Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

[obloquy]

I'm reproducing this post from the Witch-King vs. Gandalf discussion in the Movies forum so that it can get some attention from serious Tolkien nerds.

Tolkien's definitions of power are complex, and reducing the question to who would win in one-on-one duels is misleading. One of the things that complicates things is that duels do happen, so we know that questions of "power" are not purely metaphysical, but even so the victory is generally determined on a metaphysical level, i.e. the more powerful "spirit" ought to be victorious.

I'll explain:

The example of Gandalf and the Balrog is a good one, since we don't generally consider Gandalf to be a mighty warrior in the same way that, say, Hurin was. He bested the Balrog, but doing so killed him. The spiritual stature of an eala (obviously some are greater than others, based presumably on the discarnate standard of pure will) can be manifested in physical effects, which we would probably call "magic" or "spells." The spirit within cannot be destroyed, but a fully incarnate spirit (such as Gandalf was, and such as we must also assume the Balrog was) is effectively "killed" when the body to which they are bound is slain. Gandalf's description of the struggle is very primal: clutching, strangling, hewing; also it is elemental: lightning, fire, ice. Gandalf knew that none could see the battle, so perhaps he was allowed here to unleash his latent potential. In any case, the duel is very much a metaphysical one in that each embodied eala inflicted his spiritual power on the other's physical body. Gandalf exerts his spiritual power in a physical way when he tries to bind the door in Moria; the Balrog uses a powerful counter-spell. Similarly, lightning, ice, fire, and pure physical strength--lifting, pushing, crushing power--are manifestations of spiritual prowess. This last must be the most basic translation of metaphysical power, in fact, since it is essentially an imposition of one's "will".

The idea of an incarnated eala being impervious to weapons fits with this explanation. A blade or arrow, in itself, has no will, so a creature with the power to exert its spiritual will in spontaneous physical manifestation ought to have no problem turning that blade or arrow. However, if the will (spiritual power) of the wielder of that blade is stronger than his enemy's, it will pierce despite the resistance. This overcoming power might also not be that of the wielder, but of the weapon itself, which may have been imbued with some amount of power by its maker: Merry, of smaller "spiritual stature" than the Witch-King, was able to pierce him with the Barrow Blade. The Witch-King's power comes from his ring, which presumably draws its power from The One Ring, and thus from Sauron. However, if the Barrow Blade overcame the Witch-King's spell of protection, we can deduce that the Witch-King must not have been protected by the full power of The One or of Sauron, but by some designated fraction of it. W-K may also have had some measure of his own spiritual power, supposedly being Numenorean in origin, but it seems unlikely since the Nazgul seem to have no will (which I equate to spiritual power) of their own, obeying Sauron's instead.

In addition to claiming invulnerability to his friends' weapons, Gandalf says this of the Ringwraith whose mount Legolas shot: " that you cannot slay with arrows. You only slew his steed." -TTT, [i]The White Rider. So the power of a Ringwraith drawn from its ring trumps ordinary weapons wielded by individuals with less spiritual potency than that Ringwraith's allotment. Additionally, I think that it is safe to speculate that a powerful being like Gandalf need not wield a powerfully enchanted weapon to harm a less-powerful being: his own power would be enough to overcome his foe.

Ealar also seem to have a peculiar "character" to their power. By that I mean that Balrogs were spirits of flame ("flame" must be a translation to physical terms of some spiritual aspect), Sauron was a student of craftsmanship (also a translation to physical terms) which enhanced his ability to deceive, and Gandalf was one who revealed dreams and spoke to hearts, motivating them. Obviously all manner of spiritual power can be translated to physical might, otherwise a spirit of fire would surely have crushed a spirit of flowers and bunnies; but this peculiar character does play a part in the more subtle manifestations of power. Saruman's voice must be an example of this, as well as Gandalf's ability to muster resistance to Sauron. Gandalf's spiritual character was probably also represented in his restraint. We know that he was required to carry out his mission in a discreet manner, but so were the other Istari, and Gandalf was the only one of them who succeeded. Saruman is the most important counterpoint to Gandalf since Saruman's failure indicated a repudiation of the Istarin rule of restraint: he openly flaunted his power and used it to dominate others and even build his own army in emulation of Sauron. It must be, therefore, part of Gandalf's spiritual makeup for him to conceal his true power at all but those most crucial moments when the strength of his friends was or would be overcome.

We might also extend this to the Nazgul. Tolkien said that their power was primarily in the fear that they projected, so if a character such as Eowyn has in her spirit the power to resist that fear, she may be able to overcome the power of the Nazgul and thus penetrate that barrier created by it.

[Raynor]

Gandalf knew that none could see the battle, so perhaps he was allowed here to unleash his latent potential.Interestingly enough, he has no problem indicating the amount of power involved in this fight - nor even concerning the fight as Weathertop with the nazgul.
Those that looked up from afar thought that the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken into tongues of fire. Is not that enough? A great smoke rose about us, vapour and steam. Ice fell like rain. But they closed round at night, and I was besieged on the hill-top, in the old ring of Amon Sul. I was hard put to it indeed: such light and flame cannot have been seen on Weathertop since the war-beacons of old. So the power of a Ringwraith drawn from its ring trumps ordinary weapons wielded by individuals with less spiritual potency than that Ringwraith's allotment.My own impression of the passage is that if even Frodo had an armour that protected him against a "spear-thrust that would have skewered a wild boar", then the Witch-king should have a similar, if not better, armour. However, I do note that previously Gandalf stated that
"- You cannot destroy Ringwraiths [by flood]. The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him. "
the more powerful "spirit" ought to be victoriousI think that a counter-example would be the duel of Fingolfin and Melkor; Fingolfin was able to repeatedly wound his opponent, and I doubt we can compare their powers on any level. Also, Thorondor did some pretty good action there too, wounding Melkor without losing a feather.

[obloquy]

We might also extend this to the Nazgul. Tolkien said that their power was primarily in the fear that they projected, so if a character such as Eowyn has in her spirit the power to resist that fear, she may be able to overcome the power of the Nazgul and thus penetrate that barrier created by it.

Maybe. On the other hand, the Dagger of Westernesse may have done the whole job, overcoming completely the protective power of the Witch-King's ring. This idea that a power can be "broken" permanently though the body is not yet slain fits with Saruman's death. It explains why he would ultimately die to a weak creature like Grima, using no supernatural weapon. He maintained the power of his voice, that power that was peculiarly his, but he was otherwise nothing more than his physical presence.

[obloquy]

I think that a counter-example would be the duel of Fingolfin and Melkor; Fingolfin was able to repeatedly wound his opponent, and I doubt we can compare their powers on any level. Also, Thorondor did some pretty good action there too, wounding Melkor without losing a feather.

And yet Fingolfin could not have slain Melkor. His power was enough to wound Melkor--in other words, to overcome Melkor's power minorly and briefly, but not ultimately. Gandalf wounded the Balrog many times without fully overpowering him, and Gandalf was no doubt wounded himself in the battle. Had Fingolfin been in Legolas' place when the three met up with Gandalf the White, I'm sure Gandalf's comment about who might hurt him would have been different.

A good point, nonetheless.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Maybe. On the other hand, the Dagger of Westernesse may have done the whole job, overcoming completely the protective power of the Witch-King's ring. This idea that a power can be "broken" permanently though the body is not yet slain fits with Saruman's death. It explains why he would ultimately die to a weak creature like Grima, using no supernatural weapon. He maintained the power of his voice, that power that was peculiarly his, but he was otherwise nothing more than his physical presence.

This makes sense. It even carries over to Sauron's possible deaths with the one ring. Either somebody could force his will out of it (master it) or they could simply destroy it, killing him regardless.

As for power in Middle-Earth, this is not like Dragonball Z where the highest power automatically wins. Tulkas whooped Melkor good, Sauron never beat anyone, Thingol got owned by dwarves, Sam beat Shelob, upgraded Gandalf was grim/serious about a confrontation with the Witch-King, Bard killed Smaug, etc. We honestly have no idea who could win.

[obloquy]

"And forth went Morgoth, and he was halted by the elves. Then went Sauron, who was stopped by a dog and then aged men. Finally, there came the Witch-King, who destroyed Arnor, but nobody seems to remember that."

-A History of Villains

Is that actually a published book? Whoever wrote it obviously has no clue what he's talking about.

Morgoth was originally more powerful than all the other Valar combined. He was later diminished and defeated, as all enemies eventually were in Middle-earth, but that does not mean he was not the greatest being Middle-earth had ever seen. Huan was a very powerful creature, possibly Maiarin, with destiny on his side. Gil-galad, Elendil, and Isildur and their armies are not "aged men." Sauron had some bad luck with his opponents, but he was unequivocally the most powerful of Melkor's servants. The Witch-King, on the other hand, was nothing before being enslaved by Sauron, and even then he fled twice from Glorfindel. He didn't even make Gandalf flinch in their encounter, and a little Rohan woman told him to kiss off. He was then obliterated by an ancient dagger held by a Hobbit.

While I'm at it, I may as well address some of your post. First, there's no reason to believe dragons had any real spiritual power. Glaurung might be an exception, but he also might have just benefited from Morgoth exerting influence at the time of his havoc-wreaking. Second, Tulkas captured Morgoth after he had been significantly weakened. More than creating an exception to my explanation above, this gives us a better concept of Tulkas' true strength. Third, Shelob is just a distant relative to Ungoliante, not Ungoliante herself. The latter was incredibly powerful, the former was a big fat spider. Not only that, but Sting was a pretty excellent little blade, imbued with an ancient power.

And finally for good measure, I'll reiterate that Gandalf never broke a sweat in front of the Witch-King, and nobody's ever been able to produce any piece of text or any compelling argument to indicate otherwise, whereas everything Tolkien ever wrote about Gandalf supports that he was far superior to the Nerd-King.

[Boromir88]

Very fascinating stuff obloquy. You talk about the barrow-blade and as Aragorn says with other 'blades' that strike the Witch-King:
A foot above the lower hem there was a slash. 'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword,' he said. 'The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.'~Flight to the Ford
Aragorn makes the point that shouting 'Elbereth' was more deadly to the Witch-King. Also:
Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor -knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and fear both of Aragorn and especially of Frodo. But fear of Sauron , and the forces of Sauron's will was the stronger....
But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted swords made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How he had come by it - save in the barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the barrow wight; and he called on Elbereth, a name of terror to the nazgul. He was then in league with the High Elves of the Havens.~The Readers Companion; The Marquette Letter
As Raynor discussed in past threads that the Witch-King judged Frodo to be a powerful foe. Frodo's spiritual power I don't think was near the Witch-King's but Frodo did have

The Barrow-blade
Calling on Elbereth (a name that one could say has spiritual power):
Out of the deeps of Ea she came to the aid of Manwe; for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her, and feared her more than all others whom Eru made...
Elbereth they name her, and they call upon her name out of the shadows of Middle-earth, and uplift it in song at the rising of the stars.~The Silmarillion: Valaquenta
So Frodo did possess dangerous and spiritually powerful weapons that caused the Witch-King to flee...and eventually the Barrow-blade overthrew the Witch-King's power.

We might also extend this to the Nazgul. Tolkien said that their power was primarily in the fear that they projected, so if a character such as Eowyn has in her spirit the power to resist that fear, she may be able to overcome the power of the Nazgul and thus penetrate that barrier created by it.~obloquy
Another interesting point; as when Frodo struck back at the Witch-King, part of the startlement was that Frodo actually summoned the courage to strike him; as the Marquette Letter points out 'the Bearer had resisted him; had dared to strike at him.' It defintely was a shock to the Witch-King that the power of his fear was overcome by Frodo. And I think we can say the same for Eowyn...as the Witch-King is described threateningly:
Out of the wreck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her...
But she's able to overcome this and drive her sword between 'crown and mantle.'

[The 1,000 Reader]

Morgoth was originally more powerful than all the other Valar combined. He was later diminished and defeated, as all enemies eventually were in Middle-earth, but that does not mean he was not the greatest being Middle-earth had ever seen.

But he was still defeated, which was my point about stated "power levels" not telling us who'll win.

Huan was a very powerful creature, possibly Maiarin, with destiny on his side.

Dude, in the end Huan was a dog, and Sauron lost the fight and the island by his own stupidity. I'm mocking Sauron in my sig, and I feel secure in saying that many fans agree that Sauron could have handled the whole thing much better. Just because the mightest wolf will kill him doesn't mean that he's invincible until that wolf shows up.

Gil-galad, Elendil, and Isildur and their armies are not "aged men."

If I recall, Elendil was old even for a Numenorean. Also, I believe it was mentioned somewhere that Gil-Galad paled in comparison to the High-elf kings of the First Age. Also, my sig is a joke. Don't take it seriously.

Sauron had some bad luck with his opponents, but he was unequivocally the most powerful of Melkor's servants.

It becomes hard to believe that, or to fear the strength of Morgoth's servants, if the most powerful servant failed miserably time and time again. Honestly, would you think a boxer who lost far more often than he won was one of the best?

The Witch-King, on the other hand, was nothing before being enslaved by Sauron

However, he did take out Arnor and at the very least led his forces. In LOTR, he's the closest we come to an active enemy from Mordor. Sauron's just sitting in his tower the whole time.

and even then he fled twice from Glorfindel.

The first time, the realm of Angmar was doomed and there was nothing left to save, and he also was likely going to be assaulted by the remaining forces of Gondor's army, which would be annoying to deal with while fighting Glorfindel. Also, the second time he was pursuing the Ring, and a fight with Glorfindel could have allowed Frodo to escape to Rivendell.



He didn't even make Gandalf flinch in their encounter,

He didn't flinch either.

and a little Rohan woman told him to kiss off.

He told that to Gandalf also. Feanor made a vow against Eru, yet we all know that Eru is far mighter than any other character.

He was then obliterated by an ancient dagger held by a Hobbit.

Hobbits are very stealthy creatures, the blade was packing extremely powerful magic made specifically to kill the Witch-King, and Eyown would have died if it weren't for that. Also, in the books, there was no one-liner before stabbing: Eyown made haste in her move, so we don't know if he still could have done something, or if he was paralyzed like in the movie.

While I'm at it, I may as well address some of your post. First, there's no reason to believe dragons had any real spiritual power. Glaurung might be an exception, but he also might have just benefited from Morgoth exerting influence at the time of his havoc-wreaking.

I'm not talking about spiritual power. It's a stinkin' dragon. Those things are giant, powerful, breathe potent blasts of fire and some can even fly. They don't need spiritual power to be tough. Turin could have all the spirit he wanted, but if Glarung bit his head off he'd be dead.

Second, Tulkas captured Morgoth after he had been significantly weakened.

In the majority of discussions on the subject (even here) I've seen, the majority of the poster replies always state that Morgoth's Ring happened after that, and since the details didn't go any deeper, I was confused about that. At least that's cleared up. I do think that Morgoth's former place of mightest is deserved if that happened after Morgoth's Ring, yet after he made his ring his rank is lost.

More than creating an exception to my explanation above, this gives us a better concept of Tulkas' true strength.

Well, not really. He managed to take out an exhausted Morgoth, so we don't know if that was with every ounce of his strength and skill.

Third, Shelob is just a distant relative to Ungoliante, not Ungoliante herself. The latter was incredibly powerful, the former was a big fat spider. Not only that, but Sting was a pretty excellent little blade, imbued with an ancient power.

I know that, but the fact still stands that a tired and starving hobbit from the Shire took on such a large and powerful beast in combat and won. If "initial stats" were to decide the fight, then Sam would likely have lost.

And finally for good measure, I'll reiterate that Gandalf never broke a sweat in front of the Witch-King,

The Witch-King didn't break a sweat either, in case you forgot.

and nobody's ever been able to produce any piece of text or any compelling argument to indicate otherwise, whereas everything Tolkien ever wrote about Gandalf supports that he was far superior to the Nerd-King.

That's a load of bull. Essex alone has produced enough texts to show that Gandalf wouldn't have won with ease, and your opinion is drastically effecting what you see as a "compelling arguement." I still remember you manipulating a quote from the books in an attempt to mislead me a year ago, so forgive me if your credibility is not so good in my view.

As a last comment, once again, that's low as heck as to insult my signature and call me stupid for it.

[Boromir88]

I disagree with this hole notion of Sauron being 'stupid.' Sauron never was a general, a leader, or a fighter, but in no ways does that make him stupid. Sauron was a brilliant tactician, deceiver, manipulator, and powerful enemy.

Have you forgotten that with words alone Sauron sent Numenor spiralling into chaos and destruction?

Have you forgotten that the Ring's will (which was Sauron's) was so powerful that no one had the strength to destroy it:
At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist...~Letter 246
The Ring was ultimately destroyed because of Eru's intervention. The Ring's power was so strong no one had the strength of will to destroy it.

Have you forgotten Sauron's brilliant strategy when it came to the War of the ring? His strongest enemy was Gondor, so it was Gondor who he would focus most of his strength on. What does Sauron do, fill Denethor's mind with dread and despair sending Gondor's ruler to madness. To prevent other 'outside help' coming to Gondor's aid and prevent the 'great alliance' that was gathered against him at the end of the Second Age; he had effectively tied up all of Gondor's possible allies.

Rohan was Gondor's strongest ally, he corrupts Saruman and gets Saruman to keep Rohan busy. Saruman (with Grima's help) corrupts Theoden, sends Rohan to it's near destruction...It's not Sauron's fault Saruman couldn't get the job done and do what he was supposed to.

From Dol Guldur Sauron attacks Mirkwood, keeping them occupied.

He sends an Easterling force to Dale and Erebor to keep the Dwarves and men there occupied.

Orcs from Moria assault Lorien to keep them occupied.

Sauron's strategy was a brilliant one. He isolated his strongest enemy (Gondor) from outside help and kept Gondor's allies from uniting together into a strong alliance. The only wrinkle in the plan was Saruman was unable to deal with Rohan...which isn't Sauron's fault.

So, as obloquy correctly observes, it's not Sauron was stupid, he was unlucky. Sauron never was a fighter, he never was a general, that we know...that does not mean he was stupid. Looking from a military perspective what he did during the War of the Ring was a brilliant strategy.

You have to recognize the extraordinary circumstances that took place to cause Sauron's defeat. The Ring's destruction didn't happen because Sauron was a fool, no it happened because of intervention by Eru. As constantly made clear there was no hope of a military overthrow of Sauron...so Sauron could of spent as many troops as he needed to. Yet he still devised a tactical plan that isolated his strongest enemy and prevented the Free Peoples from making this 'grand alliance.'

I would also have to say Sauron was a very powerful individual considering this:
Three times Lorien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself.~Appendix B: Tale of Years, The Great Years.
Sauron obviously was powerful enough to overthrow the power that dwelt in Lorien. Which is no small feat considering Galadriel was the most powerful of the Noldor (save for Feanor).

[CSteefel]

As for power in Middle-Earth, this is not like Dragonball Z where the highest power automatically wins. Tulkas whooped Melkor good, Sauron never beat anyone, Thingol got owned by dwarves, Sam beat Shelob, upgraded Gandalf was grim/serious about a confrontation with the Witch-King, Bard killed Smaug, etc. We honestly have no idea who could win.
Pretty nice summary

[obloquy]

That's a load of bull. Essex alone has produced enough texts to show that Gandalf wouldn't have won with ease, and your opinion is drastically effecting what you see as a "compelling arguement." I still remember you manipulating a quote from the books in an attempt to mislead me a year ago, so forgive me if your credibility is not so good in my view.

Essex has provided exactly zero arguments for anything. His entire existence seems to be dedicated to declaring as annoyingly as possible that the weak can overcome the mighty, and yet his most cogent argument to that effect to date is some soccer game that happened decades ago. And please be more specific about this text I supposedly manipulated to deceive you.

As fine and comprehensive as Boromir's post is, Sauron doesn't need his help. Sauron was Morgoth's greatest servant, period. The Witch-King derived any power he ever had from Sauron: the servant is not greater than the master. Any criticism of Sauron's vicious record is ignorant Witch-King fanboy fantasy.

Anyway, I'm tired of repeating myself about things that any old chump can figure out with a little research in Tolkien's published writings. If you're only in this thread to fight with me about who is awesomer, please respond to my post in the movies forum.

[davem]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the original post, there seems to be an assumption that the physical forms of Gandalf & the Balrog (or The Witch King for that matter) are of the same nature. I don't think this can simply be assumed - Gandalf has a physical body not unlike that of the Children - it ages for one thing. The 'physicality' of the Balrog is of a different order - 'shadow & flame'. Obviously the Balrog has some degree of physicality - it can hold things, fall down chasms etc, but it doesn't seem to be an 'Incarnate' in the same sense as a Human or Elf. The Witch King is physically invisible (in the natural world at least) so his hroa is also fundamentally different to that of other incarnates.

Oh, & Shelob isn't a 'big fat spider' she is 'an evil thing in spider form' - which probably supports your argument in a way....

[Raynor]

Gandalf has a physical body not unlike that of the Children - it ages for one thing.I agree (empahsis added):
For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years. Obviously the Balrog has some degree of physicality - it can hold things, fall down chasms etc, but it doesn't seem to be an 'Incarnate' in the same sense as a Human or Elf.Ditto
Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.

[Thenamir]

Allow me to digress away from pure Tolkiana for a moment to make a point that will hopefully steer (or drag) this thread back on-topic.

Many years ago in my ill-spent youth, I was acquainted with several friends who were avid Dungeons & Dragons players, though I myself never found the time to become proficient at it. One friend in particular had over time built up a mighty warrior character – strong, skilled, equipped with high-powered weaponry and armor, an extremely able fighter who was darn near invincible. The player was naturally proud and somewhat cocky about his avatar. Which goaded his fellow-players into trying to figure out a way of bringing his character down.

For one game a fellow-player generated a pair of very small characters, probably hobbits or something like, endowing almost their entire allotment of skill-points into speed and dexterity – minimal strength, minimal intelligence, and all of 1 hit-point – meaning a single touch from an opponent would kill them. At the appropriate moment, the fellow-player loosed these nearly-disposable characters upon Mr. High-and-mighty. To all appearances the fight looked to be over before it had begun.

What happened next nearly brings tears of laughter to my eyes even now. The little annoyance characters positioned themselves on opposite sides of the warrior. Their speed and dexterity was such that they made every evasion dice-roll whenever the warrior tried to slice one of them, but their positions made it impossible for him to try to attack them both at once. One would dodge, the other would attack. While the warrior was facing one of the hobbits, the other would use his speed and agility to come in and strike the warrior from behind. They only inflicted a tiny bit of damage with each hit, but they hit nearly every time they tried. The cocky player went from amused, to concerned, to frustrated, to livid as the throwaway hobbits slowly, gradually weakened and ultimately felled the mighty warrior in clean battle. And absolutely priceless was the look on his face as he stormed away from the table muttering “I can’t believe it! I just can’t believe it!”

I guess what I’m trying to point out here is that there is much more to sizing up a battle than the obvious accoutrements of size, strength and “spiritual power”. There are intangibles that are not always obvious to an outside observer. As has been said, it ain’t the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. I think the Wise at the Council of Elrond realized that it was outwardly folly to send a pint-sized pastoral peasant into the enemy’s home court with a veritable homing-beacon hung around his neck, but we all know who won in the end. They realized that there were factors working on their side that didn't even enter into the mind of their enemy, and worked those factors to their advantage.

As far as Gandalf-vs-Witch-King is concerned, I think even Gandalf was unsure. 'There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming. The Morgul-lord and his Black Riders have come forth. War is preparing!'It seems to me here that Gandalf is specifically saying that he knows the Morgul Lord is powerful, but does not yet know how he will measure up in a direct confrontation.

To say that Gandalf does not flinch when the confrontation finally occurs says more to me about Gandalf's resolve, not so much his confidence in victory. Gandalf knows he is where he needs to be, doing what he is required to do, and is calm in that knowledge, whatever the outcome. Personally, I would have loved to see a bit of a scrap between them before the horns of Rohan call him away, but alas, such was not to be. As Treebeard said to Gandalf at the end, ‘Well, come now!’ he said. ‘You have proved mightiest, and all your labours have gone well.' But he could not say this until Gandalf had been tried and found victorious.

Just my two cents worth.

[obloquy]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the original post, there seems to be an assumption that the physical forms of Gandalf & the Balrog (or The Witch King for that matter) are of the same nature. I don't think this can simply be assumed - Gandalf has a physical body not unlike that of the Children - it ages for one thing. The 'physicality' of the Balrog is of a different order - 'shadow & flame'. Obviously the Balrog has some degree of physicality - it can hold things, fall down chasms etc, but it doesn't seem to be an 'Incarnate' in the same sense as a Human or Elf. The Witch King is physically invisible (in the natural world at least) so his hroa is also fundamentally different to that of other incarnates.

Oh, & Shelob isn't a 'big fat spider' she is 'an evil thing in spider form' - which probably supports your argument in a way....

I don't think the Balrog's hroa is different than Gandalf's. We don't have any text saying that Balrogs were incarnate, but there are good arguments for the case. The most compelling is the fact that those Balrogs who were slain in the First Age (Gothmog and Glorfindel's Bane, at the very least) never resurface to cause more trouble, and Gandalf's slaying of Durin's Bane appears to be quite final. Had these Maiar been merely clothed--embodied but less than incarnate--they would have been capable of taking a new shape when they were "slain." The Balrog's "shadow and flame" does not indicate that he is more ephemeral in hroa than Gandalf, only that he exerts his power in a visible display. It's something Gandalf would be capable of doing if he chose to disobey the guidelines for his mission. For example, that lightning and ice on the peak was surely Gandalf's doing and not the Balrog's, both being antithetical to the Balrog's spiritual nature.

You're right to draw distinctions between simply "clothed" spirits and incarnate ones, and the topic of the Balrogs is open to debate. After all, if they were less than incarnate then there's no need to wonder if they had wings: they could have had them when they chose to. It just seems more likely that Balrogs, like their master and Sauron, had become permanently incarnated. Aiwendil also recently reminded me that the incarnation of the Balrogs is not a fact made explicit by Tolkien, and he's right, but here's part of my response to him:Additionally we recognize the affinity Tolkien's mythos have with biblical stories of the corruption of angels to the service of the devil. In those stories the angels were corrupted not just by affiliating themselves with Satan, but by indulging in activities that were reserved for true incarnates, particularly sex relations. While this is not evidence in itself, Tolkien makes the specific point that an eala could become bound to its hroa by habitual indulgence in such activities (he specifies eating and begetting offspring), and it seems unreasonable to presume that these corrupted Maiar (who were said to be corrupted by dark gifts, if I remember correctly) would have abstained more assiduously than their masters.

---

Invisibility also does not indicate a fundamentally different hroa. Bilbo and Frodo both became invisible for a time and were yet never changed from their incarnate nature. The invisibility of the Ringwraiths may be different than that conferred by The One Ring, but still the Ringwraiths are not disembodied fear. They are Men by nature, so the destruction of the hroa results in death. Sauron obviously did something really twisted with them, but there's no indication that they ever died (and thus are not necromantic); they appear simply to have faded into their LotR state, meaning that they are still merely Men.

[obloquy]

Great post, Thenamir. I'm really glad to see you paying attention to The Books again.

[davem]

I still think we are dealing with different kinds or states of Hroa - some 'natural', some magically enhanced; some 'set' (as with the Eruhini & the Istari) & some more 'plastic'. There is no reason to assume all 'hroa' are of the same physical nature. H2O may be variously solid (ice), liquid (water) or gaseous (steam) in various circumstances. It changes easily - which could be the case with the Balrog's hroa (as seems likely to me). The Witch-King's hroa seems different to that of Frodo & Bilbo - for one thing its sinews are 'magically' knitted together by spells. I didn't argue that the WK was 'hroa-less' merely that his hroa was of a different nature to what it had been before he took service of Sauron & received a Ring.

[obloquy]

It's a tempting concept, but Tolkien never gave any more detail than discarnate, "clothed", and incarnate. There's every indication that the final incarnate stage of an eala is the same corporeal state that the Children are born in. The differences in hroa that you describe would not be out of place in the "clothed" category, but the Istari, Melian, Sauron, and Morgoth (our concrete examples of fully incarnate ealar) all apparently ended up exactly like the Children. They could no longer conceal their evil through manipulation of their hroar (in Sauron's and Morgoth's cases), and they were powerless without hroar. Shapeshifting doesn't seem to be possible for any incarnate being, regardless of original nature. If a Balrog changed shape, he must have been merely "clothed" and not incarnate; but if he was only deprived of a physical raiment rather than truly slain, then Gandalf's sacrifice was vanity.

(I have not forgotten about Beorn, but he is somewhat anomalous, at least as mysterious as Tom Bombadil, if not more. Additionally, he comes from a time when Tolkien's concept of embodied spirits did not include a "clothed" provision, and were either discarnate or incarnate.)

[davem]

(I have not forgotten about Beorn, but he is somewhat anomalous, at least as mysterious as Tom Bombadil, if not more. Additionally, he comes from a time when Tolkien's concept of embodied spirits did not include a "clothed" provision, and were either discarnate or incarnate.)

Now, not feeling up to scanning through HoM-e I'm going to be depending on you for the answer to this question, but what period are we talking about in terms of Tolkien's thoughts on the 'discarnate, "clothed", and incarnate' alternatives - were these thoughts in place during the writing of LotR? If we look at the Chronology of the HoM-e texts here (http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/md_hmch.html) don't we see these ideas belonging to the post LotR period? And so, isn't Tolkien 'writing back' into LotR? I think its clear, for instance, that the ideas on mental communication as set out in Osanwe Kenta were not developed when Tolkien had Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel & Celeborn communicating telepathically in 'Homeward Bound'. Were Tolkien's ideas on the relationship of fea to hroa fully developed when he was writing LotR - & if not, can we apply them 'backwards' to events in LotR?

BTW, this is a genuine question, as I say, not having HoM-e immediately to hand...

[Raynor]

As far as I am aware, the first time when the 'clothing' idea appears is in the Annals of Aman:
"Note that 'spouse' meant only an 'association'. The Valar had no bodies, but could assume shapes. After the coming of the Eldar they most often used shapes of 'human' form, though taller (not gigantic) and more magnificent".

At the same time the passage concerning the Valarindi, the Children of the Valar, at the end of $4 was struck out (as it was also on the top copy), since this note is a most definitive statement that any such conception was out of the question. Concerning the dating of AAm, Chris says that:
The work undoubtedly belongs with the large development and recasting of the Matter of the Elder Days that my father undertook when The Lord of the Rings was finished Regarding Tolkien's essay on thought transmission, Osanwe kenta, Chris says that:"there seems to be no reason to doubt that it belongs to 1959-60" - after the publishing of LotR.

[obloquy]

I think you're right davem. It was my understanding that the two states of embodiment were first defined as unique in writings later than LotR, but now that I'm briefly flipping through X: Morgoth's Ring I'm not so sure. There was a letter I read from the early '50s wherein Tolkien makes no distinction between the two degrees which led me to believe that he had not fully fleshed out the topic at that point, but he may only have been simplifying the explanation for his correspondent. Unfortunately, Letters has a terrible index, so it will take me a while to find it again, and then to answer your question I will have to compare it with contemporaneous versions of the first chapters of the Sil. If nobody else pipes up with this information before I get around to it, I'll do what I can to find out. I'm sure Aiwendil or lindil could answer this off the tops of their respective heads.

All of my points/arguments in this thread relate to what I understand to be Tolkien's latest ideas on the subject. He was pretty careful to build around LotR rather than in contradiction with it, and I'm sure he considered the later concepts compatible with those already in print. That said, he didn't leave us anything like my original post above. It may not be exactly how he imagined it, but he didn't tell us exactly how he imagined it. I have merely tried to draw a more complete picture.

Edit: Thanks for the research, Raynor.

This thread has a lot in common with my other threads and shares a lot of the same research, so I'll link to them here for reference: Ëalar and Incarnation (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5879) and The Powers of the Istari (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2412).

[davem]

All of my points/arguments in this thread relate to what I understand to be Tolkien's latest ideas on the subject. He was pretty careful to build around LotR rather than in contradiction with it, and I'm sure he considered the later concepts compatible with those already in print. That said, he didn't leave us anything like my original post above. It may not be exactly how he imagined it, but he didn't tell us exactly how he imagined it. I have merely tried to draw a more complete picture.

Oh, I can see a lot of value in your speculations - I don't disagree with it in its essentials. I was just posing questions that occurred to me.

[The 1,000 Reader]

I disagree with this hole notion of Sauron being 'stupid.' Sauron never was a general, a leader, or a fighter, but in no ways does that make him stupid. Sauron was a brilliant tactician, deceiver, manipulator, and powerful enemy.

However, there is the major topic of the fight with Huan, and often times he played right into the hands of others. While he did have some smarts, he also failed to use them in critical moments, which makes him a rather odd character.

Have you forgotten that with words alone Sauron sent Numenor spiralling into chaos and destruction?

I am aware, but Numenor appeared on a bad track without Sauron's help. In my opinion, he just sped up the process, putting himself in the way of danger and giving the elves and the survivors the right to place the blame on him, making himself a major target. If he sat idly by (say, didn't arrogantly proclaim himself king of the world) when Numenor fell, the survivors and the elves would be more depressed and broken in will.

Have you forgotten that the Ring's will (which was Sauron's) was so powerful that no one had the strength to destroy it:

I am aware of that also, but I don't see a will as his brain as well. It just seemed to be his desires.

The Ring was ultimately destroyed because of Eru's intervention. The Ring's power was so strong no one had the strength of will to destroy it.

I know, but having power is not a sign of intelligence. He did have power, yes, but he made some awful blunders.

Have you forgotten Sauron's brilliant strategy when it came to the War of the ring? His strongest enemy was Gondor, so it was Gondor who he would focus most of his strength on.

I know of that, but he did not use enough strength. The Morgul host (even though Pippin did stir problems) was sent early, and Mordor certainly had enough power to crush Gondor whenever, yet he never lent it to the Witch-King or sent it out.

What does Sauron do, fill Denethor's mind with dread and despair sending Gondor's ruler to madness.

I do admit, that was a good maneuver. However, that still doesn't cover up his poor choices.

To prevent other 'outside help' coming to Gondor's aid and prevent the 'great alliance' that was gathered against him at the end of the Second Age; he had effectively tied up all of Gondor's possible allies.

True, but time itself was tying them up also. The elves were much weaker of will and wanted to be by themselves or to travel to the West. They were not as critical as they were in past times. As easily seen in LOTR, the time of men had come, and the elves were shadows of the world.

Rohan was Gondor's strongest ally, he corrupts Saruman and gets Saruman to keep Rohan busy. Saruman (with Grima's help) corrupts Theoden, sends Rohan to it's near destruction...It's not Sauron's fault Saruman couldn't get the job done and do what he was supposed to.

That is true, but Saruman did not have much time or freedom to prepare. The hosts of Dol Guldur could have been used to help instead of being thrown against the isolated Lothlorien.

From Dol Guldur Sauron attacks Mirkwood, keeping them occupied.

Yes, but the elves were quite isolated and rather weak-willed in that time, and the hosts of Dul Guldur would have been better-used to assault the elves only if they took action to help man. Keeping the elves busy was not as important as it might have been in the First or Second Age.

He sends an Easterling force to Dale and Erebor to keep the Dwarves and men there occupied.

I honestly don't recall that, but that does seem smart, seeing as how Erebor might be one of the few dwarven kingdoms not content to flee beneath their mountains, and Dale seems like it would quickly help Gondor.

Orcs from Moria assault Lorien to keep them occupied.

Well, like I said earlier, Lorien wasn't very interested in the world, so it wouldn't have taken that much attention to trouble them. The hosts that attacked Lorien may have been better off assisting the hosts that tried to do Saruman's work.

Sauron's strategy was a brilliant one. He isolated his strongest enemy (Gondor) from outside help and kept Gondor's allies from uniting together into a strong alliance. The only wrinkle in the plan was Saruman was unable to deal with Rohan...which isn't Sauron's fault.

Actually, more forces from Moria could have helped Saruman, and seeing as how it is implied that the Corsair forces could have won at the Pelenor, Rohan didn't turn out to be as mighty as it might have been.

So, as obloquy correctly observes, it's not Sauron was stupid, he was unlucky. Sauron never was a fighter, he never was a general, that we know...that does not mean he was stupid.

I know that too. However, Sauron's brain failed him at the most critical of times over and over again, which seriously damages his image of being a wise and mighty foe.

Looking from a military perspective what he did during the War of the Ring was a brilliant strategy.

Not that brilliant, but some brain-power was used.

You have to recognize the extraordinary circumstances that took place to cause Sauron's defeat The Ring's destruction didn't happen because Sauron was a fool, no it happened because of intervention by Eru. As constantly made clear there was no hope of a military overthrow of Sauron...so Sauron could of spent as many troops as he needed to. Yet he still devised a tactical plan that isolated his strongest enemy and prevented the Free Peoples from making this 'grand alliance.'

I know all of that. I am simply pointing out key flaws in his actions, and the key flaw in his plans was a sudden disinterest in locating the Ring once his wars began, as well as his severe arrogance as to the possibility of the Ring being destroyed. After Eru himself sank Numenor and split the world in two you'd think that at the very least he would have had some concern of divine intervention, even if it was a psychopath falling over. He also was dreadfully afraid of someone using the Ring against him, which is very confusing considering that his will would prevail over the weilder and they wouldn't be able to use its full force. Is it possible that he forgot its potency, could the Ring have been more easily mastered than one thought, or was this a plothole?

Sauron obviously was powerful enough to overthrow the power that dwelt in Lorien. Which is no small feat considering Galadriel was the most powerful of the Noldor (save for Feanor).

I know that he was powerful, but his lack of brain-power was his major fault. While he could have caused Lothlorien to fall, he might have made a serious error or fail to use his power effectively, thereby causing him to fall instead.

Just because it could have happened, doesn't mean it would have happened.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Going back a bit to the original topic, what about Feanor? I doubt anyone in Middle Earth had a stronger will than he, but he was destroyed in the height of his glory by mere Balrogs ;).
As we hear, the will was not overthrown, but he was killed by phisycal means, namely a whip from another Balrog. If we go by the hypothesis that if you are strong in will you are inpregnable to physical hurt, how is this possible?

[The 1,000 Reader]

Save for possibly Eru or Tom, it isn't. Middle-Earth is odd and mysterious, but in the end if a guy with a powerful will gets his head cut off, he is dead. While the will of a person stands out, it does not grant them any extreme powers or immortality. Examples; Feanor died, Morgoth was defeated, Sauron was defeated, Thingol (who seemed pretty intent on those Silmarils at the time) was taken out by Dwarves, a balrog killed Glorfindel, Hurin was still taken captive, the Witch-King was taken out by Merry and Eyown, Frodo still suffered wounds, etc. Will is important, but not that effective.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

There was a letter I read from the early '50s wherein Tolkien makes no distinction between the two degrees which led me to believe that he had not fully fleshed out the topic at that point, but he may only have been simplifying the explanation for his correspondent.
Whilst I have no way of knowing which letter you meant, I've managed to track down some references to incarnation. The earliest I could find was from 1957, but I didn't go very far back into the 1940s; if the letter was earlier, then it probably remains to be found.

According to the mythology of these things... though of course a creature, [Sauron] belonged to the race of intelligent beings that were made before the physical world, and were permitted to assist in their measure in the making of it.

...

They were self-incarnated, if they wished; but their incarnate forms were more analogous to our clothes than to our bodies, except that they were more than are clothes the expression of their desires, moods, wills and functions.

...

After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the downfall of Númenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit, which might be called the 'will' or the effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the realization of its imagination).

Extracts from letter #200, to Maj. R. Bowen, 25 June 1957

I give the comments on Sauron's re-incarnation after the War of the Last Alliance since I believe it may be of some interest in this debate, particularly since it has a bearing on the respective places of will, spirit and body in Tolkien's cosmogony.

It was because of their love of Eä, and because of the part they had played in its making, that they wished to, and could, incarnate themselves in visible physical forms, though these were comparable to our clothes (in so far as our clothes are a personal expression) not to our bodies. Their forms were thus an expression of their persons, powers, and loves. They need not be anthropomorphic (Yavanna wife* of Aulë would, for instance, appear in the form of a great Tree.) But the 'habitual' shapes of the Valar, when visible or clothed, were anthropomorphic, because of their intense concern with Elves and Men.

[Tolkien's footnote given below]

* It is the view of the Myth that in (say) Elves and Men 'sex' is only an expression in physical or biological terms of a difference of nature in the 'spirit', not the ultimate cause of the difference between femininity and masculinity.

Letter #212 to Rhona Beare. Draft continuation of Letter #211 (14 October, 1958)


These two expressions of the relationship between the naturally discarnate and their bodies seem to spring from a concept that had found its way into the Silmarillion material as early as the late 1930s, albeit in a very inchoate and undeveloped form.

But others, and among them were many of the wisest and fairest of the Ainur, craved leave of Ilúvatar to enter into the world and dwell there, and put on the form and raiment of Time...

Now the Ainur that came into the world took shape and form, such even as have the Children of Ilúvatar who were born of the world; but their shape and form is greater and more lovely and it comes of the knowledge and desire of the substance of the world rather than of that substance itself, and it cannot always be perceived, though they be present. And some of them, therefore, took form and temper as of female and some as of male.

HoME V, The Lost Road and Other Writings. Ainulindalë.

Footnote 19 to p. 162 of my 1993 HarperCollins paperback edition ends with the statement: "This is the first statement in my father's writings concerning the 'physical' (or rather 'perceptible') form of the Valar, and the meaning of gender as applied to them."

I only give the HoME reference since it appears to mark a terminus post quem for Tolkien's thoughts on incarnation. It would appear that a kernel of his ideas concerning the spirit and the body existed prior to the composition of LR and that it developed significantly during the writing of this work.

I must apologise in advance if the following veers too far off-topic. Debate continued in the thread that gave rise to this one, but remained as off-topic for Movies as before. I've therefore decided to respond here to various points related to this debate so as to allow that thread to get back on track.

But isn't that rather the point being made in this discussion? That, regardless of the relative "power" of the combatants, there is always remains the possibility that "circumstances" will allow the weaker to prevail. In any confrontation, it is not a foregone conclusion that the higher in relative (natural) power will gain the victory.

Originally I was going to post exactly that argument, but it rapidly occurred to me that this is only true when a weaker character on the 'good' side is faced with a more powerful 'evil' character, and in all cases divine providence clearly has a hand. The most extreme example of the weaker apparently overcoming the strong is surely Frodo's destruction of the Ring, which unbodies a Maia to the extent that he cannot re-form his hröa. Of this action, Tolkien had the following to say.
There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not 'arrange' the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story.

...

But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

Extracts from Letter #191 (draft) to Miss J. Burne (emphasis mine).

It seems clear to me that Tolkien meant characters like Frodo to be reliant in the end on divine providence, as enabled by their own virtuous actions, for which we need an evil that cannot be resisted. The idea that W-K could expect the same sort of help against Gandalf seems to me quite unlikely.

But in the context of the work, lack of victory would have made all ennoblement equal to zero. If they failed, there won't be any noble or sanctified beings - you cannot divide these two.

But that would be to argue that the physical world is the only meaningful plain of existence in Eä, which it clearly isn't. Tolkien is quite clear that the soul has an existence separate from the body and a life that outlasts it; therefore every spiritual development has meaning even, one might say especially, after death. In any case, the unqualified statement that failure will result in no noble or sanctified beings cannot possibly be true: the Valar are sanctified and noble beings, as are the Eldar in Aman. Besides, in Tolkien's model of courage nobility is valuable irrespective of its success in material terms, as I pointed out in my last post on the Movies thread.

Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great.
...
They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies

Aren't you contradicting yourself concerning this 'policies' issue?

No, and the two examples I gave on the other thread ought to have clarified my point beyond misunderstanding. Whilst to overturn something is to affect it dramatically, one can affect something dramatically without overturning or defeating it. The key word here is unassisted: Frodo and Sam are aided in their quest by most of the warriors of Middle-earth at one time or another; Merry comes by his sword with the assistance of Tom Bombadil, and he and Éowyn assist one another in the destruction of the Witch-King. Unassisted also carries the deliberate qualification that Eru's interference can be traced throughout the victories against the odds in LR.

The involvement of Eru in the victories of the weak is not a puppet show. The mercy inherent in assistance is earned only by supreme resistance to evil and overwhelming courage, and Tolkien's whole approach to the issue is designed to underline the idea that Providence cannot simply be relied upon, but manifests itself when strength has been exhausted in its service. The relationship between providence and free will has been debated in English since the language first existed, and T.A. Shippey refers to Alfred the Great's addition to his translation of De Consolatione Philosophiae (an excellent starting point) in his own examination of the theme in LR. To be brief, Alfred wrote:

Ac ðæt ðætte we hatað Godes foreþonc ond his forsceawung, þæt bið þa hwile þe hit ðær mid him bið on his mode ær ðæm þe hit gefremede weorðe, þa hwile ðe hit geþoht bið. Ac siððan hit fullfremed bið, þonne hatað we hit "wyrd"

But that which we call God's providence and his foresight, that exists as long as it is there with Him in His mind before it is brought about, as long as it is thought about. But when it is accomplished, then we call it "fate".

Alfred, froforboc (De Consolatione Philosophiae), ch. 39 (my translation)


But 'fate' is an imperfect translation of OE wyrd. Shippey argues that a better one would be "luck", saying:

People can 'change their luck', and can in a way say 'No' to divine Providence, though of course if they do they have to stand by the consequences of their decision. In Middle-earth, one may say, Providence or the Valar sent the dream that took Boromir to Rivendell. But they sent it first and most often to Faramir, who would no doubt have been a better choice. It was human decision, or human perversity, which led to Boromir claiming the journey, with what chain of ill-effects and casualties no one can tell. 'Luck', then, is a continuous interplay of providence and free will, a blending of so many factors that the mind cannot disentangle them...

The Road to Middle-earth, 3rd ed. p.173.

The point being that in this as in other great philosophical questions, Tolkien had found a middle ground that gave equal importance to both extremes. I think that it demeans his subtlety to suggest that a story in which the good must give credit to their creator for their victories on his behalf (he says in Letter #183 that "[The conflict] is about God, and His sole right to divine honour") is in some way a meaningless parade of automata.

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat.

But this is a strawman of my argument.

Actually it's a reductio ad absurdum of your argument that "Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong." As far as I can see this says quite clearly that the weak can destroy something which is not indestructible, and my analogy was simply provided to demonstrate how something can be beyond the powers of the weak to defeat (the weak in my example being me and the strong Dover Castle) without being indestructible. If the original argument has proven to be a straw man I did not make it so.

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT

Since Rico Abrahamsen states that some critics did see ofermod as "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", I will take your bolded statement with a grain of salt.

Whilst you are quite welcome to do so, Raynor, you might wish to consider another post of mine on the subject (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=512773&postcount=20), which is based on the arguments of the very critics to whom Mr. Abrahamsen refers. With all due respect to the Valar Guild (http://valarguild.org/), they have yet to be acknowledged as an authority on Germanic philology; and with all due respect to Mr. Abrahamsen (http://valarguild.org/varda/Tolkien/encyc/articles/authors/Dreamlord.htm), a degree in English/American studies and Rhetoric from the University of Wisconsin in Madison does not equip one to comment on the finer points of Old English semantics. Nor does it trump the PhD and Chair held by Helmut Gneuss, who mentions the interpretation given in Abrahamsen's essay precisely never in his exhaustive semantic analysis of the word ofermod. The nearest any commentator appears to have got to an interpretation 'supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form' is Professor J. B. Bessinger's vague description of the term as 'a traditional heroic fault'. In any case this entire point is redundant, since Abrahamsen (or should I call him 'Dreamlord'?) only mentions this supposed meaning of ofermod in the introduction to an argument which accepts Tolkien's view, supported by Gneuss' later work, that the word means 'pride', specifically sinful pride or Latin superbia. The entirety of his approach to Túrin and Fëanor (http://valarguild.org/varda/Tolkien/encyc/papers/dreamlord/stages/ofermod.htm) is based on this negative interpretation, and he throws in his rather clumsy reference to the vast body of research on ofermod in acknowledgement of a wider debate, of which he says himself "This is obviously not the place to settle that linguistic difference of opinion."

Of course, I'm no more than an apprentice philologist, but I think you'll find me a more reliable source in this instance than Wikipedia.

[obloquy]

Hot Esty!!!

They were self-incarnated, if they wished; but their incarnate forms were more analogous to our clothes than to our bodies, except that they were more than are clothes the expression of their desires, moods, wills and functions.

This is the letter I mentioned above; thanks for hunting it down.

Originally I was going to post exactly that argument, but it rapidly occurred to me that this is only true when a weaker character on the 'good' side is faced with a more powerful 'evil' character, and in all cases divine providence clearly has a hand.

The very nub of it, I believe. I brushed up against this point in my dismissal of Essex' reference to David and Goliath, though I failed to package it in such an easy-to-swallow gel-cap.

Anyway, great post with some excellent references. Thanks, Squatter!

[Raynor]

Originally I was going to post exactly that argument, but it rapidly occurred to me that this is only true when a weaker character on the 'good' side is faced with a more powerful 'evil' character, and in all cases divine providence clearly has a hand.However, the divine always has a hand, as seen in Manwe's vision from the Silmarillion, or from Tolkien's notes in the Athrabeth. The question is whether this 'hand' significantly reduces, or if it nulifies, the value of the weak's contribution to victory. I hold that it doesn't.
In any case, the unqualified statement that failure will result in no noble or sanctified beings cannot possibly be true: the Valar are sanctified and noble beings, as are the Eldar in Aman.My position is that in a complete reign of evil there exists no free will, and therefore no ennoblement or sanctification. The same would be true for Arda if evil wins, or for any extent of this hypothetical reign - Ea or beyond it.
Whilst to overturn something is to affect it dramatically, one can affect something dramatically without overturning or defeating it.I disagree that a policy which is 'dramatically affected' remains the same or can produce the same effects as initially.
The mercy inherent in assistance is earned only by supreme resistance to evil and overwhelming courageIf I understand you correctly, you presume that divine internvetion occurs only when it is earned. I know of no such principle in Tolkien's work. Eru acts according to his own plans; "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves" (Athrabeth).
my analogy was simply provided to demonstrate how something can be beyond the powers of the weak to defeat (the weak in my example being me and the strong Dover Castle) without being indestructible.However, this discussion is about confronting another person, not an object. I don't want to venture into other analogies, however possible or impossible they may seem.
I think you'll find me a more reliable source in this instance than Wikipedia.Wikipedia was not my source, not that it matters. You should look at the very post you yourself linked, since among the meanings appears "great, high courage", "great courage", which is similar to what I quoted, and which refutes your previous statement that "in no way does [ofermode] equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT".

[obloquy]

Going back a bit to the original topic, what about Feanor? I doubt anyone in Middle Earth had a stronger will than he, but he was destroyed in the height of his glory by mere Balrogs ;).
As we hear, the will was not overthrown, but he was killed by phisycal means, namely a whip from another Balrog. If we go by the hypothesis that if you are strong in will you are inpregnable to physical hurt, how is this possible?
I think my use of the word "will" may be misunderstood. In my post above, I call spiritual power "will" because it is a clearer term than "power." I explained it there, but I do not mind going over it again here. In Tolkien, creatures whose nature is immaterial are described as "great" or "powerful." The nature of this greatness and power is vague: for example, how can "great" mean merely large, or how can "powerful" mean merely strong? Certainly the spiritual stature of an eala translates into these and other (physical) parameters when they take on corporeal shape, but these beings are great and powerful on the spiritual plane first and foremost, meaning that the terms defining their stature are not only relevant of embodied ealar. So we have to consider what this power might mean in a metaphysical sense, which I have defined as the force of will. When not embodied physically, a contest between two beings involves the clash of their wills, one finally overcoming the other. Tolkien put this event into human terms when he described the Music. Sound is produced and perpetuated by physical means and is thus a phenomenon native to the physical plane; the "Music of the Ainur" must therefore be a name applied to some metaphysical interplay of wills, which was experienced by the Ainur as one of the Children experiences music. Melkor's voice (again, a human term applied to something else) overpowered the others and created discord, the effect of which was disharmony in the physical manifestation of that "music."

The hypothesis is not that spiritual power results in invulnerability. The idea expounded above is that this overpowering will on the spiritual plane translates into a mastery over the physical: not only the physical material that comprises the body of the eala, but also, evidently, that which he wishes to exert power over, such as electricity, fire, water, doors, weapons. This means that in order for a powerful embodied spirit to be in physical danger, he must be confronted by a being with a greater mastery of the physical--that is, a being with a more powerful spirit. So no, of course Gandalf was not invulnerable. Neither was the Balrog, though it was, in Gandalf's words, "a foe beyond any of [the Fellowship]."

Save for possibly Eru or Tom, it isn't.
Why might it be possible for Eru? According to you and Essex, spiritual power has nothing to do with physical vulnerability. So, God or not, if someone sneaked up on Eru and planted a dagger in his heart while he was sleeping, he would be toast. If you would like to propose an exception for Eru you are going to need an argument to back it up. How, exactly, might Eru's physical manifestation be fundamentally different from other embodied spirits?

Why might it be possible for Tom? I would really love to see some support for this suggestion. Even if you could make a case for Tom being invulnerable, which you cannot, you would not be able to claim that his invulnerability was an exception to nature's law rather than evidence of its functioning as I have outlined.
Middle-Earth is odd and mysterious, but in the end if a guy with a powerful will gets his head cut off, he is dead. While the will of a person stands out, it does not grant them any extreme powers or immortality...Will is important, but not that effective.
You wholly misunderstand the topic post.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

However, the divine always has a hand, as seen in Manwe's vision from the Silmarillion, or from Tolkien's notes in the Athrabeth. The question is whether this 'hand' significantly reduces, or if it nulifies, the value of the weak's contribution to victory. I hold that it doesn't.

I think we're arguing at cross-purposes and that we agree on this point. I argued in my posts in Movies that the divine will is essential to victory, but I have also argued that this does not nullify the actions of the 'good' or the 'weak'. Eru is absolutely central to LR:
The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person to be an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-king, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

Letter #183: Notes on W.H. Auden's review of The Return of the King (c.1956)

Since Eru is central to the entire question it makes sense that he would support those who remained faithful to him in their struggle. However, since Morgoth had corrupted the very substance of Arda they fought at a disadvantage, their inherent qualities being insufficient to victory. They are therefore reliant on divine intervention for ultimate victory, but this does not devalue their struggle, in fact it lends it nobility. Their only source of hope in their battle is estel ('trust'); like Andreth they have no recourse to amdir, which would be supported by the knowledge of greater strength or ultimate victory.

The second author's note to the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth stresses the great importance of estel to the Eldar:

[The Elves] knew themselves to be limited by Arda; but the length of its existence they do not seem to have known. Possibly the Valar did not know. More probably they were not informed by the will or design of Eru, who appears in the Elvish tradition to demand two things from His Children (of either Kindred): belief in Him, and proceeding from that, hope or trust in Him (called by the Eldar estel).

HME X. Athrabeth, p.338.

What the Athrabeth makes abundantly clear is that belief in Eru and trust in Him are the two most important qualities, in fact the only two qualities demanded of the Children of Ilúvatar; but it also makes clear that these were the most difficult qualities to sustain in Arda Marred. Significantly the major factor in Gandalf's strategy against Sauron is estel: the hope that something will turn up; the trust in Providence.

I further suggested that free will and divine intervention must meet one another half-way. In both of these points I am supported by Tolkien, as luck would have it in the same letter. As seems so often to be the case, it concerns Frodo and the pivotal moment at the Sammath Naur.

...we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.

I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.

We are finite creatures with absolute limitations upon the powers of our soul-body structure in either action or endurance. Moral failure can only be asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of its limits, and the blame decreases as that limit is closer approached. [Tolkien continues in a footnote]: No account is here taken of 'grace' or the enhancement of our powers as instruments of Providence. Frodo was given 'grace': first to answer the call (at the end of the Council) after long resisting a complete surrender; and later in his resistance to the temptation of the Ring (at times when to claim and so reveal it would have been fatal), and in his endurance of fear and suffering. But grace is not infinite, and for the most part seems in the Divine economy limited to what is sufficient for the accomplishment of the task appointed to one instrument in a pattern of circumstances and other instruments. [End of footnote]

Nonetheless I think it can be observed in history and experience that some individuals seem to be placed in 'sacrificial' situations: situations or tasks that for perfection of solution demand powers beyond their utmost limits, even beyond all possible limits for an incarnate creature in a physical world - in which a body may be destroyed, or so maimed that it affects the mind and will. Judgement upon any such case should then depend on the motives and disposition with which he started out, and should weigh his actions against the utmost possibility of his powers, all along the road to whatever proved the breaking point.

Letter #246: to Mrs. Eileen Elgar (drafts). September, 1963.

Frodo has succeeded because he was lent 'grace': his inherent powers were amplified by divine will so that he could succeed in his quest; but even in this letter, Tolkien is walking a tightrope between Providence and free will, because he makes the amount of divine assistance only make up the difference between the power required to do something and the chosen instrument's inherent ability to do it. If Frodo had fallen short of his utmost powers, the grace appointed to him would have been insufficient, and his quest would have failed.

My position is that in a complete reign of evil there exists no free will, and therefore no ennoblement or sanctification. The same would be true for Arda if evil wins, or for any extent of this hypothetical reign - Ea or beyond it.

You seem to be suggesting that Sauron or Morgoth can institute a complete reign of evil if successful. Are you sure that this is possible in Tolkien's universe? Surely for that to happen Absolute Evil, with which Tolkien denied having any dealings, would have to establish absolute power over Arda in despite of Eru, which your own quotation from the Athrabeth ("He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves") refutes. What Tolkien meant in this quotation is, I think, that no individual is capable of preventing the fulfillment of Eru's will, not that an individual cannot refuse Providence. Providence is the assistance received in the struggle to fulfill the divine will as its instrument, such as was granted to Frodo as described in Tolkien's letter quoted above. Providence can always find another instrument, just as the refusal of Faramir's dream, and the replacement of him with Boromir still results in the reduction of Sauron. How matters would have transpired had Providence been heeded no-one can tell.

Furthermore, given its context and the general tone of the Athrabeth, I should say that this quotation also suggests that no-one can wrest Arda from Eru's ultimate authority. At another point, Finrod says:
'... Eru will surely not suffer Melkor to turn the world to his own will and to triumph in the end. Yet there is no power conceivable greater than Melkor save Eru only. Therefore Eru, if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor, who must else proceed to mastery, then Eru must come in to conquer him.

'More: even if Melkor (or the Morgoth that he has become) could in any way be thrown down or thrust from Arda, still his Shadow would remain, and the evil that he has wrought an sown as a seed would wax and multiply. And if any remedy for this is to be found, ere all is ended, any new light to oppose the shadow, or any medicine for the wounds: then it must, I deem, come from without.'

HME X, Athrabeth, p. 322

Tolkien himself once wrote to his son during the Second World War:

All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects'... All we know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always the soil for unexpected good to sprout in. So it is in general and so it is in our own lives.

Letter #64 to Christopher Tolkien, 30 April 1944. Emphasis mine

So nobility and sanctity are always important, if not vital, even in defeat. Moreover, Eru is considered capable of himself entering Arda to fight Melkor for control of it. In any case I just can't see how even Morgoth could rob another spirit of its free will, which is an inherent part of its nature as laid down by Eru. Even he has to resort to trickery and manipulation to get characters to do his will.

Wikipedia was not my source, not that it matters. You should look at the very post you yourself linked, since among the meanings appears "great, high courage", "great courage", which is similar to what I quoted, and which refutes your previous statement that "in no way does [ofermode] equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT".

I'm sorry for suggesting that. I lost my temper. Yes, I did miss that interpretation, which has indeed been put forward and quoted by Gneuss in his article. Then again, it appears at the beginning, where Gneuss identifies meanings that editors and other interpreters have put forward as a prelude to his main argument. That argument thoroughly refutes any such interpretation, since it reveals that it is not supported by linguistic evidence, only personal feelings about a text's meaning. Even were this not so, I would argue that "great, high courage" and "great courage" are not "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", which is far more eulogistic even than that already insupportably positive meaning. Similarity is not enough in this field; only exact correspondence of meaning will do, owing to the different nuances of meaning that two phrases invariably offer. As it happens, 'great courage' is the least supportable meaning for ofermod anyway, since the only evidence for it is a gut feeling that the Maldon poet would not have applied a term implying sinfulness to the hero of his work. As you will have noticed from the rest of my post, in all other situations in which the word occurs it does not mean 'courage', 'great courage', even 'over-courage' (in Old English ofer- is a prefix that denotes excess), but 'pride'. The sinful pride of Satan or the impenitent sinner. This is the interpretation that has the most linguistic evidence behind it, although it is still not a closed matter.

"Supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form" goes beyond the tenuous evidence and into the realms of fiction. Rico Abrahamsen has no qualifications in the field of Old English literature, and the chances are that he misremembered some old criticism or outdated research. Certainly he gives no citation, which is absolutely vital even if one makes no more than a vague reference to the Anglo-Saxonist equivalent of the Balrog wings debate. Without a reference to follow up, I can't respond to an argument, only a statement that is clearly not based on a full understanding of the issue, so my exasperation with the argument falls entirely on Abrahamsen's undeserving head. He did after all admit that the debate about ofermod was not an appropriate discussion for his paper, and the whole matter is a side-issue to his arguments.

The idea that ofermod can be used as shorthand for the Northern heroic theory of courage has no currency or validity whatsoever. This is what I meant by the phrase 'in no way does it equate to': if a word equates to an idea then they are interchangeable, and the one may stand for the other. Ofermod was never used in that way during the Anglo-Saxon period, and it has never been so used by any modern scholar. Since the theory itself is not widely known outside medieval literary studies, I'll give a very brief synopsis.

One of the most important themes identified by scholars in Anglo-Saxon poetry, a theme which extends beyond England throughout the Germanic world, is a particular approach to martial courage which is taken to be uniquely northern. In one introduction to the idea, Catherine O'Brien O'Keefe wrote:

The ethos of heroic life pervades Old English literature, marking its conventions, imagery and values. The touchstone of that life - as represented in Old English literature at least - is the vital relationship between retainer and lord, whose binding virtue is loyalty. Continuing loyalty is ensured in the lord's giving of treasure. Through gifts of worth, a lord enhances both his own reputation and that of his retainer, and he lays upon his man the obligation of future service. In the transaction of the gift, the object given - ring, armour, horse or weapon - becomes the material reminder of the retainer's reciprocal obligation, when war service or vengeance is required.

Katherine O'Brien O'Keefe: 'Heroic Values and Christian Ethics' in Godden and Lapidge ed. The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1998). pp. 107-8.

This idea of reciprocal loyalty and obligation runs through the whole corpus of Old English literature. Its phraseology and imagery are adopted into Christian works such as Andreas and Genesis B, into riddles and maxims from the Liber Exoniensis and into elegiac poems such as The Wanderer; and Tolkien followed W.P. Ker in singling out The Battle of Maldon as exemplary of the concept. At its most pronounced, the northern heroic theory of courage could demand retainers' very lives in defending or avenging their lord, but this sacrifice would always be bound up in the giving and receiving of gifts and reciprocal responsibility. Hence Tolkien says of it

The words of Beorhtwald have been held to be the finest expression of the northern heroic spirit, Norse or English; the clearest statement of the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will. The poem as a whole has been called 'the only purely heroic poem extant in Old English'. Yet the doctrine appears in this clarity, and (approximate) purity, precisely because it is put in the mouth of a subordinate, a man for whom the object of his will was decided by another, who had no responsibility downwards, only loyalty upwards.

[i]The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son: Ofermod in Tree and Leaf (HarperCollins, 2001).

This was not a theory that was necessarily put into practice, but it does form a key element in the Anglo-Saxon literary world-view: the idea that heroic conduct is bound up in concepts of mutual loyalty and responsibility between fighting men. This is the Northern Theory of Courage: loyalty to the absolute limit of endurance and beyond, but carrying so many cultural overtones that one word could never sum it up. There can never be an equality of meaning between this concept and a single word of Old English, although many of them are directly related to it. Certainly if there were such a correspondance it would not be one that carries the negative connotations of ofermod; and all of the linguistic evidence points to it having this negative sense, no matter how many others it may also possess. When it comes to Tolkien, though, there is even less excuse for formulating such an equation. Tolkien flat-out stated that ofermod means 'pride':

To fela means in Old English idiom that no ground at all should have been conceded. And ofermod does not mean 'overboldness', not even if we give full value to the ofer, remembering how strongly the taste and wisdom of the English (whatever their actions) rejected 'excess'... But mod, though it may contain or imply courage, does not mean 'boldness', any more than Middle English corage. It means 'spirit', or when unqualified 'high spirit', of which the most usual manifestation is pride. But in ofer-mod it is qualified, with disapproval: ofermod is in fact always a word of condemnation. In verse the noun occurs only twice, once applied to Beorhtnoth, and once to Lucifer.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son: ofermod (Tree and Leaf, footnote to p.146

Whatever the word and the theory respectively mean, to Tolkien ofermod (ofermode is the dative form, and the convention is to use nominatives when discussing words) meant 'pride' and the Northern Heroic theory of courage was exemplified by a man in whom pride was at its lowest. There is no way that he would conflate these two ideas in his writings, and I can think of no instance in which he does.

obloquy: These are great points; but if we take the speculations of the Athrabeth to their logical conclusion, the Elves and some of the Edain hold to some belief in the incarnation of Eru. Tolkien seems to have been unhappy with the obvious connection with the Christian story of the incarnation of Christ, but the parallels are striking. Could it be that Eru incarnate would be vulnerable to physical injury and death in the same way as was Christ? Would he have to obey the same physical laws as all inhabitants of Arda if he came into his own creation? The Athrabeth points out that Eru would need to be at once inside and outside Arda, thus being divided and presumably reduced in potency in the incarnate form; so it bears consideration that perhaps Eru incarnate could be stabbed in the back and physically killed.

[davem]

obloquy: These are great points; but if we take the speculations of the Athrabeth to their logical conclusion, the Elves and some of the Edain hold to some belief in the incarnation of Eru. Tolkien seems to have been unhappy with the obvious connection with the Christian story of the incarnation of Christ, but the parallels are striking. Could it be that Eru incarnate would be vulnerable to physical injury and death in the same way as was Christ? Would he have to obey the same physical laws as all inhabitants of Arda if he came into his own creation? The Athrabeth points out that Eru would need to be at once inside and outside Arda, thus being divided and presumably reduced in potency in the incarnate form; so it bears consideration that perhaps Eru incarnate could be stabbed in the back and physically killed.

If Eru is omnipotent then incarnation would not have to 'divide' him at all (any more than one can divide infinity in two & lessen it). He would only be 'reduced in potency' if he chose to be - or if, as in Christianity, the 'reduction in potency' was a necessity for the kind of 'redemption' he sought to bring about. Of course, like Aslan, it could well be that Eru had to die in order to defeat Morgoth finally - perhaps the hroa Eru incarnated into would be of the corrupted matter of Arda & Eru was to go through a 'resurrection', 'purifying' that very matter in an act that would create ripples throughout the stuff of Arda - the 'pure', unmarred resurrected form of Eru would act like a 'water purification tablet' (to put it crudely). One could certainly see that this would require Eru to incarnate - however much of a 'parody of Christianity it may have seemed to Tolkien.

[Raynor]

in fact the only two qualities demanded of the Children of IlúvatarI would agree with that, as long as the first quality, belief in Him, implies all the universe of moral values and actions.
he makes the amount of divine assistance only make up the difference between the power required to do something and the chosen instrument's inherent ability to do it.I can only agree with this argument on the base that Eru has omniscience and knew in fact what will be the necessary amount of grace. However, I believe that a more accurate interpretation would be that Eru grants grace as the current circumstances require, and not more or for anything else (that is, grace is not established apriori at a fixed amount, if we can so speak). As we both have argued and quoted, He would not be deprived of his Children, no matter their shortfallings.
You seem to be suggesting that Sauron or Morgoth can institute a complete reign of evil if successful. Yes. This is "theoretically" possible, since Gandalf states that:
If he regains it, your valour is vain, and his victory will be swift and complete: so complete that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts. You yourself have quoted that if Sauron won, he would have demanded absolute power over the world; also at the last debate, it is made clear that through military power Sauron cannot be defeated. So, while Sauron is not Absolute Evil (as stated in the letters), he could have, strictly military speaking, won.
if a word equates to an idea then they are interchangeableI would express my reserve, although I have close to zero qualification in this field. In many languages, many words can have not one, but more, different meanings, a good amount of them dependant on the context. However, I will accept your interpretation and I will apologise in my turn for bringing it up, by presuming in the other thread that it was ofermode you had in mind.
Could it be that Eru incarnate would be vulnerable to physical injury and death in the same way as was Christ?I wouldn't agree. I don't think he would require an embodiment; even the Valar have the ability to work many things with thought, rather than hand (cf Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor), and they may also send messages (as does Olorin, who sends fair visions, or promptings of wisdom, cf Valaquenta). Even so, there are examples of substances which cannot be destroyed, such as those of the halls of Mandos. All in all, it all comes down to power, of which Eru would have, arguably, in unlimited supply at an instant disposal, and he can, at least from outside, influence events to His own ends.

[Mansun]

Sauron vs. Your Mama??? The thread title is a poor one.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Why might it be possible for Eru? According to you and Essex, spiritual power has nothing to do with physical vulnerability. So, God or not, if someone sneaked up on Eru and planted a dagger in his heart while he was sleeping, he would be toast. If you would like to propose an exception for Eru you are going to need an argument to back it up. How, exactly, might Eru's physical manifestation be fundamentally different from other embodied spirits?

Eru is the omnipotent creator of Middle-Earth, and his power is limitless. He is also the highest form of life in all ways in Tolkien's works, and we barely know anything about him. He created the Valar, sank Numenor, and is supposed to destroy Arda and purge it of Morgoth's will, and then remake it into a paradise. With such power, his will alone could likely grant invincibility to any physical form he takes, seeing as how he is so mighty.

Why might it be possible for Tom? I would really love to see some support for this suggestion. Even if you could make a case for Tom being invulnerable, which you cannot, you would not be able to claim that his invulnerability was an exception to nature's law rather than evidence of its functioning as I have outlined.

Tolkien wrote very little of Tom Bombadil other than the sheer power he held, his personality, and that he was an enigma. He is a complete mystery, yet we know that he has total mastery of the area he lives in, can easily take out Barrow-Wights, and was totally uneffected by the One Ring, showing that he possesses great strength in his spirit and will. As you yourself probably know, countless fans are puzzled by Tom Bombadil and constantly wonder what his nature is or where he came from. The reason Tom's will alone might be able to render him impervious to harm is because all that is known of him is that he has great power. He could be tougher than steel or as weak as grass; nobody knows, but he could be either.

You wholly misunderstand the topic post.

The topic is about power in Middle-Earth, and I've said that will is important but not
that important. How is that a misunderstanding? With the defeat of characters like Feanor by Gothmog and Thingol by the dwarves, will is clearly not all that matters in Tolkien's world. Gandalf and the Balrog fought each other with magic, but in the end it was the Balrog falling off an edge and hitting the side of the mountain that ultimately killed it.

[obloquy]

Could it be that Eru incarnate would be vulnerable to physical injury and death in the same way as was Christ? Would he have to obey the same physical laws as all inhabitants of Arda if he came into his own creation? The Athrabeth points out that Eru would need to be at once inside and outside Arda, thus being divided and presumably reduced in potency in the incarnate form; so it bears consideration that perhaps Eru incarnate could be stabbed in the back and physically killed.

I think Iluvatar would enjoy de facto invincibility regardless of whether his "incarnation" entailed diminution. Iluvatar's power, if it was not unlimited, was at least immeasurably greater than that of all other beings. His will (or power on the spiritual plane) could not be subverted or overcome, and therefore his power (on the physical plane) must be absolute. If anyone could have resisted his will it would have been Melkor in his primeval state, and yet Iluvatar claims that Melkor's resistance was vanity and that His own will would prevail despite him. Even when Melkor creates dissent, he is incapable of challenging Iluvatar for primacy and must have been aware of this: certainly Iluvatar did not create a being greater than himself.

The above, in order to respond directly to your hypothetical question, takes for granted Iluvatar’s incarnation. However, if Iluvatar needed to enter his creation, there would be little reason for him to become fully incarnate. A discarnate spirit need only assume physical "clothing" in order to interact with the physical. This avatar might be vulnerable to physical attack, but even if its matter was rendered useless the resident force would remain unharmed, and nothing would prevent Iluvatar from retaking shape. And yet we are still taking certain things for granted: we are supposing that Iluvatar would enter into the world in the same manner that his discarnate creations did, which is quite an assumption.

That said, I even disagree with the idea that Iluvatar would have to enter Arda to repair Melkor’s mar. Why might he? It’s a tempting idea for obvious reasons, but unlike Judeo-Christian theology, Tolkien’s mythology does not create this necessity. In the Bible, Christ (believed to be God by most, including Tolkien) was required to enter the world in order to provide a ransom for and redeem mankind. There is no such demand for perfect justice in the Legendarium. Finrod and Andreth give us Athrabeth at a time when Melkor runs rampant, uncontested; in their eyes Melkor’s defeat would require the physical presence of Iluvatar himself, the only being mightier than Melkor. That is not how things pan out, however. Melkor diminishes himself as the Morgoth and is eventually overpowered and imprisoned. According to Myths Transformed Melkor’s “person” (my term) is eventually executed, leaving only his disseminated power and his “taint” that is woven into the fabric of the physical world. We don’t know exactly how this might have been ultimately corrected, but I can see no benefit to Iluvatar’s physical presence within Arda. In fact, I believe the subversion of the wills of all other metaphysical powers (those Valar weaker than Melkor—in other words, all of them) in the primeval Music and the subsequent corruption of all physical creation can only be corrected by a power untouched by this physical aspect, and ever unaltered by this metaphysical influence. I think, therefore, that Arda can only be unmarred in the manner originally conceived by Iluvatar, which did not actually entail his personally overthrowing Melkor as Andreth speculated would be necessary; rather, Melkor essentially overthrew himself: gradually he squandered his power on evil, and eventually the strength of Good was able to overtake him. Iluvatar’s grand design for the complete mending of Arda might have been similarly gradual, subtle, and poetic.

[Raynor]

I believe the subversion of the wills of all other metaphysical powers (those Valar weaker than Melkor—in other words, all of them) in the primeval Music and the subsequent corruption of all physical creation can only be corrected by a power untouched by this physical aspect, and ever unaltered by this metaphysical influence.I think you touch a very important point here. I could only argue with the following. The physical presence of a 'mythological' power greatly increases its influence. We know for example that Sauron would have been greatly advantaged in a direct confrontation:
In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn. In the contest with the Palantir Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. We also know that the presence of the valar has a great effect on its vicinity - they effectively resist/removed Melkor's physical marring in Aman.
For it is not the land of Manwe that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the landAnother important aspect to be considered is that actual association with great spirits elevates one immensely:
A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless. In their association with the warring Eldar, Men were raised to their fullest achievable stature, and by the two marriages the transference to them, or infusion into Mankind, of the noblest Elf-strain was accomplished, in readiness for the still distant, but inevitably approaching, days when the Elves would 'fade'.I would say that the two combined effects, over matter and over psyche, would be very good justifications. Plus, what a once in a lifetime opportunity :).

[Mansun]

Sauron vs. Your Mama -----> this sounds so awful for a thread name, typical lower class american slang.

[Bêthberry]

Sauron vs. Your Mama -----> this sounds so awful for a thread name, typical lower class american slang.

This is the second time you've objected to the thread title, Mansun, so perhaps a reply is in order.

Frankly, I find the title very funny, and I'm not even American. That humour arises from the very outrageous juxtaposition between the great villain and the American slang and to me is a reminder not to take the debate too seriously. "Power" seems to be a favourite topic among the guys here and bringing in "your Mama" tweaks that, to my way of thinking. (Of course, I could be wrong and oblo had no intention of providing a laugh at his own topic.)

If you search some of the long ago threads you will find that Downers often came up with outrageous or silly thread titles. Maril of the Long Nick was especially noted for this, as were Underhill and Sharkey, although in a more dry mode, even in the Books forum.

The rancor on the thread I don't find funny, though. Too much of the macho power tripping and not enough of the thread title humour.

We all have different tastes, you see. :)

[davem]

Frankly, I find the title very funny, and I'm not even American. That humour arises from the very outrageous juxtaposition between the great villain and the American slang and to me is a reminder not to take the debate too seriously.

This creeping Americanisation I'm sure would have appalled Tolkien. Could this thread not be renamed 'Sauron vs. your Mater'?

[Bêthberry]

This creeping Americanisation I'm sure would have appalled Tolkien. Could this thread not be renamed 'Sauron vs. your Mater'?

Somehow I think, davem, given the varieties of style and languages Tolkien uses in his work, that he will get the joke without having his patriotism or philological pride too bruised. It's such a precioussss line, after all.

[CSteefel]

Sauron vs. Your Mama -----> this sounds so awful for a thread name, typical lower class american slang.
Not exactly "lower class", more like black ghetto slang.

I took it as a joke...

[Mansun]

Somehow I think, davem, given the varieties of style and languages Tolkien uses in his work, that he will get the joke without having his patriotism or philological pride too bruised. It's such a precioussss line, after all.

I think such slang should be punished with a slap of cold water from the Mirrormere!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This is the second time you've objected to the thread title, Mansun, so perhaps a reply is in order.

Frankly, I find the title very funny, and I'm not even American. That humour arises from the very outrageous juxtaposition between the great villain and the American slang and to me is a reminder not to take the debate too seriously. "Power" seems to be a favourite topic among the guys here and bringing in "your Mama" tweaks that, to my way of thinking. (Of course, I could be wrong and oblo had no intention of providing a laugh at his own topic.)

If you search some of the long ago threads you will find that Downers often came up with outrageous or silly thread titles. Maril of the Long Nick was especially noted for this, as were Underhill and Sharkey, although in a more dry mode, even in the Books forum.

The rancor on the thread I don't find funny, though. Too much of the macho power tripping and not enough of the thread title humour.

We all have different tastes, you see. :)

Bêthberry's comments on the reason for the thread title are excellent - its main purpose is to enable a topic to distinguish itself from others and make it easy for readers to find a specific discussion. It is much better to have an unusual, humorous title than something generic like "I have a question" (which says absolutely nothing helpful) or "What about Tom Bombadil?" (how many TB threads are there?!).

However, the topic is the basis for subsequent posts, not the title. I therefore suggest that discussion here gets back to the topic at hand. Only moderators and administrators can change the title, and I see absolutely no reason to do so.

[alatar]

Not sure that this thread matches well with my thoughts, and not sure I will express my thoughts well, but hope that however it goes that it will lead to some civil discourse...

In the beginning, in the Christian Bible, Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. These two subsequently were tempted by Satan, fell into sin and were made to leave Paradise. After which, though long-lived, Adam and Eve were afflicted by time, disease, toil and all of the fun that goes along with living outside of Paradise. In the end, like us all, they returned to the dust from which they came.

In the beginning, with the rising of the sun, the first men (humans) awoke in Arda. At first they toddled around a bit, but some, learning from the Firstborn, grew wise and great. After a huge battle, the humans were given their own island, but they fell into sin (not for the first time) and were mostly drowned. Since then their days have been shortened and they too enjoy all of the fun of time, disease and toil.

---

We have what Tolkien may have believed, and what he wrote about. How are these two comparable, and how are they discordant? But first, let me explain what I'm really asking:

As I understand the Christian religion, Adam and Eve were made perfect, or nearly so. This perfect or near perfection, it is argued, is why they lived long and were not adversely affected by inbreeding as deleterious mutations were not present until many many generations later. Regardless, these two fell when tempted by Satan. Were Adam and Eve like you and me, easily swayed (assuming you're easily swayed)? Or was Satan more powerful then, able to tempt even the First Two? Has Satan become more or less powerful since the beginning, or has his power stayed about the same?

Not that we're discussing Christianity, but we need to consider what Tolkien may have been considering when he wrote about men in his secondary world.

Seems to me that, in the beginning, Melkor was the one-stop-shop for evil. Sure, he had his crew, but, in the First Age, if you were looking for evil's source, you drove northward. In later ages, as Morgoth sold franchises and subfranchises ad nauseam, you needn't drive for more than a few miles to get some evil. Sure, this evil wasn't as pure (or powerful) as stuff from that one store way up north that existed long ago, but it still did the job, especially as you didn't need the same amount like in the past when those pesky elves and Edain were around.

With Hurin, you had to drive north, but with Ted the drive wasn't so long.

So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?

As I see it, if we graphed the trends, in one view you would see the following (see graph, and note that the lines are just to show trends and do not relate to each other...much):

Thoughts?

[obloquy]

My thoughts in answer to your main questions: Were Adam and Eve like you and me, easily swayed (assuming you're easily swayed)? Or was Satan more powerful then, able to tempt even the First Two? Has Satan become more or less powerful since the beginning, or has his power stayed about the same?
Adam and Eve's fall from perfection brought sin into Man's makeup. To paraphrase a scripture: "through Adam sin entered the world, and death through sin." Adam and Eve's nature was thus different from all their offspring in that they chose to sin, while all mankind after them were predisposed to sin. With the obvious exception of Christ, of course. Christ's nature provides evidence of this fundamental flaw in humanity: the only way for him to remain sinless on Earth (which was a necessary component of his mission) was for him to be conceived by holy spirit rather than being anointed from among (relatively) faithful "natural" humans.

Was Satan more powerful then? I don't think so. According to scripture, it was after Adam's sin that Satan was joined in his rebellion by other angels--an event that must have made him a much more effectual power, though he was not personally enhanced. There's also no evidence in the scriptures to suggest the kind of power dynamic that exists in Tolkien whereby Satan would be able to deplete his natural potency by malicious deeds. We can only assume that Satan himself has remained the same as he always was, but has become more powerful through his constantly tightening hold on the world and, as scriptures indicate, his increased focus on Earth as his last day gets nearer.

So why were Adam and Eve so easily tempted? When Satan deceived Eve, he told her that if she ate, her eyes would be opened and she would know good and bad. Therefore, before eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were unaware of any course of action contrary to the wishes of God. When they listened to Satan and chose to sin, their eyes were opened because now they knew that they could ignore the commands of God--they were, after all, created with free will, just as the angels were. Furthermore, the existence of the tree in Eden seems to indicate that God may have intended for them to be confronted with their free will at some point. Maybe Satan just put it in front of them before they were "mature" enough to face the test, or maybe they were ready and simply failed. In either case, that original question that Satan raised--Can Man "guide his own step?"--is the same one that was transferred into Christianity as a central theme. Christian teachings thus urge disciples to put faith in God's eventual correction of this world rather than in Man's efforts.

[Bêthberry]

Seems to me that, in the beginning, Melkor was the one-stop-shop for evil. Sure, he had his crew, but, in the First Age, if you were looking for evil's source, you drove northward. In later ages, as Morgoth sold franchises and subfranchises ad nauseam, you needn't drive for more than a few miles to get some evil. Sure, this evil wasn't as pure (or powerful) as stuff from that one store way up north that existed long ago, but it still did the job, especially as you didn't need the same amount like in the past when those pesky elves and Edain were around.

With Hurin, you had to drive north, but with Ted the drive wasn't so long.

So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?

As I see it, if we graphed the trends, in one view you would see the following (see graph, and note that the lines are just to show trends and do not relate to each other...much):

Thoughts?

Gives me the willies thinking of poor Santa up North there all alone, resisting Melkor.

What if you look at this question a slightly different way, in terms of the conservation of energy. Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil? If Evil = Energy, then the Law of Conservation of Evil would state that Evil cannot be created or destroyed. Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in.

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced? Was Paradise an endlessly expanding concept or would it have gotten really crowded? On the other hand, if Adam and Eve were made in the image of the Great Creator, wouldn't that have meant they would naturally want to sub-create? Friction of course changes energy.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I found al's post a fascinating conundrum. And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

[alatar]

Gives me the willies thinking of poor Santa up North there all alone, resisting Melkor.
But he's a tough ole Nick, and he lords over the last remaining kingdom of elves, and so he has that going for him. Note that Santa scooped up those that 'fell along the way' during the crossing of the Helcaraxë...kinda throws a different light on the jolly one. Hmmm.

What if you look at this question a slightly different way, in terms of the conservation of energy. Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil? If Evil = Energy, then the Law of Conservation of Evil would state that Evil cannot be created or destroyed. Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in.
Most excellent - the LoCoE. I would agree; note that my graph with a negative slope for Arda Evil just takes into account friction and entropy, as a little evil is lost due to Thermodynamics (those evil notes in the 'Music' dissipate into space to bounce off Varda Elentári's stars). But what about Tolkien's perception of our world? Why are these different, if indeed they are?


I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?
Not sure what you mean. As I understand it, Adam and Eve would have reproduced in Paradise, but the birthing process would have been less unpleasant. Plus nappies wouldn't have been needed (I can't reconcile Paradise and even one overfull diaper :D).


Was Paradise an endlessly expanding concept or would it have gotten really crowded?
Depends on your definition. Some persons enjoy the 'Christmas rush' at the Malls in December while I'd rather make my selection, walk to the cashier, pay and be on my way. Surely there was a plan for the additions to Paradise. Tolkien's humans awake to a world already somewhat crowded whereas Adam initially is alone in all the world (save the Lord, who spoke with him).

On the other hand, if Adam and Eve were made in the image of the Great Creator, wouldn't that have meant they would naturally want to sub-create? Friction of course changes energy.
Aulë's Sin? "I but mimic the work of my father? But must I follow in my father's footsteps? And while living in my father's house, I must abide by those rules that he set forth." Note that Aulë and Melkor were initially equal in abilities (in some sense) and one child turns to the father whereas the other turns away. In Tolkien's view of Christianity, did he see Adam as the one who turned away, and so wanted to have an example in his world where one does the right thing?


I'm not sure where I'm going with this,
Never stopped me from posting... ;)

but I found al's post a fascinating conundrum. And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.
Most definitely. Rules without some explanation only whets their curiosity. And there's that burned hand thing as well.

[Raynor]

Therefore, before eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were unaware of any course of action contrary to the wishes of God. When they listened to Satan and chose to sin, their eyes were opened because now they knew that they could ignore the commands of God--they were, after all, created with free will, just as the angels were.
Hm, isn't there a contradiction between saying that they didn't have free will previously to eating the fruit, yet they chose to listen to the snake?
So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?
I would say that evil was more powerful in the past - because: there were Melkor and Sauron, and all the other lads; evil was more concentrated, and thus harder to resist; the foundations of the world are good and able to heal the evil from "within" (cf Myths Transformed & Athrabeth).

I wouldn't know what to say about resistance to evil. In the New Shadow, and its comments, Tolkien expands on his idea that Men turn to evil due to their quick satiety with good (even if in the fourth age there is no mythological incarnation of evil anymore, cf Myths Transformed). I would say that Men, left to their own devices, would develop, as a race, a decreased resistance to evil. However, we know that Eru intervenes continuously in the world, and that such a probable outcome will be in fact avoided.
If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves.
Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in
:D
Well, M-E isn't a closed system, in relation to the Void, since Eru continuously intervenes in every age (Ungoliant didn't come from the Void, but from the darkness around Arda; upon the difference between them, Tolkien comments in his commentaries on the Silm. in Myths Transformed).
I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?
I believe so (emphasis added:
26 And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.
Is that what actually happened? Was He really inexperienced? Dostoievski envisioned Jesus as saying that:
- Why you do not perform a miracle? the Great Inquisitor asks, why you do not prove people that you are Jesus? You are only returning, but you do not rescue the world.

- People must trust in me, Jesus answers, the real trust is that trust, which is not buttressed by the facts. If I will do a miracle everyone will trust me, but the real believer trusts me without miracles.
In MT, Tolkien says that
Nonetheless this gift of Iluvatar to the Valar (the Imperishable Flame) has its own peril, as have all his free gifts: which is in the end no more than to say that they play a part in the Great Tale so that it may be complete; for without peril they would be without power, and the giving would be void.With the free will, another aspect is introduced in the nature of Men, that is, their quick satiety with good. However, to paraphrase Tolkien on the issue of carnal temptation,
Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains.
Or, from an "in-story" perspective, being attached to anything less than Eru is bound to lead to sorrow:
By the holiness of good men - their direct attachment to Eru, before and above all Eru's works - the Elves may be delivered from the last of their griefs: sadness; the sadness that must come even from the unselfish love of anything less than Eru.
Therefore, this is what it is expected of us (well, Eruhini):
More probably, [the elves] were not informed by the will or design of Eru, who appears in the Elvish tradition to demand two things from His Children (of either Kindred): belief in Him, and proceeding from that, hope or trust in Him (called by the Eldar estel).

[obloquy]

I said Adam and Eve were created with free will. Prior to Satan's interference, they were merely unaware of sinfulness--innocent like children. The only rule they were given is that they were not to eat of a certain tree, which implies that all else that might occur to them was permissible. They had free will and could do whatever they wished; the one thing that God required of them was to recognize his authority in setting limits.

Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil?
It seems silly to apply a physical law to what is fundamentally metaphysical. Maybe you're joking.

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?
Of course they would have.
And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.
I disagree with that. Were they simply tempted by something that was witheld from them, or were they deceived by the Devil? Had Satan not lied to them about God's warning ("you positively will not die"), would they have still disobeyed?

[alatar]

Is that what actually happened? Was He really inexperienced? Dostoievski envisioned Jesus as saying that:

"People must trust in me, Jesus answers, the real trust is that trust, which is not buttressed by the facts. If I will do a miracle everyone will trust me, but the real believer trusts me without miracles."
I'm sorry, but I cringe every time I read such ideas. Surely one must trust (even I try to do it sometimes ;)), but the evidence indicates that not everyone trusts even when presented with miracles. Note that Satan, Adam, Peter, Judas, etc all stood in the presence of God, witnessed miracles and yet sinned.

One of the things I like about Tolkien's world as it's not as complicated. Miracles are just someone knowing a bit more of the music than you, and having a better voice/instrument with which to express it.

I would say that evil was more powerful in the past - because: there were Melkor and Sauron, and all the other lads; evil was more concentrated, and thus harder to resist; the foundations of the world are good and able to heal the evil from "within" (cf Myths Transformed & Athrabeth).
But if you lived in the south, far from Morgoth's reach, did the more powerful evil even enter into your daily life? By the Fourth Age, the evil within men was worldwide, though in a much lesser degree than was present in the one being of Melkor.

But does this relate to Tolkien's religion?

innocent like children.
You've not met my youngest...

It seems silly to apply a physical law to what is fundamentally metaphysical. Maybe you're joking.
Think that Bêthberry might be trying to relate her thoughts to those of us that think in terms of the Laws of Physics. And she never jokes.

I disagree with that. Were they simply tempted by something that was witheld from them, or were they deceived by the Devil? Had Satan not lied to them about God's warning ("you positively will not die"), would they have still disobeyed?
Great question. If Satan could fall from grace all on his own (taking one third of the heavenly host with him), could not Adam and Eve get there too without any outside help?

One gets the feeling that Melkor was set up - trapped. I'm not in his fan club, as was indicated in this thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13859), but when I read that Manwe was set to be King of Kings, then exactly what was to be the role of his somewhat greater brother, if not to stir the pot? His powers were given him that he could antagonize and therefore strengthen in some way each of his siblings.

[Raynor]

I said Adam and Eve were created with free will.
My bad, I misread :o
But if you lived in the south, far from Morgoth's reach, did the more powerful evil even enter into your daily life?
Well, it's not like Melkor and the balrogs went from door to door converting good people, up in the north :). Balrogs exited Angband only for the greatest battles, while Melkor came out of his will only to battle Fingolfin (he might have waged many battles himself previous to getting imprisoned the first time, but that was prior to the coming of Men). However, it is likely that, during his reign, many, if not most, of all Men were still subdued by him, doing his will - due to fear, some curses of fear (as with Maeglin, for example), sheer corruption, or whatever other means he found available. Later on, with no such power figure around them, Men were increasingly capable to part from evil. I'll try later to elaborate more on this.

[alatar]

Well, it's not like Melkor and the balrogs went from door to door converting good people, up in the north :). Balrogs exited Angband only for the greatest battles, while Melkor came out of his will only to battle Fingolfin (he might have waged many battles himself previous to getting imprisoned the first time, but that was prior to the coming of Men).
What were Melkor and the Balrogs doing all day shut up in Angband? If they strove to promote their agenda, what were they doing...licking stamps?


Dear Sir or Madam,

Are you:
Tired of being pushed around by those pesky arrogant elves?
Hating having to move every time some Valar or Maiar gets an itch?
Feeling left out - forgotten - in the grand scheme?
Bored with the everyday grind and looking for something?

If you've answered yes to any of these questions, then we can help. We're Mel-Corp®, a leading business enterprise specializing in changing the world. You may have heard of us; we're located up far north past Ard-galen. We're sending you this invitation for a special seminar that we're having that will be of help to you.

Leave your checkbook at home! You might want, however, to wear any jewelry you have and bring along any interesting artefacts... This free seminar will show you how Mel-Corp is striving to set the world back on track for you.

Looking forward to meeting you!

Regards,
Morgoth Bauglir

CEO, Mel-Corp
Angband
North ME

:) just follow the dragon tracks :)


Another thought: In Middle Earth, Melkor, Sauron and Saruman exit the stage after their time, and so even if they retain a little of their 'evil' (as considered by Bêthberry's Conservation of Evil), there is less in this age. In Tolkien's Christianity (methinks), the same Lucifer that tempted Adam and Eve still roams the Earth like a lion (1 Peter 5:8), albeit on a leash. Why did Tolkien have his origin of evil leave, and how does this work with those seeing a 'message' in his work?

[Raynor]

Why did Tolkien have his origin of evil leave, and how does this work with those seeing a 'message' in his work?
Well, as we know from the Ainulindale, the true source of Melkor's actions still resides with Eru; moreover the last paragraph of the Silmarillion states that the evil seeds planted by Melkor still give fruit. In a sense, this is what made it possible for him to be defeated - he dissipated his power, he diminished himself so that he may perpetuate his works through an long lasting corruption of Arda. In a sense, the Marrer did not leave Arda; Melkor might be gone (he might even repent :rolleyes:), but his essence of evil is ever at work.

[obloquy]

Well, as we know from the Ainulindale, the true source of Melkor's actions still resides with Eru; moreover the last paragraph of the Silmarillion states that the evil seeds planted by Melkor still give fruit. In a sense, this is what made it possible for him to be defeated - he dissipated his power, he diminished himself so that he may perpetuate his works through an long lasting corruption of Arda. In a sense, the Marrer did not leave Arda; Melkor might be gone (he might even repent :rolleyes:), but his essence of evil is ever at work.

I think you're seeing the glass as half empty. As I pointed out in post 35 above, Melkor's slow self-defeat may be a foreshadowing of the gradual mending of Arda itself. The Melkor element is not necessarily evil. True, the way in which Melkor behaved as Morgoth, when he had become physical himself, was evil according to those laws of morality that govern physical beings. But wasn't Melkor's mar actually effected when his voice disrupted and overpowered those of the others during the Music? That spiritual event is what Iluvatar brought into physical existence and it continues to unfold: there are eruptions of discord and epochs of dissonance, but Iluvatar himself is its ultimate source, and if we could view it all at once, as only Iluvatar can, we might see the "grand design." The healing of Arda may not be just in spite of Melkor's efforts, but may actually be made possible only by the power of his essence and how much of it he invested in Arda, which is surely more than any other Power.

[Raynor]

The Melkor element is not necessarily evil.
I wouldn't take an utilitarian approach - that his element is not evil because it worked out for good. Also, Tolkien states in his letters that the free will of the valar was guaranteed by Eru - and Eru setting up all available options and Melkor choosing one them are different aspects. I would paraphrase Tolkien on Gollum:
Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him...I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

[obloquy]

I wouldn't take an utilitarian approach - that his element is not evil because it worked out for good.

Well that's not what I'm saying, either. Melkor's power was not evil power. I express my thoughts on this more completely in another thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11734):Classifying Melkor as "evil" is questionable. He sought to further his own purposes, and since those were in disharmony with the other themes in the Music they were resisted and this caused strife. What's interesting is that, while the Valar did not know what physical manifestation their music would have, Iluvatar did and still he did not condemn Melkor. Instead he declared that ultimately his will would be accomplished, with Melkor as his instrument.

At this point it had all been laid out for Iluvatar to see. This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father. The corruption of Arda becomes minor on this universal scale, and the "big picture" had not been altered from Iluvatar's original purpose. Melkor, at the time when he had already wrought all his corruption, was above (or outside the jurisdiction of) the concepts of "morality" or "good and bad" that we and the Children of Iluvatar are familiar with and use as guides to make our decisions. Melkor merely resisted the vision of his Creator, which he was created with the will to do and this action was apparently still within his rights. Iluvatar did chastise him, but then made it clear that the beauty of his vision had not been compromised:
In the midst of this strife, whereat the halls of Ilúvatar shook and a tremor ran out into the silences yet unmoved, Ilúvatar arose a third time, and his face was terrible to behold. Then he raised up both his hands, and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar, the Music ceased.

Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. 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.'


I think sabotaging Iluvatar's purpose was beyond Melkor's capacity.

Obviously. That's the point. All of Melkor's discord did not corrupt Iluvatar's plan, so how can we call it evil without maligning Iluvatar himself? He didn't fix the Music or remove Melkor's contribution.

....
[Iluvatar] didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

....
I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

What I've never understood is how an omniscient omnipresent infinite God could be considered 'good.' Doesn't that seem to place a limit on or anthropomorphize something beyond our understanding?
...

Good post, and it echoes my feelings on the definitions of good and evil. God isn't just "good" because he never makes an error that leads to bad, he is the ultimate good because that's what he chooses to define himself as. He is the arbiter on a tier above the two sides. Since Melkor and the rest of the Valar were installed as creators and gods of Arda, they had a similar right to do what pleased them without moral constraint. As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

[alatar]

I'm somehow drawn to the thought that, in Arda, Tolkien skirts the problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) that is an issue in his Christian religion (as I understand it). In short, in Christianity it is posited that evil exists in the world as (1) the result of man's fall and (2) a consequence of free will - you can't choose God if there is no other choice. God allows evil - or the turning away from him - in order to have free will. Skeptics consider that, at the end of all things, there will exist a heaven in which followers will have both free will and live in Paradise. If this is possible at the end, why could not God have created Eden with choice yet Perfection, where all was truly and forever good?

Anyway, in Arda we have evil, yet the world is far from perfect before humans show up. Melkor goes his own way, he thinks, and yet simply does the work of Eru. Presumably all creatures are granted free will, or at least the illusion thereof, regardless of whether they exist within or outside of Arda, yet I don't think that it was necessary for a Melkor to appear for free will to be granted. Evil is, but technically wasn't a necessity.

Make sense? I'm trying to wrap my thoughts around it as well.

[Raynor]

This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father.
...
I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.
That Iluvatar didn't remove the corruption of Melkor is due to the laws inherent in this universe:
Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.
There does seem to be a system of judgment, which can be applied even to every finite creature:
Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.
This is pretty much the same rule as applied to Gollum above, only in reverse, demonstrating the same principle: it is intention that defines the morality of an action. Gollum's actions may lead to good macrocosmically, but he did them out of wickedness, so he still is evil. On the other hand, even if one errs, but with good intent, it is not a sin.

Cf. Osanwe-kenta, we also have the existence of the axani, 'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'. According to this text, Melkor repudiated all such rules coming down from Eru. In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, there is a definition of the root of evil:
... trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.
Melkor is defined countless times as the Enemy; is he simply the enemy of the elves, or of the Men? I doubt that. From the beginning he fought against Manwe and Co, but even he is merely a vice-regent of Eru; this opposition to Manwe is in fact an opposition to Eru.
[Iluvatar] didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."
I don't think that there is much difference between containing and opposing Melkor's discord. Manwe is specifically said to be "the chief instrument of the second theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor", so the opposition between Melkor and Eru was definitely not one-sided. There is further evidence of Eru's disapproval of Melkor deeds when Tolkien reffers to the corruption of the elves into orcs:
This it may be was the vilest deed of Melkor, and the most hateful to Iluvatar.
Could anything, in fact, not have its uttermost source in Eru - esspecially when we are talking something as fundamental as a moral category, evil? I doubt that. As I mentioned previously, Eru setting up all available options and Melkor choosing one them are different aspects.
As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.
Besides the axani I already mentioned, I believe that this distinction does not take into account the fact that the valar can act without being embodied
For the Valar may work many things with thought rather than with hands, and without voices in silence they may hold council one with another.
We also know that Aule also overstepped his boundaries, he broke a rule, when he tried to make the dwarves:
Aule, for instance, one of the Great, in a sense 'fell'; for he so desired to see the Children, that he became impatient and tried to anticipate the will of the Creator... When he had made thirteen, God spoke to him in anger, but not without pity : for Aule had done this thing not out of evil desire to have slaves and subjects of his own, but out of impatient love, desiring children to talk to and teach, sharing with them the praise of Iluvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made.

The One rebuked Aule, saying that he had tried to usurp the Creator's power; but he could not give independent life to his makings...

- Behold, said the One: these creatures of thine have only thy will, and thy movement. Though you have devised a language for them, they can only report to thee thine own thought. This is a mockery of me.
Presumably all creatures are granted free will, or at least the illusion thereof, regardless of whether they exist within or outside of Arda, yet I don't think that it was necessary for a Melkor to appear for free will to be granted. Evil is, but technically wasn't a necessity.
I think we should make a difference between evil as a moral category, and Melkor as the most powerful agent of evil; indeed, the two of them exist independently. And since evil is a prerequisite of free will, and if all the valar had free will from the beginning, then evil precedes even Melkor (who, on the other hand, in the beginning at least, was pictured to be good; he fell "afterwards").

[alatar]

I think we should make a difference between evil as a moral category, and Melkor as the most powerful agent of evil; indeed, the two of them exist independently. And since evil is a prerequisite of free will, and if all the valar had free will from the beginning, then evil precedes even Melkor (who, on the other hand, in the beginning at least, was pictured to be good; he fell "afterwards").
Think that this is what I was getting at. If, in heaven, there will be free-willed spirits/souls, and, by definition, being in the presence of God cannot contain evil, why could not the Creator create a world with free will and not evil (or, again as some posit, so much)? Why the "prerequisite?"

Regardless, as I don't want to start another brouhaha, but how does evil differ in the world that Tolkien created? To me it seems that the free will - evil connection is not to the same degree, if it exists at all in Arda.

[Raynor]

Why the "prerequisite?"
Well, there might be a misunderstanding. I see the moral category of evil as anything else but an idea, a possibility, a potential, an abstract, an archetype if you will - not as an active power. Without it, no exponent of evil could exist. And without good having a counterpart, we really could not have morality, and a good chunk free will neither.

[obloquy]

Skeptics consider that, at the end of all things, there will exist a heaven in which followers will have both free will and live in Paradise.

The scriptures indicate that the paradise will be on Earth, as was originally intended. After all, why should an issue brought up by rebellious creations change God's purpose for Man? Why put them on Earth to begin with, if their real place is in Heaven? He wouldn't; Man was created expressly to live on Earth, and this is reinforced by the knowledge that there are already spirit creatures who were created to live in Heaven (angels). I recognize that this is a controverted point, but I believe this analysis makes more sense than a Heavenly reward for righteous life on Earth, as if Earth was always intended to be merely a testing ground.

If this is possible at the end, why could not God have created Eden with choice yet Perfection, where all was truly and forever good?

I believe he did. That is, all was good except direct challenge to his sovereignty, which is what Satan's lie amounted to, and also Adam and Eve's acceptance of it. Eating the fruit was just a gesture to consummate the rebellion; it's not as if that was God's favorite fruit and he simply didn't want to share it. I know this sounds like the opposite of what you said, but in order for peace to be maintained, that one principle must always be unchallenged: once Man declares that he is not subject to God, men begin to fill that vacuum of leadership and lawmaking, which (long story short) necessarily leads to strife.

That Iluvatar didn't remove the corruption of Melkor is due to the laws inherent in this universe
...
Cf. Osanwe-kenta, we also have the existence of the axani, 'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'. According to this text, Melkor repudiated all such rules coming down from Eru. In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, there is a definition of the root of evil
I recognize that Melkor/Morgoth was the Enemy. I also recognize that he committed evil. What I am saying is that before the physical manifestation of the Music, Melkor's rights were absolute and his "corruption" of the theme was within his rights as primary created being. All it amounts to is Melkor dabbling in everyone else's sauce, making it all more to his taste. He had no knowledge of how the Music would unfold when brought into being by Iluvatar. The manifestation of his discord turned out to be immoral within the physical world, but prior to that, when he originally wove his "element" into all things, there was no such inherently physical* designation. Certainly later, when Melkor was running amok within the material world, his actions were evil. The wicked things he did during the Ages had already been woven into the tapestry, so to speak, but relatively innocently; in that when his voice overpowered others in the Music, he exhibited only grandiose selfishness, not specifically murder, torture, corruption, etc.

Additionally, to reiterate what I expressed a few posts ago, Arda's healing may be possible solely because of Melkor's vast vitality, which he poured into creation more than any other sub-creator.

*in Tolkien's world, by virtue of the fact that guidelines were not laid out for the sub-creators' Music, and persistent disharmony was chastized but not "repaired". Only after the theme was brought into material being did actions take on the aspect of either good or evil within that physical cosmos. Whether morality applies solely to physical creation in our universe (and whether there is such thing as immaterial creation) is certainly debatable elsewhere.

[Raynor]

Whether morality applies solely to physical creation in our universe (and whether there is such thing as immaterial creation) is certainly debatable elsewhere.
Well, I take the liberty to give it a try, should anyone feel interested.
All it amounts to is Melkor dabbling in everyone else's sauce, making it all more to his taste.
I find it really difficult to challenge that, since I can't rely on facts or evidence, seeing that all this happens before a "humanly" conceivable world. All I can put forward are my personal thoughts. Should we agree that moral judgment can be applied before Ea, doesn't his behavior require a stricter view? I believe the problem is two-pronged; I would say the valar did have rights, to express themselves peacefully, and Melkor interfered with that, with the intention to subvert what they were doing. And if it is intention that counts, then even in a child's play, or in arts, deeds can have moral consequences. I would further argue that what they were doing had nothing trivial about it; the making of music seemed to be their primary activity, the fundamental way in which they learned about each other and of the mind of Iluvatar; this would only aggravate Melkor's subversion. However, even greater than this, seems to be Melkor's intent to challenge directly even Iluvatar. In a theist world, isn't this a sin per se? Could it be amoral to go one-on-one with the Creator, in front of everyone else? No matter how little or much he knew, isn't it a prerequisite that you treat the ultimate being with utmost respect, in each and every aspect? I believe that Melkor having the ultimate proof of the existence of Eru can only put evil at the root of his disrespect. I think that Melkor had all it took for him to make realise what he was doing, so I see both his deed and his intent as evil - with his retribution coming either then (with the humiliation in front of others), or during Ea, or afterwards.
Additionally, to reiterate what I expressed a few posts ago, Arda's healing may be possible solely because of Melkor's vast vitality, which he poured into creation more than any other sub-creator.
I don't think that this action gives him credit, since the healing wouldn't be necessary should he not have erred; I see the healing as a negative point in his activity - it is the one thing that most likely requires the greatest "effort" from Iluvatar to counter. I do see that his marring brought greater glory to Iluvatar, it gave more valor to Men (& all the others who opposed him), and these are good in and of themselves, but they most likely occur due to the active intervention of Eru, without which most likely the opposite would happen.

[davem]

Of course, Melkor may well have thought that what he was doing was 'right', that he was actually improving the Music (& later, by extension, the world). Whatever, he wasn't actually stopped by Eru - he waas even told directly by Eru that what he was doing would redound to his, Eru's, own glory - 'What you're doing will make me even more glorious!' - which could be taken as encouragement from a certain perspective.

In the end one cannot, as supreme creator, give one's Children free will & then object to the way they use it. If Eru had wanted his Children to only to do what he told them he could have made them robots. Once he creates beings with free will he gives them the ability to go against him. Melkor may simply have been doing his best. Even his desire to reduce the creation to 'chaos' may have been down to his belief that Chaos was a superior form to order. The fact is we don't have Morgoth's side of the story, & don't know his real motivation- we have his enemies' interpretation of his motives. He may well have honestly believed that his vision was superior. One would have to be able to prove that Eru's (& by extension the Valar's) vision was 'superior' in some objective sense. 'Eru was the supreme being & therefore must be right' is simply a 'Might=right' argument.

I'm not sure that Eru's behaviour, let alone his motives, are unquestionably 'right'. There's no mention of 'love' being one of Eru's motives for doing anything. His motive seems, in fact, his own glory - He doesn't, I note, condemn Melkor's dissonances because they will lead to suffering - he says, in effect 'Go ahead - what you're doing is only going to make me look even better than I do right now!'

This is the essential problem for me - either you have one supreme being who runs things Himself, or you have a pantheon of gods who argue & fight among themselves, in a conflict of order vs chaos. When Eru intervenes the Valar become robots who simply obey orders, or are sidelined.

And in the end, for me, Tolkien 's greatest works are the ones where Eru & the Valar are very much in the background & can be safely ignored - TH, LotR, CoH.

[Raynor]

'What you're doing will make me even more glorious!' - which could be taken as encouragement from a certain perspective
That certain perspective, in which a God encourages someone to persevere in evil, could not, in my opinion, be further from Tolkien's world. And there is no such mention in Eru's words:
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.
If, in the end, as I said previously, the evil of Melkor brings about good, it is only due to Eru, without whom it would not be possible. What Eru is talking about here is the final impotence of evil, or of any action set against Eru.
In the end one cannot, as supreme creator, give one's Children free will & then object to the way they use it.Why? What would impede the supreme creator to do that?
Even his desire to reduce the creation to 'chaos' may have been down to his belief that Chaos was a superior form to order.There is hardly any evidence that Melkor sought to improve creation, that is, at least in the final stages of his madness, when he would have likely turned all creation into the chaos you mentioned. And regardless of what one believes it is right, if it goes against the greater good, and if it endangers it, it cannot be possibly tolerated. This "anything goes" argument is simply incongruent with morality.
The fact is we don't have Morgoth's side of the story, & don't know his real motivation- we have his enemies' interpretation of his motives.Does that imply that Melkor could be the most misunderstood hero? That our judgment is clouded by the tortures, corruptions and destructions he perpetrated and we can't objectively judge him from a moral point of view?
He may well have honestly believed that his vision was superior. One would have to be able to prove that Eru's (& by extension the Valar's) vision was 'superior' in some objective sense.I already gave this quote (in this thread, and in other occasions when we debated):
... trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.
Denying that Eru is good is the root of evil, according to Manwe. Similar interpretations can be found in the letters, and, implicitly, in all Tolkien's work.
'Eru was the supreme being & therefore must be right' is simply a 'Might=right' argument. Might, and wisdom, and supreme goodness, etc...
And in the end, for me, Tolkien 's greatest works are the ones where Eru & the Valar are very much in the background & can be safely ignored - TH, LotR, CoH.I for one choose not to ignore Bilbo being meant to find the One Ring, Gandalf returning from beyond Creation with increased powers and Gollum falling. As you and I know from past debates, either in the works, or in the letters, these are implied/stated to be the works of Eru.

[davem]

If, in the end, as I said previously, the evil of Melkor brings about good, it is only due to Eru, without whom it would not be possible. What Eru is talking about here is the final impotence of evil, or of any action set against Eru.

Rather like a doctor giving a gun to a man he knows will go out & shoot people, because he, the doctor, knows he will be able to fix up the victims & come out looking good as a result. Eru didn't have to allow Melkor into Arda at all. If he could be expelled at the end of the FA he could have been expelled before 'Ea!'


There is hardly any evidence that Melkor sought to improve creation, that is, at least in the final stages of his madness, when he would have likely turned all creation into the chaos you mentioned. And regardless of what one believes it is right, if it goes against the greater good, and if it endangers it, it cannot be possibly tolerated. This "anything goes" argument is simply incongruent with morality.

Who determines what the 'greater good' is? Melkor's desire to destroy Arda & reduce it to nothing is, to my mind, rather akin to Eru's wiping out of Numenor. Both Eru & Melkor's intention is to destroy what they don't like.


Does that imply that Melkor could be the most misunderstood hero? That our judgment is clouded by the tortures, corruptions and destructions he perpetrated and we can't objectively judge him from a moral point of view?

Of course we can judge him from a moral point of view. We should also judge Eru from a moral point of view, & hse the same standard, not resort to 'Eru is good & therefore whatever he does is good' arguments. One can't argue that mass killing by Melkor is bad, but mass killing by Eru is good because Melkor is bad & Eru is good. That's a circular argument. Either mass killing is bad whoever does it, or its acceptable.

I for one choose not to ignore Bilbo being meant to find the One Ring, Gandalf returning from beyond Creation with increased powers and Gollum falling. As you and I know from past debates, either in the works, or in the letters, these are implied/stated to be the works of Eru.

Bilbo was only 'meant to find the Ring' by Eru long after TH was written, when LotR became the cumination of the Legendarium. The only one who 'intended' Bilbo to find the ring originally was Tolkien. I doubt many readers of LotR in the pre-Sil days thought about 'divine' intervention in LotR - unless they were religious & chose to read that into it. Personally, I find the whole experience of reading TH & LotR better if I forget Eru & the Valar out of it. I also find it interesting that at Aragorn's coronation in the first edition there is no mention of the Valar: "Now come the days of the king. May they be blessed" is what Gandalf says , "while the thrones of the Valar endure" was added in the Second ed revision - & interestingly the mention is also missed out in the movie, where they, deliberately or not, use the original version. One can perhaps see this as a result of all the 'theological' speculation Tolkien was indulging in during the late fifties/early sixties.

[Raynor]

Rather like a doctor giving a gun to a man he knows will go out & shoot people, because he, the doctor, knows he will be able to fix up the victims & come out looking good as a result. Eru didn't have to allow Melkor into Arda at all. If he could be expelled at the end of the FA he could have been expelled before 'Ea!'
Free will was guaranteed for them, as I already quoted:
Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.
There also are the axani, the rules coming down from Eru; while the valar and the rest can do what they will, their actions have consequences and will be judged against the rules that were given to them.
Who determines what the 'greater good' is?Eru, obviously.Melkor's desire to destroy Arda & reduce it to nothing is, to my mind, rather akin to Eru's wiping out of Numenor. Both Eru & Melkor's intention is to destroy what they don't like.Melkor would have destroyed everything no matter what. Numenor was destroyed only after it became the very seat of evil, where from oppression , torture, killing and blasphemy spread throughout all Middle Earth. These can hardly be compared.
Either mass killing is bad whoever does it, or its acceptable.We have already been through this, in the Akallabeth thread. My position is that the whole of Numenor was utterly corrupted due to Sauron, and its healing was not possible at that time, and its existence meant danger to the rest of the Men; even at our level, I don't see what other better solution was possible in these circumstances. Tolkien also states in the letters that the supreme inventiveness of the creator can make even a divine punishment to be a divine gift; given what living in Numenor would have meant for its inhabitants, simply their death was, in itself, a gift, as they were facing an evil they could not overcome.

For all created spirits, who is to say what should be their role, and their life length? To me, the answer is obviously Eru.
The only one who 'intended' Bilbo to find the ring originally was Tolkien.However, this is what the work is now, as Tolkien last intended for us to see it.

[davem]

Eru, obviously

So effectively we cannot judge Eru - whatever he does is 'good' simply because he does it - or in other words there is no objective standard of good & evil, 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is, & evil is whatever Eru says it is. Slaughtering tens of thousands of Numenoreans is 'good' (it cannot simply be 'necessary', let alone 'the lesser of two evils' - because if Eru commited the 'lesser of two evils he would still be committing evil. The slaughter of the Numenoreans is a morally 'good' act because Eru commits it, & Eru is the source of Good. Note, you can't argue that the destruction of Numenor (or Gollum) was intended to bring about a good result - you have to argue that the act itself was good, otherwise you are arguing that Eru will commit 'not-good' (ie 'evil') acts)

However, this is what the work is now, as Tolkien last intended for us to see it.

But TH was not written with the later intention in mind. You seem to be arguing that Tolkien 'reinterpreted' TH, & imposed a new meaning on it. Well & good, but the reader of TH in the period 1937 - 1954 (ie pre- publication of LotR) would not have read it in that way. You seem here to be arguing for the 'purposed domination of the author' (not to mention the Author), which is something Tolkien himself rejected.

[Raynor]

So effectively we cannot judge Eru - whatever he does is 'good' simply because he does it - or in other words there is no objective standard of good & evil, 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is, & evil is whatever Eru says it is. Slaughtering tens of thousands of Numenoreans is 'good' (it cannot simply be 'necessary', let alone 'the lesser of two evils' - because if Eru commited the 'lesser of two evils he would still be committing evil. The slaughter of the Numenoreans is a morally 'good' act because Eru commits it, & Eru is the source of Good. Note, you can't argue that the destruction of Numenor (or Gollum) was intended to bring about a good result - you have to argue that the act itself was good, otherwise you are arguing that Eru will commit 'not-good' (ie 'evil') acts)
I believe that there are much more issues at play; for one, the morality of an act of God cannot be judged, unless we have his knowledge, which we don't. Then, if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy.
You seem to be arguing that Tolkien 'reinterpreted' TH, & imposed a new meaning on it.
...
You seem here to be arguing for the 'purposed domination of the author' (not to mention the Author), which is something Tolkien himself rejected.
That Tolkien changed TH has well within his right, and we couldn't reasonably expect those who read only the early edition to have the same information. I am not sure what you mean by the purposed domination of the author in this case, but the author is certainly expected to structure the story to whatever level of information he considers it necessary; this is what it is transmitted to us and what we further want to make of it is down to personal level.

[davem]

I believe that there are much more issues at play; for one, the morality of an act of God cannot be judged, unless we have his knowledge, which we don't. Then, if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy.

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e & we simply have to judge whatever Eru does as being right (& therefore 'Good') simply because he does it. By extension we also have to accept that Eru himself is 'Good' simply because he says he is. 'Good' & 'Evil' then become meaningless terms & we end up with a situation where 'A' is good because Eru does it & 'B' is bad because Morgoth does it - ie 'A' is judged to be a good act & 'B' an evil act because of who does it, not because they comply with or go against an objective standard of good & evil by which all acts are judged.

That Tolkien changed TH has well within his right, and we couldn't reasonably expect those who read only the early edition to have the same information.

But he didn't 'change' TH - he simply imposed a new interpretation on the existing text. And, strictly speaking, Bilbo did not 'find' the Ring - he stole it (& it doesn't matter that Smeagol also stole it - two wrongs don't make a right - Bilbo didn't know the Ring didn't belong to Gollum at that point, & when he realised the ring was Gollum's he still kept it.

The point being. Tolkien didn't write TH as part of the Legendarium. He wrote it as a stand alone story & Eru played no part in it in Tolkien's original intention, & he certainly did not 'intend' Bilbo to find it (particularly as at that time it wasn't The Ring). Early readers did not 'have that information' because neither did Tolkien. Even if they had had access to the Silmarillion as it then was they still wouldn't have known that Eru 'meant' Bilbo to find the ring, because Tolkien had not begun the sequel to TH which would eventually require Eru to 'mean' that. And even in LotR Tolkien (via Gandalf) is very careful to leave the nature & source of such 'meaning' ambiguous. One can, in the light of the Sil, read it as Eru. One could also read it in the light of Wyrd:

In its wider sense, wyrd refers to how past actions continually affect and condition the future. It also stresses the interconnected nature of all actions, and how they influence each other. The concept has some relation to the ideal of predestination. Unlike predestination, however, the concept of wyrd allows for human agency, constrained by past events, but nevertheless capable of shaping reality, an idea that is also prominent in the Dharmic concept of karma. Wyrd is "inexorable"[1] and "goes as she shall"[2], the fate (Norse ørlǫg) woven by the Norns. Indeed, the term's Norse cognate urðr, besides meaning "fate", is the name of one of the Norns, closely related to the concept of necessity (skuld). The name of the younger sister, Verðandi, is strictly the present participle of the verb cognate to weorþan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd

& leave Eru & the Valar out of the picture altogether......

[Raynor]

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e
I don't see what alternative there could be. A standard doesn't come into existence by itself, it comes within a system, and that system is created by someone. There could be no higher authority than Eru to set forth a moral system. At most, one can argue that what he does is contrary to his own system, but this would require complete knowledge - which only Eru has. Whatever judgment one would make of Eru would be based on incomplete knowledge.
Tolkien didn't write TH as part of the Legendarium.
Well, it already contained references to Elrond and the Necromancer. And later he did change TH to make it fit better (initially, Gollum actually intended to give Bilbo the ring, was apologetic for not having it, offered to catch some fish and was persuaded to lead Bilbo out). You are also correct that the mention of being meant to find the ring is found in LotR. However, this is the work now, and Tolkien specifically stated that LotR required the Silm. for proper understanding, and that it was a continuation of it (more so than of TH).

[davem]

I don't see what alternative there could be. A standard doesn't come into existence by itself, it comes within a system, and that system is created by someone. There could be no higher authority than Eru to set forth a moral system. At most, one can argue that what he does is contrary to his own system, but this would require complete knowledge - which only Eru has. Whatever judgment one would make of Eru would be based on incomplete knowledge.

But the standard has to be logical if it is to be understandable (& therefore followable). If 'Good' & 'Evil' are simply what Eru states they are then how could one judge one's own, & other's actions? 'Thou shalt not steal', 'Thou shalt do no murder', etc, are clear statements that theft & murder are wrong (& they do not require 'divine' authority to make sense to us - any society that tolerates theft & murder won't survive very long). To declare the destruction of Numenor a 'Good' act (& as I stated it must be 'Good' according to your criteria, not simply the 'least worst option' or the lesser of two evils - a Good god cannot commit 'lesser evils', & an omnipotent deity cannot be 'forced by circumstance' into acting. Hence, the destruction of Numenor must be a Good act indeed, a Perfect act, which Eru freely chose to commit, otherwise Eru is not a Good, omnipotent, deity, but a victim of circumstance for whom the end justifies the means) requires us to show that it conforms with some objective standard of right. Yet, can one argue that it is either?

Well, it already contained references to Elrond and the Necromancer. And later he did change TH to make it fit better (initially, Gollum actually intended to give Bilbo the ring, was apologetic for not having it, offered to catch some fish and was persuaded to lead Bilbo out). You are also correct that the mention of being meant to find the ring is found in LotR. However, this is the work now, and Tolkien specifically stated that LotR required the Silm. for proper understanding, and that it was a continuation of it (more so than of TH).

Well, that was Tolkien's view, but the reader does not have to share it - & up till 1977 most readers of LotR felt they understood it perfectly well.I think its clear (despite Rateliff's arguments) that TH was never intended to be part of the Legendarium, & there was never any thought on Tolkien's part that it should (or could) be. The real point is that most readers of TH over the last 70 years have not even considered Eru, & most fans of TH & LotR don't get even part way through The Sil, or even the Letters, so however Tolkien understood his work, & to whatever extent he felt a knowledge of The Sil to be necessary, for most readers it simply isn't - one can't take into account what one doesn't know & one won't take into account what doesn't interest one.

[Raynor]

To declare the destruction of Numenor a 'Good' act ... requires us to show that it conforms with some objective standard of right.
I believe I have already showed that even to human eyes, the destruction of Numenor was necessary and good, even for its inhabitants. And, as I said previously, "if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy".
Hence, the destruction of Numenor must be a Good act indeed, a Perfect act, which Eru freely chose to commit, otherwise Eru is not a Good, omnipotent, deity, but a victim of circumstance for whom the end justifies the meansBut we do see a coherent manifestation of Eru's free will in this case; it was his own choice to guarantee free will to his creations ("operative within provided circumstances"), and therefore he "reacts" to others' actions, in accordance with the very rules he sets. The issue of omnipotence is not relevant here, since power is subject to will, and it was his will to endow Ainur and Eruhini with free will.
TH was never intended to be part of the Legendarium, & there was never any thought on Tolkien's part that it should (or could) be.I wouldn't agree; there are differences in tone, but they are explainable
The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy-story', for children.
Moreover:
My tale is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made.
...though shelved (until a year ago), the Silmarillion and all that has refused to be suppressed it has bubbled up, infiltrated, and probably spoiled everything (that even remotely approached 'Faery') which I have tried to write since. It was kept out of Farmer Giles with an effort, but stopped the continuation. Its shadow was deep on the later pans of The Hobbit.
one can't take into account what one doesn't know & one won't take into account what doesn't interest one.True, but the mere popularity of a certain interpretation has no relevance in an informed discussion, especially when said interpretation is based on an incomplete knowledge of the intended whole work.

[obloquy]

I am not going to try to catch up right now, but I heartily disagree with davem's perspective. I mention this lest anyone confuse his argument with mine based on their mutual opposition to Raynor's.

Well fought, Raynor.

[davem]

I believe I have already showed that even to human eyes, the destruction of Numenor was necessary and good, even for its inhabitants. And, as I said previously, "if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy".

And this is a real problem - which Tolkien himself acknowledged - death does not feel like a 'gift' - & I'm not sure Tolkien believed that himself. In the BBC documentary Tolkien in Oxford he is shown reading a passage from Simone de Beauvoir:

'When it comes down to any large story, that interests people and holds their interest for any considerable length of time, they're all human stories and are only about one thing, aren't they? Death! (pauses for effect) the ineventability of death. There was a quotation from Simonne de Beauvoir in the paper the other day - about the death in 1939 of a musical composer whom I am very fond of; Carl Maria Weber. The biographer quoted this by Simonne Beauvoir; I'll read it if I may: "There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that happens to Man is natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die; but for each man, his death is an accident, and and even if he knows it, an unjustifiable violation". Now, you may agree with those words or not: but they are the keyspring of The Lord of the Rings'.

Tolkien contradicts himself - Death, in the mythology is a 'gift'. Yet the 'keyspring to LotR' is that it is 'an accident', 'an unjustifiable violation'. I'd suggest in light of this that death at the hand of God is the least justifiable kind of death imaginable.

What you have to show is that the destruction of Numenor was a morally perfect act within the ethical code by which M-e is supposed to operate. One cannot argue, it seems to me, that every casualty of the destruction was deserving of death, & one undeserved death makes the destruction a morally imperfect act. And this is the whole problem for me. The Valar are not morally perfect. They made mistakes. Hence, if the Valar had been responsible for the destruction we would not expect a morally perfect act. When Eru acts we require it to be so - Eru as the putative source of the Moral Value System of M-e must act in accordance with it - but if he is doing so in this instance then this MVS is not one based in absolute good - not in the sense that we would understand it.


I wouldn't agree; there are differences in tone, but they are explainable

Yes, & he also stated:


“I don’t much approve of The Hobbit myself, preferring my own mythology (which is just touched on) with its consistent nomenclature – Elrond, Gondolin and Esgaroth have escaped out of it – and organized history, to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Volüspá, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo-Saxon runes.”

Tolkien clearly states here that he 'prefers his own mythology' to TH, & hence see TH as a thing apart. Of course, Tolkien seems to contradict himself in these statements, but I note that the earliest letter you quote :Letter #25, published in the Observer, 20.02.1938
My tale is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made.was written after he had been at the sequel for a good while, & had already decided that Gollum's ring was The Ring, & had belonged to 'the Dark Master'. Hence, following his usual practice, he was 'writing back' (in his own imagination at least) & beginning to link The New Hobbit (& by extention) TH itself with the Legendarium. It wasn't so in the beginning.

True, but the mere popularity of a certain interpretation has no relevance in an informed discussion, especially when said interpretation is based on an incomplete knowledge of the intended whole work.

This is not a question of 'relevance', but of perception & 'understandability'. Despite what Tolkien said LotR is, & has been since it was published, perfectly understandable by a general readership with no knowledge of Eru. A reading of TH & LotR (particularly the 1st ed text) leaves the reader open to infer something like Wyrd operating in M-e rather than Eru, a single, omnipotent loving deity. In fact Wyrd seems to me to fit much better with the 'northern' mood & spirit of the two books than the more 'Jaweh-an' figure of Eru (which I had a real struggle to incorporate into my mental M-e on my first reading of The Sil).

[Raynor]

Tolkien contradicts himself - Death, in the mythology is a 'gift'. I don't see that; although I don't completely understand that passage, it seems to me that it refers to how the Men of M-E, tainted by the lies of the Enemy, perceive Death.

As far as Tolkien is concerned he stated that Death is not the Enemy, and that through the taste of it alone can "what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires".
But certainly Death is not an Enemy! I said, or meant to say, that the 'message' was the hideous peril of confusing true 'immortality' with limitless serial longevity. Freedom from Time, and clinging to Time. The confusion is the work of the Enemy, and one of the chief causes of human disaster.
When Eru acts we require it to be so - Eru as the putative source of the Moral Value System of M-e must act in accordance with it - but if he is doing so in this instance then this MVS is not one based in absolute good - not in the sense that we would understand it.I already argued that the inhabitants of Numenor, who were not part of the Faithfuls, were corrupted by Sauron beyond healing within Arda, and that death for them was a gift. However, I can happily do even without that argument, as I don't see why such deaths should be justified anymore than any other death, regardless they way it occurs. As far as I know, any religion unequivocally depicts God as holding the right to deal death. The same happens here; why should one need to justify one or more deaths, if the very fact that 100% of all Men will have the same fate is accepted a priori? At most, I could see this case structured around how or when one would die, but any such criticism would require complete knowledge of that person's doom, merits or lack thereof, and what further compensations await after death, or in Arda Healed - and no such information is available to us.Of course, Tolkien seems to contradict himself in these statementsI don't see it as a contradiction per se; there were simply two impulses at play, his desire to make a story for children and his fascination with the Silmarillion, which intertwined in the writing of TH.
This is not a question of 'relevance', but of perception & 'understandability'.But this is exactly the point. I see nothing worthwhile in enumerating what various interpretations some readers would give (and the number / percentage of said readers is a complete mystery), especially if said readers don't have the author's last intended work, and if, in either case, they fail to notice Tolkien's implicit references to moral and religious truth.

[davem]

At most, I could see this case structured around how or when one would die, but any such criticism would require complete knowledge of that person's doom, merits or lack thereof, and what further compensations await after death, or in Arda Healed - and no such information is available to us.

But deaths inflicted by Morgoth are always & unambiguously seen as 'evil'. So when Eru kills its good, but when anyone else kills its bad - hence we're back to the 'whatever Eru does is good because Eru does it' argument.

But this is exactly the point. I see nothing worthwhile in enumerating what various interpretations some readers would give (and the number / percentage of said readers is a complete mystery), especially if said readers don't have the author's last intended work, and if, in either case, they fail to notice Tolkien's implicit references to moral and religious truth.

Any reading which does not contradict the text is valid. But again this is not the point I was making. I was challenging Tolkien's assertion that LotR could not be understood without a knowledge of The Sil & making the point that it can, has, & probably will continue to be.

[Raynor]

But deaths inflicted by Morgoth are always & unambiguously seen as 'evil'. So when Eru kills its good, but when anyone else kills its bad - hence we're back to the 'whatever Eru does is good because Eru does it' argument.
But Melkor had no right to interfere with Men, to begin with, let alone deal death to them. Their introduction belongs strictly to Eru, their role is known only to him and He has supreme, and exclusive, authority over them. Melkor is a finite creature and his precedents leave no shadow of doubt about his motives when killing, while everything we know or can surmise of Eru depict Him as the source of good. And to reiterate my argument, how can we judge if we have less information than he has? What basis would our argument have?
Any reading which does not contradict the text is valid.I disagree; Tolkien's reading of the text was conducive to moral and religious truth, but you imply that others do not see this, which nullifies your above statement, since it warrants two contradictory conclusions. And as far as some readers understanding LotR without the Silmarillion, I can accept that, due to the fact that each individual defines for himself what he considers understandable or not; but this does not, or cannot, nullify the religious element that he put in the work.

[Boromir88]

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e & we simply have to judge whatever Eru does as being right (& therefore 'Good') simply because he does it.~davem
In the 'world of Middle-earth' I would say so.

Tolkien wrote one creator in his story, that is the one universally accepted creator. Therefor what that one creator does/declared (Eru) I think we do have to accept as 'good.' And anything that is against Eru as 'evil.'

In the 'real world' there is not one universally accepted creator, therefor there is an objective look of what is actually good and what is actually evil. And whether the actions of one of the creator's is good or not.

Tolkien wrote us a little different story where there is one creator and only one creator. So the actions of that one creator I think we have to say that creator knows what's best for his world. Just my opinion though. :D

[davem]

But Melkor had no right to interfere with Men, to begin with, let alone deal death to them. Their introduction belongs strictly to Eru, their role is known only to him and He has supreme, and exclusive, authority over them. Melkor is a finite creature and his precedents leave no shadow of doubt about his motives when killing, while everything we know or can surmise of Eru depict Him as the source of good. And to reiterate my argument, how can we judge if we have less information than he has? What basis would our argument have?

Well, my oft-stated position is that Eru is a character as much as Frodo, Gollum or Morgoth, & we can judge any character according to the standards of the created world.
Even within a religion like Christianity Jesus instructs his followers to 'be like your Father in Heaven', implying that in the primary world a religious person should emulate God as far as they can. Eru slays his children. Eru is not beyond analysis as a character. To say we cannot judge Eru because we cannot know his nature in full is no different to saying we cannot judge Morgoth or Gollum or Frodo. Tolkien lays down a standard of morality & we surely have a right to ask whether Eru lives up to that standard or not.


I disagree; Tolkien's reading of the text was conducive to moral and religious truth, but you imply that others do not see this, which nullifies your above statement, since it warrants two contradictory conclusions.

I'm merely asking questions. I could argue that Eru is beyond the limits & rules which he sets, or that he sets different rules for himself. I could also argue that merely because Tolkien read the text in one way doesn't mean I or anyone else has to. I could argue that Wyrd is a 'religious' (or at least 'spiritual') concept & reading Wyrd into the story as a driving force is as valid as reading Eru into it - one doesn't need Eru to make the story 'spiritual', moral or 'religious'.

And as far as some readers understanding LotR without the Silmarillion, I can accept that, due to the fact that each individual defines for himself what he considers understandable or not; but this does not, or cannot, nullify the religious element that he put in the work.

One only has to accept a 'supernatural' dimension. LotR was published, & is usually read, as a stand-alone work & an author has no right to attempt to dictate how the work is read or interpreted - as long as the interpretation doesn't directly contradict what the text says. A reader cannot deny that there is a 'force' driving events in LotR, but a reader of LotR only cannot bring Eru into their interpretation. A reading of LotR alone which places the onus on Wyrd is equally valid, & may be the only one the reader can come up with. That doesn't invalidate their reading, or make it meaningless.

[Raynor]

Well, my oft-stated position is that Eru is a character as much as Frodo, Gollum or Morgoth, & we can judge any character according to the standards of the created world.
Well, that you may do on a personal level; but you cannot claim general validity of your conclusion, since your judgment is based on a self-contradictory premise, that Eru can be a finite being. As far as I know, any system that posits a God, "describes" him as infinite, unknowable. Also, such analysis is bound to reach only one conclusion in order to be coherent with Tolkien's larger work, where it is stated that Eru is to be seen as good, and thinking otherwise is the root of evil - thus rather excluding your right to question whether Eru is good or not. Even Aragorn's words from the Appendices imply, at least to me, a benevolent God. I don't need to play a fictitious hide-and-seek with the quotes outside LotR, where Tolkien clarifies what is implicit in the text; and if others choose to ignore the in-text implicit part, and the out-of-text clarification, then fine by me also.

As far as the quote from the Bible, it refers to emulating love for everyone; God in the Bible also provokes a similar events, but it can hardly be construed that those who try to emulate God, by the words of Jesus, should try to deal divine-like punishments too, since that is not a person's prerogative. I could argue that Wyrd is a 'religious' (or at least 'spiritual') concept & reading Wyrd into the story as a driving force is as valid as reading Eru into it - one doesn't need Eru to make the story 'spiritual', moral or 'religious'.I don't see how "Wyrd" can be "the One" or any other less explicit reference to Eru. As I said, different persons have different standards of understandability; I could even some as reading the first chapter and putting the book down, saying "I can completely see where this story is going, I need no more of it". Or at the other end, some would still hunger for more, even after reading everything possible. So I don't see the value of arguing over an interpretation that is lacking in information - one which neither you nor I share. We both have read the work in its entirety, LotR and Silmarillion, and I believe it is safe to say that Eru as part of the entire picture, and the same can be expected of the average reader who has access to the books.

[davem]

. Also, such analysis is bound to reach only one conclusion in order to be coherent with Tolkien's larger work, where it is stated that Eru is to be seen as good, and thinking otherwise is the root of evil - thus rather excluding your right to question whether Eru is good or not.

So you're still arguing that whatever Eru does is 'Good' simply because Eru does it, & therefore 'Good' means 'Whatever Eru does'. There's no actual objective standard of Good which can be defined & which beings, from Eru down, can be judged by?

Even Aragorn's words from the Appendices imply, at least to me, a benevolent God. I don't need to play a fictitious hide-and-seek with the quotes outside LotR, where Tolkien clarifies what is implicit in the text; and if others choose to ignore the in-text implicit part, and the out-of-text clarification, then fine by me also.

All they 'imply' to me is that Aragorn believes in a benevolent God. LotR as a stand alone work speaks to 20th/21st century world. The M-e of LotR is full of folk who believe in 'something else', something beyond themselves, as 'ordering principle' or driving force behind events. Yet the reader is never told what that is - or even whether that 'perception' is correct. The reader of TH & LotR is in the same position as a 20th/21st century person - they can choose to believe in something 'else' ir they can believe that there is nothing 'beyond' the world & put references to it down to the characters' faith. Its only the Silmarillion that changes that. The Silmarillion 'forces' the reader to accept Eru - and, significantly to my mind, changes our perception of the characters & our understanding of their nature - Aragorn, Galadriel, et al go from being characters with 'faith' in something else to characters who know something other characters don't. In other words we move from a world where some folk have faith & others don't to a world where some characters are right & some are wrong.

So I don't see the value of arguing over an interpretation that is lacking in information - one which neither you nor I share. We both have read the work in its entirety, LotR and Silmarillion, and I believe it is safe to say that Eru as part of the entire picture, and the same can be expected of the average reader who has access to the books.

Again, I'm not 'arguing over an interpretation'. All I've been arguing is that Tolkien was wrong when he claimed LotR can't be understood without a knowledge of The Sil. Maybe it can't be understood in the way he wanted it to be understood, but its simply nonsense to say LotR can't be understood (ie is nonsensical or meaningless) by a reader unfamiliar with The Sil.

Edit

It seems to me that there has to be an objective standard of Good by which Eru can be judged. If, for example, Eru suddenly released Morgoth at the end of the Third Age to take over from Sauron, or at the other extreme, if he made an extra arm grow out of everyone's head - ie if he did something which supported evil or something irrational - we would have to question his goodness or his sanity. In other words, we can accept an 'unknowable' dimension to Eru, but his behaviour & acts must remain within certain bounds. We wouldn't (if only from an an artistic, if not a 'theological' viewpoint) accept any behaviour on Eru's part (we may accept the idea of Eru incarnating into Arda but we wouldn't accept an account that depicted Eru incarnating as a talking rhinoceros). Therefore its perfectly valid to ask whether Eru's behaviour at any point takes him beyond those bounds.

[Raynor]

There's no actual objective standard of Good which can be defined & which beings, from Eru down, can be judged by?
In short, no, because it is humanly impossible to define such a standard or to apply it. Even if one would have such a desire, to judge God, which I personally don't, regardless the context, how could such a thing be possible? How could the finite devise any sort of system by which to measure morality at transcendental level? I don't see how. In our case too, only Eru could judge Eru; anything else done at human level would satisfy a barren curiosity, which, due to its unwarranted reductionism and severe lack of information, wouldn't meet our own standards of relevancy. If one wants to fallaciously "approximate" Eru as just another character and judge him as such then .... whatever. We are warned against judging even Manwe, (a finite being and thus inherently faulted) since we don't have his wisdom, his knowledge of the Music, and his recourse to Eru. I share Tolkien's opinion that we can't even judge a finite being (such as Gollum), at the absolute level, since this would be to investigate "Goddes privite". Going even beyond these seems ...
Maybe it can't be understood in the way he wanted it to be understood, but its simply nonsense to say LotR can't be understood (ie is nonsensical or meaningless) by a reader unfamiliar with The Sil.Again, it all comes down to the personal standard of relevancy, doesn't it? But there are many references, spiritual or historical, in the text or the appendices, that require the larger story to be properly understood, even if the epic line in itself is accessible.

[davem]

In short, no, because it is humanly impossible to define such a standard or to apply it. Even if one would have such a desire, to judge God, which I personally don't, regardless the context, how could such a thing be possible? How could the finite devise any sort of system by which to measure morality at transcendental level? I don't see how.


So, if Eru tortured innocent people, even children, for no reason that would still be a 'Good' act, simply because Eru did it? Or would you argue that Eru, because he is 'Good' would not torture the innocent?

If the former, then 'Good' as a moral concept is meaningless, because it can be applied to any kind of behaviour at all if Eru commits it. 'Good' & 'Evil' would mean nothing at all in an 'objective' or logical sense, & morality, definitions of 'Good' & 'Evil', would have to be invented by Elves & humans, because it could not be drawn from Eru.

If the latter, then 'Good' is an absolute standard, which restricts (by choice on his part) even Eru. If this is the case then we can judge whether Eru acts outside this standard.Even if you argue that 'Good' is an aspect of Eru's nature & that he cannot act against the Good then you are still arguing that Good is an absolute which binds even Eru & determines his behaviour.

[Raynor]

If this is the case then we can judge whether Eru acts outside this standard.Even if you argue that 'Good' is an aspect of Eru's nature & that he cannot act against the Good then you are still arguing that Good is an absolute which binds even Eru & determines his behaviour.
I don't think that a human could approach this subject, just as we can't know when it is good for a person to die and in what way. We lack the perspective, authority, wisdom, and knowledge usually associated with an absolute being, capable of ensuring that even death can be superseded and more than compensated. We have little if any idea of how God would relate to a human, other than infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift", as Tolkien mentioned in the letters. To talk in human terms, even in our system of justice, a minor theft of a rather insignificant object can be more than compensated; I personally hold this to be true all the more on the divine level, regardless the loss or suffering. This divine logic, whether it concerns birth, death or any other circumstance of life, is beyond us, and any approximation of it would be inherently human, limited, faulted.

[davem]

We have little if any idea of how God would relate to a human, other than infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift", as Tolkien mentioned in the letters. .

So you accept that 'God' (or Eru in this case) will, by his nature, behave with "infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift"". Hence there is a certain 'objective' standard by which we can judge the actions of Eru - if at any point he displays other than 'infinite compassion' he would be behaving out of character, & his behaviour would not be 'Good'. 'Callous disregard' is 'Evil'. Thus we can say that Eru is 'Good' because he displays, among other things, 'Infinite Compassion' & that Morgoth is 'Evil' because he displays 'Callous Disregard'.

And, apart from primacy of existence & innate power, we can say that Eru is 'morally superior' to Melkor/Morgoth because his behaviour corresponds to an objective standard of Goodness which includes 'Infinite Compassion', & that Morgoth is immoral because his behaviour corresponds to an objective standard of Badness/Evil which includes 'Callous Disregard'. Hence, an objective standard is being used to judge the Goodness of Eru & the wickedness of Morgoth, & we are not simply saying 'whatever Eru does is good because Eru does it'. We require Eru to display 'Infinite Compassion' if we are to accept him as 'Good' (even if we cannot fully understand the way that 'Infinite Compassion' works through in time). Or, in short, 'Infinite Compassion' is a standard of judgement we apply in judging Eru to be 'Good'.

Or to put it another way, if you were a Man, or Elf in M-e confronted by Eru & Morgoth, both claiming to be the Supreme Being, & with no knowledge of who they were, how would you determine which one was Good & which Evil if you could not apply an objective standard of Good/Evil?

[Raynor]

We require Eru to display 'Infinite Compassion' if we are to accept him as 'Good' (even if we cannot fully understand the way that 'Infinite Compassion' works through in time)
While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity. In regards to what might have been the best marriage possible, Tolkien said:
Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married!
Likewise, I hold that judging whether what happened during lifetime is an expression of good is possible at most at the end of it, but even that may have little value, since one's relation to God most likely extends beyond one human life, maybe beyond all creation. And we hardly have any insight into that.
Or to put it another way, if you were a Man, or Elf in M-e confronted by Eru & Morgoth, both claiming to be the Supreme Being, & with no knowledge of who they were, how would you determine which one was Good & which Evil if you could not apply an objective standard of Good/Evil?
Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.

[davem]

While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity.

No, but Good = Infinite Compassion, & if Eru didn't act with Infinite Compassion he would not be good. Hence Infinite Compassion is a standard by which Eru can be judged as Good. If it could be proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien. You seem, if I understand you, to be arguing that we have to accept that whatever Eru does is 'Good' in the sense that he can only do Good (whether that is clear to a creature or not) , not that 'anything' Eru does is 'Good' even of it is cruel, mean, petty or spiteful. But this is, to my mind, to argue that there is an objective standard of Good by which are judging Eru's behaviour - we are saying 'Eru's behaviour is in conformity with The Good' not Eru can behave like Morgoth & that behaviour would still 'Good' simply because Eru was the one behaving in that way.

Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.

Or more likely inevitable. If Eru is playing the long game, not appearing to men in a clear & unambiguous form & explaining what's going on then its inevitable that Men have to do their best, make the best choice they can in the circumstances. Moreso if Eru has decided to give Morgoth a free reign in Arda. Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.

[Raynor]

If it could be proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien.
But no such thing is possible, regardless which human would write the story, or which person attempts to prove.

My point is that we cannot investigate beyond what is limited and created. If I were to venture a speculation, then even if Eru was supposed somehow to make an error and deviate from what would be the best application of infinite compassion (which I thoroughly disagree with), then, at least insofar as effects are concerned, he would have all that it takes to transform that and to make it more than worth it and thus any "mistake" would be at best temporary, achieving greater good in fact. Or, to try to better approximate the perfection we attribute to him, through all his actions he can achieve a greater good on a scale that may elude us, as limited beings.
Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.Well, the standard to which Men are apparently judged is more lenient than making the best possible choice:
Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

[davem]

But no such thing is possible, regardless which human would write the story, or which person attempts to prove.

But i don't see that attaining such proof is logically impossible.

If I were to venture a speculation, then even if Eru was supposed somehow to make an error and deviate from what would be the best application of infinite compassion (which I thoroughly disagree with), then, at least insofar as effects are concerned, he would have all that it takes to transform that and to make it more than worth it and thus any "mistake" would be at best temporary, achieving greater good in fact. Or, to try to better approximate the perfection we attribute to him, through all his actions he can achieve a greater good on a scale that may elude us, as limited beings.


If Eru is perfect he cannot make errors. Making errors is due to imperfection. All the actions of a perfect being must, of necessity, be perfect. To make an error which he then has to put right implies he is learning from his mistakes. But an Omniscient being cannot 'learn' anything because they would always have absolute knowledge of everything. Eru knows everything that was, is & will be because he exists outside time, in 'Eternity'. Learning implies 'evolution' from a 'lower' to a 'higher' state. Eru cannot 'evolve' to a higher or 'better' state from a lower or 'worse' one. Eru is always Eru. You can't posit an original, 'imperfect' Eru evolving into a final, 'perfect' Eru.

And, again, attributing 'perfection' to Eru is judging him according to a standard of perfect-imperfect & requiring perfection of him - If he is Eru he must be perfect ('perfect' here being used in a moral sense)..

[Raynor]

But i don't see that attaining such proof is logically impossible.
Well, I still hold that a finite cannot comprehend the infinite, let alone judge it. How could we recognise inherently human emotions/motivations at an infinite level? It would be flawed from the start.
If Eru is perfect he cannot make errors.
I know. I believe I made it clear in my post that this was somewhat of a (unnecessary, sidetracking) reductio ad absurdum, exploring that even if Eru was imperfect, he would still be able to achieve overall good results. And as far as Eru being morally perfect, again, only someone with his attributes could judge the optimality of any of his actions, in accordance with the greater good.

[davem]

So is it possible that Eru could be imperfect, even evil, according to human standards of Good & Evil? If not, then Eru corresponds to what we would consider The Good (in M-e terms). Eru is Good - according to the M-e definition of Good (infinite Compassion, absolute love - not to mention omniscience, omnipotence). Therefore we have Eru, & we have a moral value system which defines Good as 'X' & according to that moral value system Eru ticks all the boxes for 'X' & is therefore Good.

How would we be able to say 'Eru is Good' if we didn't measure him against our criteria for Good & Evil? If Eru were to do something which we consider 'evil' - ie, if he was to commit an (on the face of it) 'Morgothian' act & torture & corrupt an innocent being would we be justified in calling him 'Evil' because he behaved like the living manifestation of Evil in M-e? And if we, because of our creaturely limitations must not judge Eru to be 'evil' simply because he committed what seemed to us an evil act, how can we justify judging Morgoth evil for committing exactly the same act?

We as readers don't judge Morgoth evil simply because Tolkien says he is. We adjudge him evil because of his acts. The idea that both Eru & Morgoth could commit the same 'evil' act & one (Morgoth) be judged 'evil' for committing it, but the other (Eru) be beyond judgement is, to me, not logical.

[Raynor]

The idea that both Eru & Morgoth could commit the same 'evil' act & one (Morgoth) be judged 'evil' for committing it, but the other (Eru) be beyond judgement is, to me, not logical.
But your logic is flawed even in human terms, as the same act of harming someone can have different moral connotations, depending on the circumstances and the intentions. As to the difference between Eru and Morgoth, any resemblance in the intention to perpetuate evil is considered a priori wrong, in Tolkien's universe too.

[davem]

But your logic is flawed even in human terms, as the same act of harming someone can have different moral connotations, depending on the circumstances and the intentions. As to the difference between Eru and Morgoth, any resemblance in the intention to perpetuate evil is considered a priori wrong, in Tolkien's universe too.

But if I can only know Eru & Morgoth by their actions (ie by their direct effect on myself & the world around me ) how can I know one is 'good' & one is 'evil' - unless I use some kind of objective standard?

Your theory is fine, but for practical purposes I (as an inhabitant of M-e) have to decide which one is right & which one is wrong, & whose side I will be on. And to do that I have to have a set of standards by which I make a judgement - unless I resort to tossing a coin. I can only decide 'X' is good & 'Y' is evil according to a strict, pre-existing set of standards.

[Raynor]

Your theory is fine, but for practical purposes I (as an inhabitant of M-e) have to decide which one is right & which one is wrong, & whose side I will be on. And to do that I have to have a set of standards by which I make a judgement - unless I resort to tossing a coin. I can only decide 'X' is good & 'Y' is evil according to a strict, pre-existing set of standards.
Well, it doesn't look like a M-e inhabitant would have it going any easier than us. They too are required Estel in Eru's works. I don't see any objective standard to be usable by a limited being, seeing that its "perfection" cannot be translated into results if we only have, limited as we are, inadequate information. In the end, it all comes down to making the best attempt, with the best of intentions, whether in thought or in action, no matter the magnitude of deceit and doubt facing us.

[davem]

Well, it doesn't look like a M-e inhabitant would have it going any easier than us. They too are required Estel in Eru's works. I don't see any objective standard to be usable by a limited being, seeing that its "perfection" cannot be translated into results if we only have, limited as we are, inadequate information. In the end, it all comes down to making the best attempt, with the best of intentions, whether in thought or in action, no matter the magnitude of deceit and doubt facing us.

Yet when Eomer asks: 'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'
Aragorn:'As he ever has judged. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves : and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them.'

So discerning between good & ill is a requirement, based on some kind of 'eternal', or at least pre-existing standard. In fact it is a man's part - an obligation if you will. But what then is the source of this pre-existing standard? A)Men's (& by extension, Elves' & Dwarves') ancestors - ie a creaturely 'invention'? B)The Valar? Or C) Eru himself?

If A) is this creaturely invention consonant with some kind of divine standard? Does it just happen to correspond to a divine standard, or is it at odds with such a divine standard?

If B) Is this 'demi-urgic' invention consonant with a divine standard set down by Eru, or is it at odds with it?

If C) Is this divinely authorised standard a reflection of Eru's own personal moral value system, or at odds with it?

Whatever, Aragorn clearly states that there is an objectively existing Moral value system by which Men & other self-conscious incarnates should judge between right & wrong. Aragorn clearly trusts Eru to be 'good' & not 'evil' & he must base this trust on a value judgement.

[Raynor]

But what then is the source of this pre-existing standard?
Well, I would say it is ultimately Eru; but afterwards, everyone else had a hand in it. He directly taught the Men and the Valar; the valar taught directly the elves and Aule the dwarves. In turn, the elves were the primary teachers of the Men, and Men probably took from dwarves a little bit more than just parts of their language. Afterwards, each and every society of Men would build various cultural "lenses" through which such teachings are interpreted. And ultimately, all understanding is subjective. And even if we remove all these personal, cultural and historical layers, and would somehow have access to the original revelation, I doubt we can derive from that how would a God see good in its ultimate complexity, seeing that many, if not most, of the mysteries of life and creation are hidden.

[Bêthberry]

Think that this is what I was getting at. If, in heaven, there will be free-willed spirits/souls, and, by definition, being in the presence of God cannot contain evil, why could not the Creator create a world with free will and not evil (or, again as some posit, so much)? Why the "prerequisite?"

Regardless, as I don't want to start another brouhaha, but how does evil differ in the world that Tolkien created? To me it seems that the free will - evil connection is not to the same degree, if it exists at all in Arda.

Well, I don't want to start that brouhaha you wished to avoid, but isn't the real problem the fact that the Creator, whether it is Eru or Tolkien's real God, cannot create something as perfect as He is? (I seem to recall this as a topic of discussion on "Paradise Lost". Could even have been a Second Age discussion, it was that long ago.)

So for every Creator, the actual object of creation always fails to live up to the concept originally entertained?

[obloquy]

"As perfect"? Are there degrees of perfection?

Any theory of what an infinite, omnipotent being is capable of is suspect. The dimensions of God (even simply as a concept) are so far from being fathomable that application of physical laws or philosophical ideas is akin to using a ruler to determine the temperature of the sun. If you're going to ask questions about the abilities of a being that supposedly predates all physical creation, it should be this: How could God be subject to laws that, by definition, govern that which is created?

[alatar]

Well, I don't want to start that brouhaha you wished to avoid, but isn't the real problem the fact that the Creator, whether it is Eru or Tolkien's real God, cannot create something as perfect as He is? (I seem to recall this as a topic of discussion on "Paradise Lost". Could even have been a Second Age discussion, it was that long ago.)
By definition. Or not, as what created God? How could perfection create non-perfection? Unless what we perceive as paradise lost is actually perfect, albeit from a different point of view.

Even I haven't the energy to whip this horse. ;)

So for every Creator, the actual object of creation always fails to live up to the concept originally entertained?
As far as we know. It's been considered that the death of gods comes from boredom. What's the point if you know everything that is, was and will be, down to the fall of every sparrow's feather? Maybe the perfect universes don't include sentient beings or entropy - kind of like well-made dioramas (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14007).