I think the question of 'why does evil exist?' in the context of Tolkien's Legendarium is not really a question that can be properly answered given what we know. If Eru is good, and Melkor is an offspring of Eru's thought, then how can Melkor become evil, or at least in the Augustinian 'not good' sense? I think this question only points to the mystery of Eru, and there is not too much more that can be said. However, I think the more interesting question is 'what is evil?' and 'how does evil function?' in the context of the Legendarium. I think that these questions can be answered through looking at the descent of Melkor in order to determine what actions he takes that lead him to defy the supposed 'good' nature of Eru and become something evil.
Before the Ainulindalë introduces Melkor, Eru creates all the Ainur from his thought, with each Ainur comprising a part of Eru's thought. Eru then "declared to them a mighty theme" through which the Ainur "reveal" the creations of Eru (15). Yet it seems peculiar to characterize the theme as mighty, given that the Valaquenta introduces Melkor as "he who arises in Might" (31). This "Might" with a capital 'M' is different from the connotation of strength of Tulkas, as the Might represents Melkor's ability to comprise part of the power and knowledge of all the Ainur. The introductory theme of the Ainur is not evil, but rather wonderful, so there is no suggestion that Melkor is evil for having Might.
So if Melkor's 'being' is not evil, but rather actually similar to what is wonderful, what then turns Melkor to act evilly? Melkor is described as acting "not in accord with the theme," but I am not convinced that this action is evil (16). Even though Eru's views the music as flawless, Melkor views Eru as neglecting the Void. This suggests that through understanding the first theme as a wonderful act of Might, Melkor desires to see this act multiplied, or to witness more of a good thing. The Ainulindalë does not say that Melkor wants to control the music of creation for his own purposes, but rather he increases his own role's power and glory to reveal more 'being' into the Void. Why must it be the case that the desire for more wonderful creation is an evil act?
I don't see any part of Melkor's desire to create something wonderful as something inherently evil, but rather the action becomes evil when Eru speaks it into existence. Eru speaks in response to Melkor's theme, saying "no theme shall be played that does not have its uttermost source in me" (17). Before this interdiction of Eru's word, there was no evil, but rather wills of the Ainur as manifestations of Eru's thought. Eru's interdiction turns Melkor's desire for wonderful creation into a desire in stark contrast to Eru. From this new desire, Melkor feels shame, and this shame turns into anger. Eru denies Melkor the ability to create in the way that Melkor desires to create, even though Melkor desires to create something wonderful given the powers granted through Eru. From the point in time of the interdiction, evil becomes the expression of desire, shame, and anger towards Eru. Melkor then fulfills his descent into evil through descending to Arda and seeking to overcome his shame through corrupting, or perhaps claiming, the creation of Eru in order to fulfill his desire and not Eru's desire.
While Eru's prohibition violates Melkor's desire to be like Eru and not be like Eru's will, this does not fully suggest that Melkor is evil. In Letter 153, Tolkien suggests that anything that is "part of the World," which is Eru's, is therefore "ultimately good" (195). By this logic, Melkor would never be irredeemably bad as long as he exists in the World. But this seems to contrast with how Melkor's being in the World never results in him doing a single good act. Since I cannot suggest that Tolkien is wrong in implying that Melkor is potentially good, Melkor's free will must be in some way intact throughout his time on Arda. While he may seem to be a slave to his desire, Tolkien suggests that this is not entirely the case.
Even though Melkor might not be a solely evil being, at least in terms of potential, he still becomes the representation of evil in the Silmarillion. While Melkor means "he who arises in Might," the Noldor rename him as Morgoth, "the Dark Enemy of the World" (31). From Might, Melkor descends again, but this time not down to Arda, but into the form of Morgoth. In a representational sense, the Noldor reject the view of Tolkien that Melkor can still be good as he is in the World, but rather their renaming suggests that Melkor is in contrast to the World. In this sense, the Noldor reframe Melkor into a being which is in contrast with what is good, Eru's creation. Moreover, Morgoth is not simply a Dark Enemy, he is quintessentially the Dark Enemy. Also, since the Noldor cannot fully understand the mystery of Eru, but only the World in which they live, evil has to be understood in a worldly sense as well. Even though Tolkien claims that Melkor's supreme sin is the (sub-)creation of the orcs, Melkor's theft of the Silmarils violates Fëanor's sub-creation, and turns Melkor into Morgoth, the representational form of evil in the World.
I believes that this transformation of Melkor into Morgoth is the key to understanding evil in Tolkien's Legendarium. While Melkor's violation of Eru's will may be the original sin, the violation of Fëanor's sub-creation frames what is so evil about Melkor. Melkor is the Dark Enemy of the World, not simply because he violates Eru's will, but he violates the wills of other sub-creators through their creations. If Fëanor were to say that the Noldor must go to war with Melkor because he violated Eru's will, this would likely not have much result, as even the Valar were not provoked to war by this concern since they did not understand the full mystery of Eru's will, specifically in terms of introducing Men to Arda. But by suggesting that Morgoth violated the Noldor, the Noldor have a Worldly understanding of their own will to sub-create being violated. In framing Melkor as the Dark Enemy, the Noldor, and subsequently most of the beings of Arda, have a tangible grasp on what it actually means to be evil.
Even though good sub-creations are still derivative of Eru's will, and the World is still derivative of Eru's will, the reframing of Melkor into Morgoth allows the individuals to process what it means to be evil. Morgoth is not entirely the antithesis of Eru, but it becomes clear that Morgoth is the antithesis to the World. While acting against Eru's will might seem like an abstract way to understand evil, positing Morgoth as the representation of evil in the World presents a tangible understanding of which acts are evil with respect to the individuals of Tolkien's Legendarium
-FK
3 comments:
I never thought of Melkor's actions this way. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems like you attributed Melkor's evil to Eru, and the only reason Melkor acted evilly at all was because Eru shamed him. This gives an almost prideful nature to Eru, one that will not suffer anything that didn't originate in him, and he does say that much in his reproach to Melkor. Does that mean if Eru had never shamed Melkor he wouldn't have ended up so evil? A large part of me says no, because Melkor was causing trouble even before Eru's reproach. Yes, his desire for something new wasn't inherently evil, but remember Melkor's discord grew more and more as he tried to out-sing the other Ainur, so much so that it was just him and Eru competing. I'm certain he couldn't have won against Eru if he was allowed to continue, but Melkor's discordant presence would have grown and begun affecting the other Ainur. While Melkor's "Might" isn't evil, the way he chooses to use it is definitely troublesome.
Again, maybe I'm just misreading something.
By the way, the way you described Eru shaming Melkor reminds me of when Aule created the first Dwarves. Similarly, Eru found out and was displeased, and punished Aule. But, Aule reacted differently than Melkor, didn't he?
Drawing attention to the renaming of Melkor as Morgoth is crucial. It seems to matter also that is Fëanor who does the renaming, condemning Melkor as beyond redemption, whereas the Valar try to continue to use his own name because they remember him as their friend and peer.
I think, also, your emphasis on the "shame" of Melkor at being rebuked for the first discord is a very rich topic. To feel shame implies a knowledge of the standard and regret at breaking it. A creature implacably set on evil would no longer feel shame, so that implies that Melkor could perhaps have turned and repented at that moment. Is he ever described as feeling shame again? I can't think of an instance.
One potential way to understand the continuing goodness of Melkor is simply that any being, in so far as it exists, is going to have some aspect of goodness. Melkor's intellect, for instance, is still great, even though he puts it to evil use.
~LJF
I, too, am struck by what you say about Melkor's shame. Perhaps the key here is in the psychological reality Tolkien makes visible: how we respond to rebuke, even from—or particularly from God? Evil is not in the desire to sub create, it is in the response to criticism, which every artist knows all too well. RLFB
Post a Comment