



As to: why hadn’t the Valar come to welcome or aid men ‘in the beginning’?

Wouldn’t it be inappropriate for Finrod to speak on their behalf? Not being a god himself, surely it would be presumptuous and out of place to do so?

Is that possibly why Tolkien didn’t have Finrod give Andreth an answer such as your suggestion?

Here’s a less biased answer Finrod could’ve given: most of the valar aren’t all-knowing (Melkor lying to them, Finwe’s murder, the First Kinslaying) and Melkor’s influence on Arda was too great for someone like Ulmo to provide them indirect comfort. The Valar struggle to manage the elves and the Valar consider humanity to be higher than them because they are directly under Eru’s jurisdiction. They don’t want to mess up with humanity like they messed up with the elves (by not following Ulmo’s advice).