Melkor Did Nothing Wrong… Well, Maybe a Few Things?

Now before I start, I should warn you that I am likely about to spew heresy, and probably have already done so. Here we go.

Let’s begin first with Eru, or Iluvatar as he is known in Arda (and Tolkien does say “he,” which presumes that Iluvatar created the concept of gender before even creating the Ainur, but I am wandering into dangerous territory here. Besides, I’ll cut Tolkien some slack and observe the context of the time period and religious reference). He is primordial and original, creator of creation and of things to come. There is no existence previous to Iluvatar, and he is the beginning of all things. Given Tolkien’s observance of his own Christian worship in the process of writing about Middle-Earth, it can be reasonably inferred that Iluvatar here is synonymous with God.

Moving on, then, to the Ainur. They are Iluvatar’s first creation, “offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made” (Silmarillion, pg. 3). They are Iluvatar’s angels, and in the Book of Job the angels “shouted for joy” as God created the world (Job 38:4-7). Melkor is one of the Ainur. He had been given out of all the Ainur “the greatest gifts of power and knowledge” (Sil., 4). What sets Melkor apart from the rest of the Ainur is his desire “to bring into Being things of his own” (Sil., 4). This brings Melkor into contention with Iluvatar and the Ainur, as his independence gets woven into his music. The “discord of Melkor” begins to spread, discouraging some of the Ainur and influencing others. In this way, Melkor resembles the fallen angel: Lucifer.

 

But (and here is where things get dicey) is Melkor a spitting image of Lucifer? Can the two of them be completely and perfectly synonymous? Has he even done anything wrong?

The short answer is no. But, if you’re still reading, you want to hear the long answer.

 

There is, of course, the war in the heavens to deal with. The discordance of music in the Ainulindale parallels this conflict. Melkor and Iluvatar wrest for control of the sonority with each other, until Iluvatar reveals his total control of the situation and Melkor is defeated. Iluvatar tells the Ainur and Melkor especially that “no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite.” Melkor is “filled with shame, of which came secret anger” (Sil., 6). Why the shame and anger? On the surface, it appears to be because Iluvatar singled out Melkor out of all the Ainur for his actions. But the reaction is not repentance, but shame and even resentment. This implies that Melkor finds himself justified and Iluvatar’s authority unfair. But why bother trying to see things from Melkor’s point of view?

For the same reason that we pay attention to any of the other Ainur: they represent a facet of Iluvatar’s thoughts. And what does Melkor have that the other Ainur don’t? There are many things we can call it - rebelliousness, discordance, dissent. But we must remember that Melkor is born out of Iluvatar’s thought: Melkor has inherited Iluvatar’s desire for creation. Naturally, creativity will come at odds with other notions of conception, and this is where the discord comes from. However, the root of what Melkor represents is not pure malice, but a desire for independence and creation. It is this desire for free creation that gets undermined by Iluvatar and the other Ainur, which leads to Melkor’s shame and anger. It is a struggle between creativity and order, between originality and foresight. Melkor is an artist, and cannot stand it that his artistry is not truly his but Iluvatar’s. 

There is, of course, one other thing Melkor holds besides the pride of an artist. It is greed. A desire to hold and possess. And at face value, this is sinful. We should not be greedy, we should give and not take, and so on. But Melkor is born from Iluvatar’s thought. Melkor’s desires are also Iluvatar’s own. Iluvatar says it himself: “nor can any alter the music in my despite.” The music of the world is all Iluvatar’s, and none of it is actually individually Melkor’s (much to his consternation). And this, perhaps, is the thing that complicates the issue: all the Ainur, Melkor included, are different facets of Iluvatar. We cannot read Melkor’s desire to possess unless we read the same thing in Iluvatar, and that threatens a theological dilemma. 

So I’ll conclude by saying that Melkor does not seem to be a spic and span copy of Lucifer, and as such, Iluvatar is also a more complicated deity than simply a virtuous creator. Indeed, it could be said that Iluvatar is the most conceptually complex character possible, as all contradictions and opposites in the world live conjoined in the plans of Iluvatar. 

- CLP