In the famous Soliloquy of Hamlet, Hamlet ponders whether or not to commit suicide. He knows that his current life is terrible, but ultimately shies away from death because it is the unknown. Ar-Pharazôn was given a similar but crucially different choice. He lacked certainty in either case. He could be faithful and be certain of death, but then what? He, like Hamlet, does not know "what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil"(Hamlet III, 1). In the words of Tar-Ciryatan submission to death requires "a blind trust, and a hope without assurance" (The Silmarillion, 317). Ar-Pharazôn has the option of 'not to be' through being faithful, but can he choose 'to be'. This is where the situation changes because according to Sauron he can.
So what is the counter argument? That the Valar are good and truthful, so we should trust them. Why are they good? One option is that they are, well, the gods. The gods sort of define good and evil. If the highest god says this is good, then it is. Another option is that they are kind, they gave us (the Númenóreans) a virtual paradise. They aided in the overthrow of Morgoth and his armies... who were mostly men. Oh, wait, that seems strange. We are following the same gods who are in the likeness of the undying elves against the god who closely resembles men. The gods of the elves helped a small portion of men to overthrow the god of man. All of a sudden everything seems backwards, did our forefathers pick the wrong side? Then after helping these gods fight against our own kin we a generously given land as far away as possible from other men, while still being (mostly) out of sight of Valinor. Did the Valar want us to be close to them or far from our kin? Furthermore, this land of gift is so nice and perfect one would wonder why someone would ever want to leave. Maybe, this is such a paradise because the Valar didn't want us to leave. By staying on this small island the race of man is kept separate, which would be awfully nice if the Valar wanted to ensure that our people didn't get too friendly with the other men and find out how we chose the wrong side. But we do have longer life, that is defiantly one good thing the Valar gave us. Long life only benefits us and has no outside benefits to the elves or Valar. Is the theory broken there is one good gift. How do we know it is a gift? Where does this long life come from? We are told it is because the Valar gave it to us. We had short lives then we helped the Valar and received long life. It seems one-to-one. But this is not all that has changed we have fallen into the ceteris paribus fallacy. Long life has also come to our people after living in Númenor. After being closer to the undying lands our lifespan has increased. Furthermore, those who live in the undying lands have even longer life. It is entirely possible that the reason for our long life is not a gift of the Valar but a result of where we live (This is actually the reason for the Númenórians long life in Tolkien's first draft of the fall (The Lost Road and Other Writings "The Fall of Númenor"), so this theory is not far from the truth). So the Valar might not have given us any gifts but they are still the gods, they define good and evil.
The fallback argument is that the Valar are good because they are the gods and the gods define good and evil. This seems fair, the gods made everything else they can make good and evil. Yet, it was not the Valar who made the world, they said it was someone else, Eru. This Eru has never been seen. Of the gods that have been seen on earth the most powerful is Morgoth, not any of the Valar. Sauron calls Eru a phantom devised to trick men (The Silmarillion, 325). He points out that Eru commands only what the Valar do (The Silmarillion, 325). The true God seems to be a puppet of the Valar. Eru might not exist and if so then the highest god is Morgoth, all the Valar even admits he is the best of them. The Valar might not be good because they are gods, Morgoth might be good because he is the highest god. Good and evil are flipped.
If you can't disprove the message, maybe you can invalidate the messenger. The one who is saying all this is Sauron, like the bad (evil can be contested) one. Sauron called himself king of men and attempted to destroy Númenor (The Silmarillion, 323). This advisor who is starting the conspiracy theory has not had our best interest at heart in the past. There is no argument, Sauron did bad things in the past but time has changed. Look at what has happened since. Sauron humbled himself and became a vassal of the king. Furthermore, Sauron has revealed much of his knowledge to the Númenórians (The Silmarillion, 325). He could easily not reveal knowledge, pretend as if he didn't know anything new. Sauron did reveal his knowledge to the Númenóreans, so he willingly helped them. In addition, though sacrificing to Morgoth has not cured death it had increased their wealth, or it seemed that way to them (The Silmarillion, 328). Sauron seems reformed. He helped increase the prosperity of Númenor giving his knowledge freely and showing them the ways of Morgoth.
Speaking of Morgoth, there is possibly another way to achieve enteral life if it turns out that Valinor doesn't bestow eternal life. There is also a chance that by dispatching the Valar would free Morgoth and once freed he could below eternal life of the Númenóreans (The Lost Road and Other Writings "The Fall of Númenor"). This is part of the argument of Sauron in the early versions of the tale, though not repeated in the published Akallabêth. Nonetheless, this is not an impossible concept in the modern version. The Númenóreans were worshiping Morgoth for eternal life and knew that the Valar had locked him away. It is not too much of a stretch to think that after defeating the Valar the Númenóreans could free Morgoth and then Morgoth would have the power to reward them. Even as an unspoken theory it is a possibility just in case the Valar weren't lying about the life-giving properties of Valinor. Even if they were, Morgoth could bestow a different gift so the success would be more sweet.
My point is not that Sauron was correct, he clearly wasn't (we know how the story ends). My argument is that his story is believable. In the backdrop of this argument which was likely better presented by Sauron who was known to be charismatic (how else did he ascend so quickly to head advisor). Ar-Pharazôn has a choice: he can be faithful to the Valar and live out the rest of his days and die, or he can heed the council of Sauron and attack the Valar. The first choice is certain death. The attack on the Valar is the chance at life. He might fail. The Valar could have the strength well beyond the rest of earth and repel his assault. Also, it could be true that Sauron has been lying and so Ar-Pharazôn's victory or defeat would be in vain. Then again, he might succeed. All of Sauron's arguments are logical and are quite possibly true. The Númenórians are at their highest point and easily outmatch the rest of middle-earth, so how much stronger can the Valar be?
The odds don't really matter, what matters is there is a chance at eternal life. This is Pascal's wager. If the outcomes are infinite good versus finite pain. No matter what the odds are, so long as there is a finite chance for success, the expected value is always positive (i.e. you should take the bet). Think about it, if you could roll a dice and on a six you win a trillion dollars (practically infinite) or on any other number lose a hundred, you should take the bet if you have the hundred to spend. Now lower the odds say you had a 1 in a 100 chance of winning, the prize still vastly outweighs the cost. I argue that with the information Ar-Pharazôn had, there was a very credible chance that Sauron was right, whether it was one in six or one in a hundred, he still had a viable chance of being right. Eternal life is the prize. The cost is the few years left in Ar-Pharazôn's life that could be lost if he died trying. The prize was eternal life to live many many more years than that which he would lose. Ar-Pharazôn didn't need to be convinced that the Valar defiantly were tricking him, he only needed to be convicted that there was a decent chance that the Valar had tricked him. Sauron's argument definitely provided him that chance. As such, Ar-Pharazôn made the correct bet. He threw the dice and it turned out he lost, but that doesn't make it a bad bet or the wrong choice.- John Hopper
Sources:
Hamlet, Shakespeare (any edition)
The Silarillion, J.R.R. Tolkien. 2nd Edition
The Lost Road and Other Writings (HME 5), J.R.R. Tolkien
3 comments:
Maybe to Be:
Interesting theory, but I am not sure that it quite functions the same way as Pascal’s wager. After all, Eru might exist, and nobody knows for sure what happens to men after they die—not unlike the primary world in that sense! The chances are unknown, as you mention, but it could be the same level of uncertainty whether they stay or go. Also, it is important to question if outcomes are the only thing that matters, or if virtue ethics do (or should) play a more important role. You are right to note that it makes sense that the Numenoreans came to make the decision they did based on the circumstances and the deception of Sauron. But the more interesting question might be whether or not, or under what conditions, they could have made another decision. -LB
I would love to see this argument written out as a soliloquy! You make an excellent point: Sauron persuaded ar-Pharazon to take the bet. How, then, did the Faithful persevere against Sauron's temptation? That is the real question! The odds seemed good, just as you say. So why did Elendil and his few refuse them? RLFB
Often, I feel Tolkien's legendarium feels too black-and-white, that decisions that are mistakes(like the fall of Numenor) are seen too easily as mistakes that were through the 'weakness' of lesser characters.
This piece brings a piece of nuance into the work, and offers a perspective that is seen far too rarely: one in which the Tolkien world shows its evil or wrong characters as intelligent and great people too.
-RK
Post a Comment