Quote:
|
Perhaps it is to create a balance in the universe as Matt suggested, or maybe it is for a totally different purpose that human beings can not understand. Tolkien strongly believed in mercy and redemption.
|
This brings up a principle at work in Tolkien’s fundamental world view.
Tolkien was not as much of a Manichaen as he’s often made out to be. He didn’t see the fall of Melkor as a necessary element to provide balance, but a circumstance, regrettable in and of itself, but one that could be given an ultimate purpose by Eru. There is no doubt that Eru’s divine omniscience saw the fall of Melkor, but this in no way places Eru as the efficient cause of Melkor’s fall, that efficient cause, like all sin, resides in the sinner according to the sinner’s free will. Why allow Melkor to fall? Why did Eru create him even if he knew that he would fall and cause so much pain? Simply put: to show forth his glory, his plan to order all things unto himself. The fact that Melkor’s fall is so much unlike the virtues of Eru provides the opportunity for Eru to show his glory even more so by bringing even this fall, and all the chaos thereto, into conformity with his ultimate end. In this is free will and the divine power made manifest in a complete way.
Where did Tolkien ever get such an idea? Every Easter Tolkien would have heard sung the
Exultet which contains the line: “
O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem” (“Oh happy fault, which gained for us so great a Redeemer”). The sin of Adam makes redemption through Christ possible. The sin of Adam is regrettable in and of itself, but through it, God showed forth redemption and the extraordinary lengths of his love and mercy through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
It is an obvious device at work in Middle-Earth. Every hero in LotR is a hero in as much as they sacrifice themselves. Humility is the principle weapon of the free peoples, and pride is their ultimate sin (Fëanor is a good example, as is the internal struggles of Túrin). Galadriel’s redemption comes from her shunning the power of the one, choosing humility over the acquisition of power (illusory though it was). Does not the weight of the ring provoke similar images of the weight of the cross?
In regard to the orcs, there is an obvious conflict in Tolkien, himself. At first he indicates that orcs are corrupted elves, taken when they first awoke, still fearing the world in which they first saw. Latter, Tolkien denies, rather flatly, that orcs are corrupted elves, describing them as “talking animals,” and “extensions of Melkor’s evil will.” The later, I think, comes from Tolkien attempting to deal with the obvious (theological) problem inherent in the first formulation: redemption is a real possibility for the orc as corrupted elves. Orcs as mere talking animals that are extensions of Melkor’s evil will are intrinsically evil creatures, and redemption is not possible. They have no reason or will outside of hatred and loathing, and even in their rebellions they are merely reflecting the rebellion of Melkor.
It can be argued that this is Manichaeism, or at least dangerously close. However, such a criticism is a bit unfair. Tolkien saw first hand the wanton destruction of war; he saw the pitted scars of the industrial age; before his death he was to see the advent of the nuclear weapon. Monsters could be created by a fallen will, and in and of themselves, these monsters are intrinsically evil. The creation of orcs in no way usurps a power for Melkor that belongs only to Eru, for by nature all intellects are creative, but, rather, it demonstrates the utter depravity of Melkor’s intellect.
[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]