Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2023 3:39 am**

While I was working on my fic and looking in the Ainulindale section of The Silmarillion. These two quotes struck me:

"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.' "

'Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory.'

To make it clear, while Eru was speaking to Melkor here, when Eru uses the word 'he,' it's apparent that Eru's addressing all of the Ainur.

Hopefully, this hasn't been hashed to death already, but I find it linguistically significant that Eru doesn't use the gendered pronoun "she" at all here, but uses "he." Eru doesn't even use the binary "he or she, she or he." In other words, on the surface level, it implies that only males can try to alter Eru's music without permission. It also implies (in the second quote) that only males sang and created the Arda.

Another interesting note is that the word "she" does not occur once in the Ainulindale chapter.

So here are the possible interpretations here:

1. Typo or "Translation Error." For instance, in the Valaquenta, the gendered pronoun "she" is used to refer to the Ainur like Varda. So maybe this was a typo or "mistranslation of the source."

2. The surface-level interpretation mentioned above. I see this as garbage and not supported at all.

3. The Ainur were genderless or had one gendered pronoun at this time. Later, those who entered Arda assumed different genders, thus having different gendered pronouns.

4. Related to number 3, at the time of the writing or "translation" of this chapter, there was no suitable word for a singular gendered pronoun (e.g. It wouldn't have been grammatically acceptable to use "they" in this instance because of the time of publication). But maybe in different languages where there is a word for a universal pronoun everyone has regardless of their gender, they use the equivalent of nowadays "they"? In the past, Chinese had one gendered pronoun, for example, that applied to everyone ('ta') regardless of their "gender (this is still debated whether they had the equivalent of genders back then or whether a new word should be invented for it)."

5. The concept of gender is within the confines of Arda. If, for example, an Ainur did not enter Arda and assumed a form, they do not have a gender (or at least one that fits into our conception of gender) as they never entered Arda.

Interpretations 6 and onwards can be filled by the reader. Feel free to post your thoughts on this!

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2023 11:06 am**

Speaking with no authority whatsoever, I'd go for 3. which (i think) is also 5. As in, differences of gender arise only in a world that reproduces through sex, and prior to the making of Arda there is no sex.

I'm aware that I am treading on thorny ground that I usually avoid, but I'll add that my answer is related to why I find the discussion of Elvish sexuality a bid odd: this immortal people do reproduce but it seems clear that sex is a much less vital part of their existence than it is for us, and so love much less bound up with children than it is for us. I don't mean to point to an essentialist reading of gender for mortals. But I have always felt that the Elves offer a perspective on love in which reproduction of the species is not really the point and so, or so I have always presumed, their attitude to same and different sex relationships is fairly relaxed and open.

I'd also add, opening up more cans of worms, that I have a suspicion that Tom Bombadil is here like the Ainur before they enter the world, that is, genderless. I know you - @Rivvy Elf - are no fan of the Bible, but my gut feeling is that the twice-told account of the creation of Adam in the Book of Genesis has some relevance. Only on the second telling do we have the separation of woman from man, suggesting that Adam (the name in Hebrew means simply 'earth') was originally both man and woman. Heretical as it may be, and 'his' beard notwithstanding (cf. Dwarves), this is how I imagine Bombadil.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:27 pm**

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 3:39 am Another interesting note is that the word "she" does not occur once in the Ainulindale chapter.

That is because it is used in general sense and always the male cognate is used. I never asked why 'she' was not used. Just it is always 'he', in the Germanic languages on the mainland. This is linked to the patriarchal society we know here, even law making men and women are equal. The diversity sense is not applied. I used such a phrase in another lore thread myself. And if you ask, does it bother me? No, it does not. It is just a linguistic rule.

Tom Bombadil aka Iarwain is an Ainu/Vala to me. Only the most powerful were able to see to Ring and be uneffected by it. Sauron is of lesser status, a Maia, and the Ring was created with the his available powers. Aulë could crush him if he wanted, I imagine.

The Bible got some nice (fairy)tales to me, but more it's not to me. I don't believe in any god, but I accept the truth of Charles Darwin's evolution theory. I stay away as far possible from any religious discussions.

I think because of the longlivety of the Eldar, the reproduction system gets only active when they fall in love, a man and a woman. But while the children are born and growing up this is not active with both parents. None of my elven characters experienced with open relationships, unless it was about sibling bonds. Partnered they would remain together for life, following the monogamous description. I am romantic soul at that. Thorny ground it is not to me.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2023 7:14 am**

3. is an interesting one: it implies that not only do the Ainur transform Arda, but they are themselves by Arda transformed: that by entering the world and becoming part of it, they are shaped by its expectations.

And yet when they enter Arda, the work is not yet done. The song was but the map: they must perform the sub creation themselves. Animals, plants, the Children - all these things which reproduce - have not yet emerged, and yet the Valar have gender from the moment they enter Arda.

This implies to me that gender and sex were defined within the Song itself and the Valar, knowing this, align themselves with those musical elements that fit how they always felt - and thus their genders have always inherently been part of who they felt themselves to be and what they wanted to sing/perform, as opposed to dictated by the body (which they themselves choose).

Also interesting when you recall that in earlier versions, some of the Valar do apparently engage in sexual reproduction if I recall correctly - I think Eonwe was second gen, in one version?

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:03 am**

@Chrysophylax Dives Nature of Middle Earth has a wealth of resources on Elven age, sex, and reproduction. It is very detailed (less so the sex part though, more the age and reproduction). Reproduction was less important for the Eldar, but not so for the Avari. The ones who stayed in Cuivienen had a population explosion compared to the ones who left. That is if I'm remembering correctly.

With no evidence, I always subscribed to the notion that Tom Bombadil was a self-insert of JRR Tolkien. Or a tautological cameo that is just that, a cameo from his other works. Like Father Christmas in the Chronicles of Narnia. I subscribe to the theory that C.S. Lewis put him in there in reference to Tolkien's Father Christmas Letters.

I like the Old Testament of the Bible. The narrative, the battles, how anyone could die, reading about 1-week reigns in the complete disaster that was the separated Kingdom of Israel (there are like... no kings devoted to God), how just because you're good doesn't mean you'll be spared a nasty death (e.g Josiah, probably the most devout king after David), or just because your evil doesn't mean you'll get your just desserts at the end of your life (e.g Jeroboam. He was instrumental in dividing the kingdom and did the metaphorical version of yawning at two miracles from God and had TWO Golden Calves that people worshipped. He died of natural causes presumably). I don't like how some people interpret the Bible (which is in common with most Christians, otherwise there wouldn't be so many sects) and weaponize it. And I'll leave it at that because any further and there might be a misinterpretation that violates the rules of this site in regards to such matters.

@Aikári Salmarinian Bah. But could kings (and I mean kings, not queens) be women, like King Jadwiga of Poland? Would Jadwiga be referred to as 'he' way back then?

The reason why China ditched its singular gendered pronoun, which when written does NOT imply a patriarchal society, though it ended up being one for most of its dynasties, and why China became officially anti-LGBTQIA+ for so long was because of Western influence. *Shakes fist at the European Monarchical graves of those who ruined the lives of so many*

@Silky Gooseness
Tulkas the Laughing Wrestler. That means Eru has a sense of humor and loves Wrasslin'
Yup, that was the case in the earlier versions, and Tolkien purposefully ditched the sex part in later versions.

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2023 6:00 am**

Hey Rivvy: I have never heard of Queen Hedvig. But her full account is on Wikipedia. All of the dynastic reasons why she is on the throne of Poland in the 14th century is explained there. The usual reason is that the father has no sons, this is the case for Hedvig's father, king of Hungary. Or there are weak sons, or a son the father simply not trust, a daughter can be sent over and rule a plot of land in her father's name, with a husband at her side. Her eldest son is the next heir.

I can't say anything of China and the nation's social/political history. I was taught about a few more recent dynasties and couple of battles back in school. But that was about it. All of it's history has today come from what I read and what is shared to me, like you do.

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2023 8:14 am**

I am, to be honest, a little surprised that the evidence of the Ainulindalë has not been quoted yet ...

Ainulindalë wrote:§25But the Valar now took to themselves shape and form; and because they were drawn thither by love for the Children of Ilúvatar, for whom they hoped, they took shape after that manner which they had beheld in the Vision of Ilúvatar; save only in majesty and splendour, for they are mighty and holy. Moreover their shape comes of their knowledge and desire of the visible World, rather than of the World itself, and they need it not, save only as we use raiment, and yet we may be naked and suffer no loss of our being. Therefore the Valar may walk unclad, as it were, and then even the Eldar cannot clearly perceive them, though they be present. But when they clad themselves the Valar arrayed them in the form some as of male and some as of female; for that difference of temper they had even from their beginning, and it is but bodied forth in the choice of each, not made by the choice; even as with us male and female may be shown by the raiment, but is not made thereby.

Tolkien, Christopher. Morgoth’s Ring (The History of Middle-earth, Book 10) (p. 15). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.

This view is consistent through all versions of the Ainulindalë from at least version B.

In The Book of Lost Tales, it is also very clear that the Valar have sex (note, however, that the meaning of the word ‘Valar’ is not exactly the same as in the published Silmarillion) – some are spoken of as "she/her" and others as "he/him".

Generally, I think that the view expressed in the Ainulindalë C is very clearly Tolkien's firm view, and one that is incorporated throughout the long evolution of his legendarium. Every spirit has a sex that is inherent, and that, for those spirits that are not innately embodied, is expressed through their choices when taken a shape like one of the Children of Ilúvatar.

This means that Ilúvatar is simply saying "he" because a) he is speaking directly to Melkor, and b) because that would, for Tolkien, be the natural gender-neutral way to speak. Our modern obsession with gender neutral pronouns was not something Tolkien had any experience with (and I will refrain from making any guesses as to what he might think of it as I find that kind of exercise pointless and a distortion of history).

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:48 am**

Troelsfo: Thanks for your input, you express neatly regarding Tolkien. I am following the old order to that, raised in the conventional ways myself in the seventies and eighties. I haven't more to add to it. I am not a lorist or scholar and you know the lore of Tolkien much better than I ever will.

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2023 2:59 pm**

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:03 am I like the Old Testament of the Bible. The narrative, the battles, how anyone could die, reading about 1-week reigns in the complete disaster that was the separated Kingdom of Israel (there are like... no kings devoted to God), how just because you're good doesn't mean you'll be spared a nasty death (e.g Josiah, probably the most devout king after David), or just because your evil doesn't mean you'll get your just desserts at the end of your life (e.g Jeroboam. He was instrumental in dividing the kingdom and did the metaphorical version of yawning at two miracles from God and had TWO Golden Calves that people worshipped. He died of natural causes presumably).

:) Hi Rivvy - i also don't know the site rules in talking of the Bible, but yeah - like you say, loads of great stories. I grew up in England with atheist parents, but my father's grandfathers were both men of the Church (one Anglican vicar and the other of the Scottish kirk) and at school we had to sing hymns and the like. But basically i never paid any attention to the Bible (in contrast to LotR!). But i ended up marrying an Israeli and now Iive in Israel and as a result I've come to appreciate these ancient stories much more - apart from anything else, they are really, really old! They are also full of curious and unexpected - and even inexplicable - details, and, like you say, the morality part is not always obvious (to say the least!). That said, living in Israel has taught me that it is not only Christian sects that weaponize the Bible!

On the wider discussion above, I cannot make out if the quote given above by @Troelsfo fits with reading 3 above as illuminated by @Silky Gooseness. I think so, but it hurts my head and I am not sure...

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2023 4:46 am**

Troelsfo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 8:14 am I am, to be honest, a little surprised that the evidence of the Ainulindalë has not been quoted yet ...

Ainulindalë wrote:§25But the Valar now took to themselves shape and form; and because they were drawn thither by love for the Children of Ilúvatar, for whom they hoped, they took shape after that manner which they had beheld in the Vision of Ilúvatar; save only in majesty and splendour, for they are mighty and holy. Moreover their shape comes of their knowledge and desire of the visible World, rather than of the World itself, and they need it not, save only as we use raiment, and yet we may be naked and suffer no loss of our being. Therefore the Valar may walk unclad, as it were, and then even the Eldar cannot clearly perceive them, though they be present. But when they clad themselves the Valar arrayed them in the form some as of male and some as of female; for that difference of temper they had even from their beginning, and it is but bodied forth in the choice of each, not made by the choice; even as with us male and female may be shown by the raiment, but is not made thereby.
Tolkien, Christopher. Morgoth’s Ring (The History of Middle-earth, Book 10) (p. 15). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.

This view is consistent through all versions of the Ainulindalë from at least version B.

In The Book of Lost Tales, it is also very clear that the Valar have sex (note, however, that the meaning of the word ‘Valar’ is not exactly the same as in the published Silmarillion) – some are spoken of as "she/her" and others as "he/him".

Generally, I think that the view expressed in the Ainulindalë C is very clearly Tolkien's firm view, and one that is incorporated throughout the long evolution of his legendarium. Every spirit has a sex that is inherent, and that, for those spirits that are not innately embodied, is expressed through their choices when taken a shape like one of the Children of Ilúvatar.

This means that Ilúvatar is simply saying "he" because a) he is speaking directly to Melkor, and b) because that would, for Tolkien, be the natural gender-neutral way to speak. Our modern obsession with gender neutral pronouns was not something Tolkien had any experience with (and I will refrain from making any guesses as to what he might think of it as I find that kind of exercise pointless and a distortion of history).

@Troelsfo

Not all AInur are Valar. Thus, we cannot logically assume that what applies to the Valar applies to all the Ainur. Is there another passage that addresses this?

"Our modern obsession with gender neutral pronouns was not something Tolkien had any experience with (and I will refrain from making any guesses as to what he might think of it as I find that kind of exercise pointless and a distortion of history)"

I need a source for that because Tolkien was a linguist and this claim that Tolkien didn't have any experience with this seems rather unbelievable. This is not a modern obsession unless we're including the past few centuries in there. For instance, it was only after the May Fourth Movement in China that the written Chinese language used more than one gendered pronoun in their written language. There was obsession over whether or not they should've done this because there were literal debates on this in China throughout the 1920s.

No doubt the switch-over to gendered pronouns was the same for other languages that either were trying to "Westernize" or were forcibly "Westernized" due to imperialism.

I do not find it pointless as Tolkien was a linguist, and I would find it surprising that he, in his position as a professor in Oxford. He was very particular about what words to use. We know he tried to avoid using French and Latin words as much as possible. Second, we know that he had more of a liberal viewpoint than others as did not follow the racial viewpoints of quite a few people. He distinctly pointed out that it was the Europeans that found Mongoloid features to be the ugliest, rather than flat out saying it. Third, we know he knew what he thought of imperialism, and those opinions were largely negative. He did not have kind words to say about the Numenoreans for their "imperialism."

And a large part of imperialism is indoctrination of the language itself, both words, and the construction of words. I think Tolkien knew this concept, as he knew the history of the English language and how other cultures (Normans, Vikings, Romans, etc.) influenced and changed the language.

So. I will make a guess as to what he might think:

I think Tolkien would be against forcing linguistic rules onto other cultures. I think he would've been against other cultures adopting gendered pronouns "to fit in" when they did not originally have them in the language (or they only had one gendered pronoun). That would be consistent with why Tolkien did his best to not put French or Latin words in his works.

Tolkien knew words' importance, meanings, and limitations as a linguist. If he wasn't a linguist, then yes, speculation on this would not be fruitful. But because he was a linguist, and during his time, cultures were literally changing their language to cater to the West, this is not a pointless venture, and we can use the wealth of his writing and how he used concepts in his prose to make scholarly guesses on his thoughts linguistics, which includes gendered pronouns.

@Chrysophylax Dives Thank you for telling me that! I never visited Israel, but yes, absolutely. The book is mightier than the sword in this instance!

EDIT: I found this Tolkien quote online. Letter 100?

"However it's always been going on in different terms, and you and I belong to the ever-defeated never altogether subdued side. I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians.

Delenda est Carthago. We hear rather a lot of that nowadays. I was actually taught at school that that was a fine saying; and I 'reacted' (as they say, in this case with less than the usual misapplication) at once. There lies still some hope that, at least in our beloved land of England, propaganda defeats itself, and even produces the opposite effect. It is said that it is even so in Russia; and I bet it is so in Germany.

Though in this case, as I know nothing about British or American imperialism in the Far East that does not fill me with regret and disgust, I am afraid I am not even supported by a glimmer of patriotism in this remaining war. (May 1945, anticipating a US-Soviet war.)"

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:00 am**

Troelsfo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 8:14 am This means that Ilúvatar is simply saying "he" because a) he is speaking directly to Melkor, and b) because that would, for Tolkien, be the natural gender-neutral way to speak. Our modern obsession with gender neutral pronouns was not something Tolkien had any experience with (and I will refrain from making any guesses as to what he might think of it as I find that kind of exercise pointless and a distortion of history).

I thank all contributors to this thread for an excellent discussion that is well overdue in Lore, at least in my opinion. On the Ainulindalë, I feel it is to me a foreign country. I would say, though, that it matters if the text is intended as the report of an Elf or the words of the Elves mediated through mortal intermediaries. In either case we are hearing reports and there is a lot of room for manouvre even in apparently clear-cut 'canon', room that relates to the incautious natural, to which I have added emphasis in quoting Troelsfo's post. Better to say conventional, which is precisely the issue: it is because intermediaries take their own conventions as natural (and so universal) that they do not notice the slips or impositions of translation, in this case, they are insenstive to pronouns.

So I am certainly with Rivvy in deeming consideration of what Tolkien might have thought of the modern vogue for gender-neutral pronouns a fruitful subject for discussion. At the very least, I am certain that he would have thought about it and, having done so, had some peculiarly interesting things to say. I invoke the spirit of halfir and old Lore in the words of the well known draft letter to Peter Hastings of 1954.

But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names.
See and ponder Tom's words in Vol. I p. 142. You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name – can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not 'what is Tom Bombadil' but 'Who is he'. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the
questions.

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:54 am**

I've had to go a long way round of a series of posts to get my head around the issues here, because, as i say, i don't have a good feel for the Ainulindalë. And now my two main partners in conversation are abroad, in South Korea and China (I think). But here is the 'Pippin shortcut', which may prove an unstable place to stand.

Does the Ainulindalë offer us (a) Aelfwine's mortal record of direct Elvish testimony, or is this (b) a creation myth that has comes down to us from the Fourth-Age kingdom of the exiles of Númenor? If (a) then I would need to know more about Elvish biases on this sort of thing before venturing to draw a conclusion as to the gender(s) of the Ainur. If (b) I am skeptical about anything that is read in the canonical texts because we are dealing with a tradition that elsewhere introduced a fundamental mistake as to whether the world was once flat, and if a tradition can get confused on this then it is highly likely that it is confused on much else, gender issues just one among them.

That at least is my provisional take as a NuLorist.

In the meanwhile, is nobody up for teasing out a Tolkienian take on gender-neurtal pronouns from the exchanges of Frodo, Bombadil, Goldberry, and Peter Hastings? I don't reckon it is such an impossible riddle, but then this may be because I am one of the few here who really cares for The Hobbit.

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2023 2:37 pm**

Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:00 am I thank all contributors to this thread for an excellent discussion that is well overdue in Lore, at least in my opinion.

Eh I thought the conversation had come to an end in this thread with the words of thanks above? The Ainulindalë is a good telling to me, and I used a lot in my roleplaying across the years with both Aikári as a person and my mastersmith Quennar. What the genders are (male, female, something else?) are no consequent to me. It is a tale within the narrative of Tolkien's Universe. It has always been a work of the Valinorean Eldar, Rúmil and Pengolodh. What Christopher all with it, and not his dad, was not important to me, talewise. The first people who recorded this, were the First Children of Iluvatar. Rúmil was the most important to me, because he was Valinor based, and that continent was Aikári's home, as well Quennar's home of his youth before he became a loremaster himself and wrote three other important works (and maybe many more, but that was not recorded).

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2023 7:10 pm**

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 4:46 am
@Troelsfo

Not all AInur are Valar. Thus, we cannot logically assume that what applies to the Valar applies to all the Ainur. Is there another passage that addresses this?

@Rivvy Elf , I believe that you are here mistaken.

All Ainur are of the same nature, regardless of whether they stayed in the Timeless Halls, became Valar, Maiar, or they were “of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä.” (The Silmarillion, Valaquenta)

Thus, in this aspect as in most other besides power and majesty, the Valar are not special, and what applies to them (and, incidentally, also to the Maiar) can safely be extended to all Ainur.

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 4:46 am
Troelsfo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 8:14 am[color=0000B0]
"Our modern obsession with gender neutral pronouns was not something Tolkien had any experience with (and I will refrain from making any guesses as to what he might think of it as I find that kind of exercise pointless and a distortion of history)"[/color]
I need a source for that

A source for what?

That I will not make any guesses? Your source is right up there in my earlier post

Or that I find that it would be a pointless exercise to attempt to guess what Tolkien would have thought, an exercise that would be a distortion of history? Again, your source is right there.

I make absolutely no comment on what Tolkien would have thought, I only comment on my own personal view, and I will claim to be a very excellent primary source to the thinking of @Troelsfo

There is a tendency for people – mostly fans, but alas also a few scholars – to believe that they can make statements about what Tolkien might have thought about this or that current debate had he lived these fifty years longer. I belive this to be foolish (not to use stronger language).

There is absolutely no way that we can tell what Tolkien might have thought, had he lived to beat the Old Took. No amount of study of his letters – or even of the unpublished diaries – will be able to tell us how these fifty years would have changed him, and it would be pointless to try.

Going the other way, and imagining what Tolkien might, in, say, 1967, have thought of issues that came to the fore in 2017 is a distortion of history. The modern obsession with gendered & non-gendered pronouns is something that would have been completely unthinkable while Tolkien lived, and so you might as well have asked him about quantum computers.

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2023 7:30 pm**

Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:00 amI thank all contributors to this thread for an excellent discussion that is well overdue in Lore, at least in my opinion. On the Ainulindalë, I feel it is to me a foreign country. I would say, though, that it matters if the text is intended as the report of an Elf or the words of the Elves mediated through mortal intermediaries. In either case we are hearing reports and there is a lot of room for manouvre even in apparently clear-cut 'canon', room that relates to the incautious natural, to which I have added emphasis in quoting Troelsfo's post.

This, I think, is not entirely aligned with what Tolkien intended.

As can be seen from e.g. the discussions in the ‘Myths Transformed’ section of Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien intended the details of these ‘stories’ to be true within the sub-created world. More, even, he wanted them to convey the “Truth” as handed down from the Valar themselves (who were presumed to have near-perfect knowledge and to admit where they do not know).

One of the solutions to the problems that Tolkien considers (and embarks on with some energy), but ultimately rejects, was that the stories were imperfect and distorted, passed down through Men, first from Númenórë and later in Middle-earth. But in the end, he couldn't live with that solution: what he told had to be true, as it were.

In other words, Tolkien stayed fairly true to the opinion he gave in On Fairy Stories:

He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed.

Tolkien, J. R. R.. Tree and Leaf: Including MYTHOPOEIA. HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.

So, I do not think that we can use the story-internal manner of transmission to cast doubt on the statements or the understanding. This is not some imperfect Elf speaking, this is Tolkien telling us how he thought of his sub-creation.

Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:00 amSo I am certainly with Rivvy in deeming consideration of what Tolkien might have thought of the modern vogue for gender-neutral pronouns a fruitful subject for discussion.

Well, I shall not make any attempt to prevent others from having fun, even if I insist that I find it is pointless and foolish

As long as you do not delude yourselves into thinking that you might actually guess what Tolkien might have thought – such would take it from foolishness (as viewed my me) into another territory entirely.

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:36 pm**

Troelsfo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 7:30 pm
Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:00 amSo I am certainly with Rivvy in deeming consideration of what Tolkien might have thought of the modern vogue for gender-neutral pronouns a fruitful subject for discussion.
Well, I shall not make any attempt to prevent others from having fun, even if I insist that I find it is pointless and foolish

As long as you do not delude yourselves into thinking that you might actually guess what Tolkien might have thought – such would take it from foolishness (as viewed my me) into another territory entirely.

Troels, I find your response perplexing. Tolkien was a linguist, language was his thing. Obviously he had a conception of pronouns, and most surely it has some bearing on the very idea of gender-neutral pronouns. The attempt may then be made to seek out that conception in his writing and bring it to bear on the idea of gender-neutral pronouns. Why on earth would you consider this foolish?

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:04 am**

Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:36 pmTroels, I find your response perplexing. Tolkien was a linguist, language was his thing. Obviously he had a conception of pronouns, and most surely it has some bearing on the very idea of gender-neutral pronouns. The attempt may then be made to seek out that conception in his writing and bring it to bear on the idea of gender-neutral pronouns. Why on earth would you consider this foolish?

I do not doubt that Tolkien would have had an opinion on this – likely he would even have strong views based on both his professional interests and the value system to which he subscribed.

What I find foolish is the idea that we can guess what a Tolkien living in 2023 might have opined on the issue.

I would question what Tolkien you would ask this of?

A Tolkien who would reach 132 this coming January?
How on earth would anyone believe that they would be able to guess how the last 52 years would have affected Tolkien's thinking (choosing the death of Edith as the point of departure – we actually know very little about how Tolkien's views changed after that) ? Tolkien in 2023 would not be the same person as Tolkien in 1971, and given the profound changes in society, I think it is fairly safe to say that his views in a number of ways would have changed just as profoundly; we just cannot know how or where.
A Tolkien who had been born fifty years later, and who had made statements on Facebook as later as the summer of 2023?
This would mean that Mabel would have contracted diabetes after the discovery of insulin and so would have survived to raise her sons (but probably wouldn't have had the money to send them to King Edward's School. Would you presume to guess what such a man might opine?
A Tolkien living in 1971?
This is where I think the discussion would be a distortion of history. The question was completely unthinkable in 1971, and it is, in my view, patently nonsensical to ask what anyone would think of this question without situating them in the historical context that has made the question relevant (‘someone’ as taught me that the historical context – and not least the in the sense of the history of ideas – is terribly important ) and that, as discussed above, is something I believe is completely impossible with Tolkien.

You could do this as a funny fictional exercise – I might even enjoy it, if it avoids taking itself too seriously, but as a scholarly exercise ...? Well, I shall maintain the view stated above.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:16 am**

Troelsfo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:04 am
Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:36 pmTroels, I find your response perplexing. Tolkien was a linguist, language was his thing. Obviously he had a conception of pronouns, and most surely it has some bearing on the very idea of gender-neutral pronouns. The attempt may then be made to seek out that conception in his writing and bring it to bear on the idea of gender-neutral pronouns. Why on earth would you consider this foolish?
I do not doubt that Tolkien would have had an opinion on this – likely he would even have strong views based on both his professional interests and the value system to which he subscribed.

What I find foolish is the idea that we can guess what a Tolkien living in 2023 might have opined on the issue.

Oh. We are talking at cross-purposes, then. I cannot comprehend the idea of a Tolkien living in 2023 and therefore would never venture a guess at such an incomprehensible notion. All I meant is that from Tolkien's ideas of language, of pronouns and proper names, we might be able to formulate what he might have said back when he was alive if confronted with the idea of a gender-neutral pronoun.

I do find that it is very easy to get wires crossed online. I recognize that I am part of the problem. But it is good to discover that we are not having the foolish argument that I thought we were.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:06 pm**

Tolkien would have gone with the ideas floating around and what is socially acceptable. This illustrates the differences between the essays before the war in topic and those from after the war. What first centers on indepth fairytales, poems and lays and even more, is after a war a few pure linguistic studies. I think he always had a good sense to stay on the safe side of matters, had healthy judgment about right and wrong and became a well respected professor.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 2:58 pm**

@Chrysophylax Dives like learning Finnish, which uses a gender-neutral pronoun system?

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 4:20 pm**

I'd like to point out that nonbinary gender pronouns would not have been "unthinkable" in 1971/Tolkien's time and that this is not a modern obsession.

Apparently (Because I admit I don't have the texts myself nor the time to fact check these but I have read this in mutiple books/articles/etc), Chaucer used singular 'they' in Canterbury Tales (late 1380s)

Shakespeare used singular 'they' in Hamlet and a Comedy of Errors (1500-1600s)

Jane Austen used singular 'they' in Pride and Prejudice and Mansfield Park (late 1700s-1800s)

Agatha Christie used singular 'they' in a Hercule Poirot novel (late 1890s-1970s)

Baron, D. E. (1981). The Epicene Pronoun: The Word That Failed. *American Speech*, *56*(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/455007 discussses the singular use of they from an academic viewpoint. Baron is a Professor of Engish.

Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: "Neutral" pronouns that aren't. *American Psychologist, 33*(11), 1032–1036. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.11.1032](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/000 ... 33.11.1032) discusses the use of "He" pronouns being gender neutral (or not).

Refer to What's Your Prounon?: Beyond he and she by Dennis Baron for further history of English pronouns which are not he/him or she/her.

In this book, Baron describes the history of ~200 nonbinary English pronouns that have been used over the last few centuries.

Baron also describes how suffragetes and Susan B Anthony used pronouns to make an argument based on the use of pronouns "he" in laws which excluded women from voting should then also exclude women from being subject to those laws and penalites. (Also see this document to read more about Susan B Anthony's case at https://www.historylink.org/File/5557)

Since Tolkien was, in fact, a linguist, I find it hard to believe that such an idea as using nonbinary pronouns in English never once landed on his desk or came up in discussions. I wouldn't guess what he thought about it, but I think it's possible it came up.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:17 pm**

@Aikári Salmarinian

That being said...

" ‘For myself,’ said Faramir, ‘I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise."

Given that Tolkien has said that he is most like Faramir, this anti-imperialism take in the 1950s (when LOTR was published) was a far more riskier stance to make public than it would be now in 2023. He was pretty much against imperialism his whole life. He had a healthy judgement about right and wrong but would not have necessarily stayed on the "safe side."

The Imperialism aspect is very relevant to this thread since linguistics plays a large part in this. Tolkien most likely knew this since actively tried to avoid using English words with Latin roots instead of Germanic roots.

Forcing a binary gender pronoun system on other cultures, either implicitly or explicitly, is imperialistic at its roots. Hopefully, I don't need to pull in scholarly articles to back up this point.

One of the biggest examples of "a willing slave" in the 20th century is when the Chinese, with their thousands of years of written language history of using only one gendered-neutral pronoun, through the May 4th Movement, added gendered pronouns in their written language. This was 50 years before Tolkien's death.

Tolkien's thoughts on anti-imperialism would've only been reinforced had he lived longer since in 2023, many more people have adopted his point of view regarding imperialism, with more scholarship focusing on how linguistics plays a large role in subjugating/culture converting a culture.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:59 pm**

Aikári Salmarinian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:06 pm Tolkien would have gone with the ideas floating around and what is socially acceptable. This illustrates the differences between the essays before the war in topic and those from after the war. What first centers on indepth fairytales, poems and lays and even more, is after a war a few pure linguistic studies. I think he always had a good sense to stay on the safe side of matters, had healthy judgment about right and wrong and became a well respected professor.

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:17 pm "‘For myself,’ said Faramir, ‘I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise."

Aiks your post is really interesting. I guess you are right that probably Tolkien's attitude would have been to go with whatever people were doing in any case, but I don't think that is about safe. That is just a modern linguist who recognizes that language is not defined by rules of grammar but rather is what people speak, which the rules of grammar attempt to keep up with. More importantly, I don't think you are entirely fair with your portrayal of the man as staying on the safe side of issues. The 1936 Beowulf lecture is very famous, and this because Tolkien basically stood up at the British Acaemy in London and announced that everybody else was wrong about the Old English poem. That is not a safe stand, and he went on from there to take a stand as an Oxford Professor who never published the major scholarly tome that is expected of any and every Oxford Professor - instead he wrote a fairy-tale for adults! That was also quite brave within the little world of Oxford.

But I do think you absolutely hit the nail on the head in the contrast that you make between the pre-war and post-war essays. However, rather than read than as a step into scholarly safety, or such, I would suggest that if we look at the biography of this Oxford Professor, the experience of composing The Lord of the Rings over more than a decade that began 18 months before World War II began and stretched on into the early 1950s as the appendices and all were put in order, fundamentally changed Tolkien's identity. Before the war he was a scholar who told stories (and invented languages, and drew amazing pictures) in his spare time. The war - his second European war - turned him into an artist, and he never really went back to the scholarship. But that turn absorbed all the scholarship, and it also focused Tolkien's mind on pressing questions of good and evil.

That is why I follow your quote with @Rivvy Elf (who has a knack for an acute answer). If we want to look at Tolkien's politics or morality or worldview or whatever we wish to call it, then in the 1930s we should turn to scholarship, first and foremost to the 1936 'Beowulf: the Monsters & the Critics'. But if we are looking at the 1950s then we should open The Lord of the Rings - and given that the rest of you know the great story and few beyond Aiks and myself know the great essay, we should all probably keep on thinking about Faramir's take on these thorny matters.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:34 pm**

We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts.

Not exactly sure what that contributes, but Faramir seems to undermine his ideal vision with a recognition of inevitable decline - which maybe spawns Gondorian imperialism in the 4th Age? But whatever Tolkien might have thought of gender neutral pronouns, I cannot much hear them in the languages of these warrior Middle Men of Middle-earth.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:52 pm**

@Chrysophylax Dives

Tolkien is referring to the concept of assimilation. The Gondorians here are assimilating with their neighbors, the Rohirrim, in culture. One can assume this blends in with language as well.

This is unusual for the 1950s because I believe the orthodox belief back then was that it was usually the other way around? One would assume that the Rohirrim would become more like the Gondorians, rather than the other way around.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:07 am**

You think this is about cultural assimilation? I think I disagree. I will now have to go back and read more carefully, but my immediate thought is that this is Faramir simply recognizing the way of the world, the ending of an age. He goes on:

Men now fear and misdoubt the Elves, and yet know little of them. And we of Gondor grow like other Men, like the men of Rohan; for even they, who are foes of the Dark Lord, shun the Elves and speak of the Golden Wood with dread.

And the Hobbits of the Shire too turn their faces from the sea. Is this not about the waning of enchantment in the late Third Age?

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:17 am**

@Chrysophylax Dives Yet at this point, the elves still have their Rings of Power. Places like Imladris and Lorien have not waned because Elrond and Galadriel's Rings of Power were preventing the decay, though the forest of Laurelindorenan has decreased from what it was (if I can recall from Fangorn's words).

Gondorians no longer border elves at this point. Arnor is gone. The only interactions Gondorians have are generally with Easterlings, Haradrim, Rohirrim, and Mordor. They are surrounded by humans and orcs (if I recall from the good old maps). So from a certain standpoint, assimilation in terms of culture (perhaps reverse-assimilation if the Rohirrim are the minorities here) seems to be more of an implied effect.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:44 am**

In this post I enlightened on Tolkien's fears for the war and the practise of his academic love for researching ancient writings. It might have been overlooked, while discussing the paper of those nine scholars and all having it wrong. He knew what was going to be lost, and had to adapt to it after the war. I observed that from reading his essays. "That noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved*," speaks out the essays he wrote before 1940. And after the war it is really about philology, what this field is and how it works out technically in languages. This is empirical research. He could write though his tale in his private time, but that was a writer's thing at that time, a fantasy novel. It was not academically. In his work he was on the safe side of the medal. There was a real anti-German sentiment in Europe in 1945, when became clear what really had taken place in Polen. This northern spirit was stolen by the Nazi's and from then on locked away, and empirical research became the norm in the academic world. Nobody wanted to be suspected having any favourtism for Germany at that point. That changed in 1950's when the country had to get back on it's feet to get the economy in Europe going. That could not be without the Germans. And it is still today the economies of France and Germany together that are the leading factors if the European economy overall does good or bad.

*Letter from Tolkien to his son Michael on 9 June 1941.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:01 am**

Aikári Salmarinian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:44 am There was a real anti-German sentiment in Europe in 1945, when became clear what really had taken place in Polen. This northern spirit was stolen by the Nazi's and from then on locked away, and empirical research became the norm in the academic world. Nobody wanted to be suspected having any favourtism for Germany at that point.

Recall this had already happened earlier in the century, in reaction to WWI. Philology was certainly turned away from as a 'German science' already in the 1920s in the early days of Tolkien's career.

More importantly, I think I read that letter of 1940 in relation to Tolkien's biography differently than do you. This is to me very important, so I would beg you to attend carefully before responding to the biography as I read it.

In the Beowulf lecture of November 1936 we find Tolkien (a) pointing subtly to Berlin as a problematic manifestation of 'the northern mythological imagination' in the current day and age, but (b) still retaining an old-fashioned language of genealogical descent even as other academics of the day abandoned it in explicit recognition of where it had been taken in Berlin. In other words, Tolkien is fully aware of a relationship between Nazism and the northern spirit, but has not yet taken the radical step of some of his colleagues. This accords with what you were saying about 'safe'.

I pass over the next few years until we come to the letter to his son Michael, composed as World War II moves towards its darkest days. And also as he prepares to return to his story and tell how Aragorn leads the Company into the Golden Wood - the deepest enchantment of the entire story.

Now what has been going on in the heads of most people in the UK in those few years since 1936? That was when war in Spain broke out, which no doubt left Tolkien (as a Catholic) feeling alienated by the Republican enthusiasm on the Left. But it does not really matter because by 1940 there can have been very few people in the British Isles who had not been asking themselves the same questions that I hear everyone around me today in Israel asking themselves and each other: How could we have been so stupid? Why did we lie to ourselves? Why look away? I make no moral point. I simply point out that a people who find themselves deep in a terrible war are apt to reflect on how they got into it.

Tolkien does not do allegory, but he says that myth and history are alike because "made of the same stuff" (OFS). The story of Rohan and Wormtongue is made of the stuff of British Appeasement in 1938. The whole story of the War of the Ring becomes a story of how the Elves, those most beloved of Tolkien's heart, made a mythological mess of things in an earlier age of the world and have left it for Hobbits to clear up. This story gives a window on the some very deep self-inspection and self-criticism on the part of the author.

The Lord of the Rings was composed under the shadow of World War II, composed by an artist-scholar with a profound love of the northern mythological spirit who saw, to his utter abject horror, that the world was falling into the chaos of war because this spirit had revived in the modern world - not as a demon controlling monsters, but a man possessed by a demon making humans into monsters. So it seems to me that what this Professor of Anglo-Saxon and the English Language did is write a story that distilled the northern spirit that he revered, drew it in opposition to the necromancy that ever twists it, and preserved it in the form of a great story for some future that would be able to receive it.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 6:26 am**

Chrys: Rightly said so! For writing a novel he wrote it greatly, and that life-events formed inspiration? Naturally. You put it clearly together and I agree with you.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:30 am**

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:17 am @Chrysophylax Dives Yet at this point, the elves still have their Rings of Power. Places like Imladris and Lorien have not waned because Elrond and Galadriel's Rings of Power were preventing the decay, though the forest of Laurelindorenan has decreased from what it was (if I can recall from Fangorn's words).

Gondorians no longer border elves at this point. Arnor is gone. The only interactions Gondorians have are generally with Easterlings, Haradrim, Rohirrim, and Mordor. They are surrounded by humans and orcs (if I recall from the good old maps). So from a certain standpoint, assimilation in terms of culture (perhaps reverse-assimilation if the Rohirrim are the minorities here) seems to be more of an implied effect.

So, always I presume that Tolkien is giving us an imaginary history of our world, and a very ancient one that is almost otherwise completely forgotten - almost, but always we will find the stories of Tolkien touching on - and lending interpretation to - his scholarly work on the old stones of Beowulf. And one thing that Tolkien not only learned from the Anglo-Saxon poet but applied in a remarkable manner to, falls out of these key lines in the poem:

þanon untydras ealle onwocon,
eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas,
swylce gigantas, þa wið gode wunnon

These lines get criss-crossed because we have the orcs (who in his commentary Tolkien actually likens to Barrow-wights) and the eotenas = ents, but also = gigantas, which name is unlike the others because not a northern monster but from Latin Scripture. But forget all of those monsters, consider this one:

Ylfe = The Elves.

And Tolkien's working life as scholar and artist comes into view as an attempt to reconcile his great veneration for the master of his own art, with the fact that dead master and living apprentice held to radically opposing different views of the Elves.

Tolkien resolved the conundrum by extrapolating the old poet's notion that Time = Forgetting, that the true tradition is always twisted and lost down the years, and picturing Hobbits and Rohirrim as already estranged from the Elves and Gondor, in the person of Boromir, make a good stab at Númenórean estrangement. Always, behind Ted Sandyman or some Rider of Rohan looking askance on Elvish netweavers is Tolkien looking for a working out of estrangement that will end up with his beloved Anglo-Saxon poet genuinelly confused on the Elves!

And yet you are quite right to point to the Three Rings of the Elves, which allows this grand panorama of the very end of the Third Age to appear as a great stasis, when actually it is a moment of transition. We are led from Galadriel with her Ring to Arwen and Aragorn the king restored, and almost misled into thinking nothing so much has changed. But this restored King of the two Númenórean kingdoms of Elendil is not Elendil, and the new age, the Fourth Age, is the Round World Disenchanted. After Galariel and all the Rings and the Stone of Elendil return over the sea in the last ship, we have a restoration of the legacy of the Men of the West, the Elf-friends of old, but no Elves at all. And from here on in it is the normal kind of history that mortals make.

So I read Faramir's account of the High Men and the Middle Men and the Dark Men, and of the estrangement of the two kindreds, in relation also to his union with Éowyn, which is token of not only the cultural but the blood or racial assimilation that is bound to be going on between two ancient peoples who live side by side in peace rather than war.

In other words, I think the cultural assimilation you are looking at, and more, is waiting in the wings at the end of the Third Age. But I don't think it is going on so much yet in the Third Age, when the causes of decline are more 'spiritual' or metaphysical. Am happy to be corrected!

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2023 3:36 am**

Hi @Rivvy Elf, I just thought I'd give you a perspective from my own research that might be of interest or use to you. It does not mean this or that as to current political squabbles over Middle-earth and colonialism, gender, etc. Simply a fact that seems not to be understood about the British academic discourse on race in which Tolkien was a participant.

A problem arises today because terms like 'race' that have a highly charged meaning born out of the horrors of history are theorized and applied everywhere as if that history was everywhere uniform. Hence, e.g. it is standard to find in any discussion of Tolkien and race that 'race' is a discourse of 'purity' - that to talk of this or that 'race' is to imply that inter-mixing of races is bad. As a matter of fact, from around the 1880s the dominant use of the notion of 'race' by British academics was born out of their antiquarian studies of the prehistory on their doorsteps and employed against local nationalisms to foster an image of the citizen of the British Isles as a proud mongrel.

Two contingent factors shape this local British discourse on race.

(1) From 1859 they are digging out the prehistoric past from British barrows, there is not a lot of evidence to unearth but from the start it was established that prehistoric Britain had seen two types of barrow (round and long) and inside were two types of skull (round and long), and so they hit on a story of a long-skulled race that was invaded by a round-headed race. Vitally, from Canon Greenwell's classic study of British Barrows in 1877 (unfairly named the most boring book ever written!) it was taken as given that after a while the two races had interbred and become one (how else to explain that actually most of the skulls were intermediately shaped between long and round?)

(2) The United Kingdom is composed of different kingdoms, the citizens of which have a tendency to distinguish themselves as Celtic versus English (Anglo-Saxon). Such local nationalisms were naturally given impetus by the emerging study of Literature, with philology contributing to the notion of distinct Celtic and English cultures. The local discourse on race that emerged in the last decades of the 19th century was deployed to undermine this linguistic divisions of the comparative philologists and establish that, underneath the cultural divergences, in terms of genealogies - the family trees of each and every person in the islands - the intermixing of the races had been going on for so long that everyone was a mix of all of them. The racial identity was 'British'.

Only with this background can one make sense of Tolkien's lecture 'English and Welsh'.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2023 4:00 am**

@Chrysophylax Dives It is very useful, thank you!

Posted: **Mon Nov 13, 2023 3:52 am**

I came into 'Tolkien scholarship' having studied this material and initially developed it solely with regard to Hobbits. But now I appreciate that Hobbits are the easy case, and that these Elvish-mortal marriages and the state of Numenor and Rohan at the dawn of the 4th Age are more tricky to account for.

With the Hobbits it seems fairly simple. Between the lines of his late lecture 'English and Welsh' Tolkien suggests that most invasions of the British Isles involved the intruders bequeathing their language to the natives while in racial terms being absorbed into them. He points out that the original farmers of the British Isles were not speakers of English, nor of Celtic, but of a languge of which no trace whatsoever remains, not even in names of hills and rivers. So we are left with an image of ourselves (the British audience) as maybe speakers of English or Welsh languge but in blood largely something else again - something aboriginal but utterly and entirely forgotten.

I take it that Tolkien thought of these aboriginal farmers of the British Isles as Hobbits.

Posted: **Mon Nov 13, 2023 4:14 am**

@Chrysophylax Dives So you're saying that the study of pronouns in linguistics would have been fathomable not only in 1971 but in 1955. As this was partially done when the intruders of the Qing Dynasty bequeathed their languages in books and the May 4th movement in the 1920s changed their written language by adding gendered pronouns to better understand said books.

The Chinese Cultural Revolution was inspired by the May 4th movement and was in its 5th year in 1971 by the way.

Posted: **Mon Nov 13, 2023 6:45 pm**

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 4:14 am @Chrysophylax Dives So you're saying that the study of pronouns in linguistics would have been fathomable not only in 1971 but in 1955. As this was partially done when the intruders of the Qing Dynasty bequeathed their languages in books and the May 4th movement in the 1920s changed their written language by adding gendered pronouns to better understand said books.

The Chinese Cultural Revolution was inspired by the May 4th movement and was in its 5th year in 1971 by the way.

Hold on. Not certain I understand the question. Be clear that I am no linguist. And I have never looked at any English academic work on Chinese - though it would not be so difficult to track down. But pronouns are such a basic element of language that for sure any linguist of the last couple of centuries would have had a fathomable notion of what they are and how they should work.

You wish to know specifically about the state of Chinese linguistics in Oxford in 1955?

Posted: **Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:52 pm**

@Chrysophylax Dives

Remember those responses from @Troelsfo? There's the peculiar claim that there's a reasonable probability that Tolkien would go against his anti-imperialist beliefs and would have a shallower understanding of linguistics if he lived to 130, which makes no sense since general scholarship has only further added more evidence and support to Tolkien's stances. But the most important claim that I'm seeing is being disproven with these posts: One of which was the argument that Tolkien in 1971 would not fathom such thinking deeply on linguistic matters such as gendered pronouns in language? That it was a 2017 fascination?

While pronouns are basic, their importance varies amongst cultures. Right now, 20% of the world does not use multiple gendered pronouns in their verbal language. This percentage was bigger in the past. Both Chinese and Finnish do not use gendered pronouns in their verbal language. Finnish does not use gendered pronouns in their written language. Tolkien tried to learn Finnish because of his passion for the Kalevala. Their lack of gendered pronouns should've been fairly noticeable to Tolkien.

I'll tell you what was going on with Chinese linguistics in 1955, it was in absolute chaos. Linguistics in 1955 China was in transition as literacy was horrendously low for most of Chinese history (less than 20% until the efforts made in the 20th century to make their written language easier). It was only relatively recently at that point that they chose to even stick with Chinese. I recall a movement where people wanted to make Esperanto the national language. The point is I'm drawing a connection here that is similar to this specific part you wrote:

"Most invasions of the British Isles involved the intruders bequeathing their language to the natives while in racial terms being absorbed into them. He points out that the original farmers of the British Isles were not speakers of English, nor of Celtic, but of a language of which no trace whatsoever remains, not even in names of hills and rivers."

20th century China almost willingly forsook their own written and verbal languages because they believed that learning another language would've helped bridge the gap between China and the European powers (Unfortunately, they failed to realize that having a supreme navy and a non-corrupt government were more important aspects, but that's another argument altogether.) If they made the switch to Esperanto, Chinese could've eventually been a lost language.

What the Chinese did do in 1919, in direct response to countries like Great Britain (the Mordor of the World at the time) saying "okay, Japan, do whatever, don't care," was launch the May 4th Movement. In the process they greatly debated to themselves on how to modify their written language, with the consequence of adding gendered pronouns in their language. Because they thought gendered pronouns was vital in becoming westernized, even though the Chinese never used gendered pronouns when they held hegemony of the world for much of its history!

The point is Tolkien understood concepts such as cultural assimilation, linguistic decay and growth, and that language changed and was different amongst different cultures. So in other words, he had enough knowledge of linguistics to form an opinion on gendered pronouns in 2023. This isn't quantum computing, this isn't even C++ or basic Computer language.

Just confirming that we can indeed use Tolkien's words to infer on concepts such as gendered pronouns since they are in the umbrella of linguistics, as @Troelsfo has argued that this is an unscholarly pursuit without any sources proving that Tolkien would have little understanding of such matters.

Posted: **Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:25 pm**

Look, obviously Tolkien when he was alive would have had an opinion on the pronouns. In his recent post Troels assented to this (merely insisting that we could not say what Tolkien would say today, given that he is not alive). That still leaves open what Tolkien when alive might have said about gendered pronouns. On that question, my guess is that lots of people look to Tolkien's Catholicism and conservativism and assume he would have opposed gender-neutral pronouns in modern English. But as Lail pointed out, and as you have pointed out, and as is really obvious to anybody who thinks for 2 seconds about Tolkien's day job, Tolkien would surely have responded as a linguist.

By the by, you got me looking up Oxford Professors of Chinese down the years. I have to say, they look a sorry bunch. Lots of missionaries, which is always a sign of a pre-professional academic era. From the perspective of Mordor, I mean the UK, India and China are associtaed as 'Far East', where the tea comes from. But from 1795 the British had been studying the languages of India, and indeed this is how comparative philology was born. But I'm getting the sense that they never grappled with Chinese in anything like the same way.

Posted: **Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:08 pm**

@Chrysophylax Dives Thomas Wade and Herbert Giles did end up creating a romanization system for Mandarin called Wade-Giles in the mid 19th century and the Chinese-English Dictionary was made in 1892.

Troels did not assent to this: "A Tolkien living in 1971?
This is where I think the discussion would be a distortion of history. The question was completely unthinkable in 1971, and it is, in my view, patently nonsensical to ask what anyone would think of this question without situating them in the historical context that has made the question relevant (‘someone’ as taught me that the historical context – and not least the in the sense of the history of ideas – is terribly important

) and that, as discussed above, is something I believe is completely impossible with Tolkien."

This question was very thinkable. (Insert what you just posted, Chrysophylax Dives). With Tolkien, I would argue that he would consider "Australian English," "American English," "Non-England English" to have different rules so he would not have necessarily had the same opinion on those.

Tolkien further did not believe in language being static. Otherwise, Frodo Baggins would be primarily known as Maura Labingi!

Posted: **Wed Nov 15, 2023 5:28 am**

Rivvy, I am pretty sure Troels will come back. And then I am pretty sure we can all talk this through with the uttermost civility, in the best plaza traditions. But if I get what is bothering you (and I may not) you should take the advice you put my way with my spat with Shippey - chill out! History is on your side :)

Posted: **Wed Nov 15, 2023 7:14 am**

I’m too ignorant to contribute anything here but let me just say I’m reading with great interest! Thanks everyone, fascinating discussion.

Posted: **Wed Nov 15, 2023 8:21 am**

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:52 pm Just confirming that we can indeed use Tolkien's words to infer on concepts such as gendered pronouns since they are in the umbrella of linguistics, as @Troelsfo has argued that this is an unscholarly pursuit without any sources proving that Tolkien would have little understanding of such matters.

The use of footnotes or endnotes is really a technical feature, attached where your source comes from and makes it 'academically/scholarly'. The quote system online is also part of this realm. It even gives a link back where the original quote can be found. It is a 'proof' that what you reply about, makes it sound and clearly structured. The system can be applied in many situations and by anybody. It is pretty practical for me, as having a single linear of thought naturally. Hearing or reading the opinions of others breaks this single linear of thought, and implement parts of theirs, if it's necessary. In the process it is nice to have and know a source where it comes from, to check back if memory doesn't exactly remember.

Rivvy: Thanks for your information on the history of the Chinese writing system, it is interesting.

Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë

Re: The Gender(s) of the Ainur in the Ainulindalë