Melkor: evil by will, nature or fate?

[Raynor]

I am leaning towards the "fate" factor, but this is a subject too complex to be solved quickly. What do you guys think?

 

[Marky Lazer]

Definately will. Well, definately in my opinion.

 

[Raynor]

Ok, here is what I had in mind:

Some [of the maiar] had attached themselves to such major artists [i.e. valar] and knew things chiefly indirectly through their knowledge of the minds of these masters. Sauron had been attached to the greatest, Melkor, who ultimately became the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendent unique Creator.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, it depends on what he meant by inevitable, doesn't it? Inevitable in an absolute cosmic sense -- or inevitable in serving the dramatic purposes of the author -- or inevitable in the sense that there had to be someone like Melkor rebelling or Tolkien would not feel that his mythology paralleled or reflected what (from his viewpoint as a devout Catholic) really did happen?

 

[Marky Lazer]

I think I read somewhere that Melkor was jealous with Manwe, who was the Greatest of the Valar. Therefore Melkor tried to gain more power in the 'darker' ways.

 

[Raynor]

Well, to my knowledge, Manwe became the greatest vala only after Melkor dispersed his power in his attempt to rule Arda; besides the previous quote, where he is reffered to as the "greatest artist", in the Ainulindale Eru says:

Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Iluvatar, 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.

Also, this quote raises a bit of a question mark on the whole free will issue.

 

[Treikayan]

By will. Given Tolkien's devotion to Catholicism, Melkor is almost perfect representation of Satan. Satan, at will, commanded a third of heaven against God, and well, you know what happened from there.

 

[Boaz]

In the letter referenced, inevitable to me means that someone will inevitably decide to rebel. I don't think that it was inevitable that the rebel was Melkor. Ulmo, Aule, Osse, and Sauron all showed their ability to buck the norm and rock the boat.

Melkor chose to be the one to first rock the boat and then flat out rebel against Eru.

If you want to talk predestination, providence, and God's perfect will versus His admissible will... look up R. C. Sproul and Reformed Theology.

 

[HieroGlyph]

None of the above.

ALL of the above. By 'Will' in combination with 'Nature' hence as given by 'Destiny'. If you choose to view Eru as the 'Ultimate' MIND, with all its facets that both Men and Elves posessed and of these facets came the Valar and their 'servants' (Maia)... Well, Melkor was the 'most-gifted' hence the greatest number of facets and the greatest strivings and yearnings and the easiest to seek his 'own' path, be it wrong or right...
Theres one of my views of Melkor in his youth...

 

[Boaz]

HG, I respectfully disagree.

The number of facets of Eru is unfathomable, immeasurable, and incomprehesible to created creatures. Sure, I'd agree that Melkor understood more of Eru than the Ainur (except Manwe), the Quendi, the Atani, and all other creatures of Middle-earth. But the order of magnitude that Eru is above Melkor makes the differences between Melkor and Gollum negligible.

Eru made Melkor for a good purpose and a good destiny. Melkor turned from his destiny and purpose to go his own way.

Saying that Eru made Melkor to be evil is contrary to everything else we know about Eru.

 

[HieroGlyph]

I'll try to be brief. I will be brief because I would need to start quoting various parts of the Silmarillion to explain my meaning above, Boaz.
First we would need to define evil. Then we'd need to know if there was ever any possibility that Eru Himself could ever appear to be evil...
We know (something like) 'Melkor sprang from Eru's thought' as did each and every Valar and Maia, and they were not all the same. Akin to say one coming from the linguistic cortex (of that 'Ultimate' Mind) and another from the visual cortex or auditory part. These are like facets. Like areas of the physical brain. Spacially related. But not solely of that 'part'. They have to be fully functional in themselves. Or the reader loses all comprehension and the 'connexion' we can make with these 'angels' becomes smaller and they become more 'alien'... So I do hold that Melkor did, in a way, have the greatest of minds and all else. He just could not handle it. He saught beyond his means. He was too needy. He needed too much and thus went off track. You have to imagine the time scale involved here too. We're not talking six days. This being Melkor wandered and asked and wondered some more. He couldnt get what he wanted. Knowledge, power, control, answers. He wanted. Thats the beginnings of The Dark Road. To 'think' you have unsatiated needs. To not know your own 'mind' because its too big, too vast, too complex. He started on a dark road and thus spiralled down and down. How else can you explain this creation of Tolkien's? (Short answers above are not adequate, Im sorry to say. Its just not that simple. Melkor came OF Eru's Mind, thus it deserves more thought to 'work'...)

 

[HieroGlyph]

Eru made Melkor for a good purpose and a good destiny. Melkor turned from his destiny and purpose to go his own way.

Saying that Eru made Melkor to be evil is contrary to everything else we know about Eru.

Think carefully about what you say there. If Eru made the entirety of Melkor, and he intended 'good' to come of it you could first off be saying that that 'good' was as a counter to how NOT to be... Then you deny that Eru could forsee what his own creation 'could' possibly turn into...

 

[Raynor]

If Eru made the entirety of Melkor, and he intended 'good' to come of it ...

Well, I guess this is the case :

[Manwe] must have grasped with great clarity what even we may perceive dimly: that it was the essential mode of the process of 'history' in Arda that evil should constantly arise, and that out of it new good should constantly come. One especial aspect of this is the strange way in which the evils of the Marrer, or his inheritors, are turned into weapons against evil.

Notes on motives in the Silmarillion, iii, Myths Transformed.

Then you deny that Eru could forsee what his own creation 'could' possibly turn into...

I wouldn't agree with that:

[Eru] must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment.

The debate of Finrod and Andreth, HoME X

 

[Treikayan]

Think carefully about what you say there. If Eru made the entirety of Melkor, and he intended 'good' to come of it you could first off be saying that that 'good' was as a counter to how NOT to be... Then you deny that Eru could forsee what his own creation 'could' possibly turn into...

Ezekiel 28:14-15: [14] You were anointed [specially selected] as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. [15] You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. [16] Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. [17] Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. [18] By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. [19] All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.' "

I know the source is not from the Silmarillion, but when I read that, it refers to Lucifer, and I think of Melkor too.

As for why God allowed wickedness to fill the heart of Lucifer is just as hard to understand why God hardened Pharoah's heart in Exodus. His ways are higher than our ways of understanding. Eru can be a representation of God to some degree if we remember Tolkien's affinity towards Christianity.

 

[HieroGlyph]

I still have to say that for Melkor, in becoming Morgoth (as Feanor named him) it is by his own Will (purpose and intent) as well as his own Nature (the Being Eru created) that lead Morgoth down the path we know (from the collective works called the histories of Middle Earth) that he 'did' travel. Does that make sense? Have I got across the point that I think it is a combination of the three points and not any single point by itself?

So, really, the original question "Melkor: evil by will, nature or fate?" has to be reconsidered and to quote from above:

...First we would need to define evil...

Well, thats the hardest and lengthiest part in my opinion.
For example in the extreme: someone hyper-sensitive could say that it is evil to use bleech down your sink! Screams of 'woah, sheesh, youre killing billions of microbes, dood, and they havent doen anything TO you' -ok, pre-emptive strike, but whats wrong with the example? A kind of killing. Yes, all right, thats this world.
In Arda I guess Morgoth made those microbes. There was also the anguish Yavanna felt over her beloved trees when she found out that other beings would 'need' wood for building and so forth. Killing trees murder? All the Valar wished to defend their creations, defend and stand up for their own toils. So where exactly do you draw the line? What seems evil to one being isnt evil to another? Osse was rather merciless: I recall that Voronwe (sp?) was a sole survivor. Was what Osse did evil?
This is how careful you have to be with definition. Its perspective. When and where and how and why did Melkor suddenly become a 'Lord Of Darkness'? That question is a reshaping of the original question.
Then theres Satan, Lucifer, some firey cherub, or whoever... Well, Im in the Sci-fi/fantasy/author section here and I cant speak for whoever he or it is. So to go quoting from the Bible is more a question of 'how closely do you associate Ea with our Universe?'. Im not here to do that. I refrain since that gets into peoples real-life hearts, and avoids this typed discussion about Melkor.

 

[HieroGlyph]

Hmmm...
So is Melkor evil? Evil incarnate? Or does 'evil' really exist? And is 'evil' simply a perspective we give things within Ea: that spectrum we stretch out to compare 'good' and its opposite?

The true downfall of Melkor isnt any pure evil 'thing'. I think its more his behaviour. His forever 'coveting'! To 'covet'. To want. To control, to own, to take away free will of others... Killing anything at all is a form of control and a brandishing of power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A powerful Being that desires and covets and wants to control everything... Is surely absolutely corrupted?
So Eru made Melkor. Eru did not create 'evil'. Melkor was immensely powerful. But that wasnt enough for him. He saught more. 'Couldnt get all the answers he wanted. Became the rebelious, unsatisfied child... And 'coveted'. And fell from grace.
By Will.
By Naure.
Becoming his own Fate.

(A bit like us humans, in many ways, eh?)

 

[Sinbearer]

Hmmm...
So is Melkor evil? Evil incarnate? Or does 'evil' really exist? And is 'evil' simply a perspective we give things within Ea: that spectrum we stretch out to compare 'good' and its opposite?

The dictionary definition of evil is: anything causing injury or harm. By that definition Melkor is evil. And certainly not pure which is defined to be innocent and untainted by evil. That perspective you mention is critical to the creation of moral thought. Without it we lose the ability to discern between Hitler and Mother Teresa.

In good stories children are taught the attractiveness of virtue and the repulsiveness of evil not so much by abstract precept—and certainly not by school’s ‘values clarification exercises’—but by rooting for virtuous heroes and being inspired by a good story to emulate their behavior…imaginative wrestling with conflicts is exactly how stories teach morality and build character.

This happens dynamically with young boys and tales of knights and dragons. It is one of the most effective challenges a young boy could be given. It throws down the question, “How will you live your life?” It exclaims, “There is real evil and there is transcendent good—would you risk your life for good—for all that is noble, pure and honorable?” It gives him a thrilling glimpse of light.
This objective nature of truth—or contrast of darkness against light—is one of the greatest lessons we learn from Tolkien. Evil is real; and so is good. Tolkien didn't have any time for the amoral relativism that is so prevalent in much of what passes as modern literature and entertainment. The fact that his myths contain more truth than most of what passes as realism serves as a damning indictment of the false vision being presented in our world today.

As for Melkor becoming an inevitable rebel. To me that simply means that rebelion was the inevitable result of his decision or will. Not that he HAD to be evil.

 

[etburyan]

I have enjoyed reading your thoughts. Although I don't have my copy of Silmarillian with me, I am in China, I have thought about the connection between satan and Melkor. I love the way that Tolkein writes it. How even what Melkor intends for evil turns out to be in THE PLAN. In any case, if I am remembering correctly, Satan, in Jewish tradition, is the tempter. Hence, he is different from all other angels in that he has that which caused the original sin. He has knowledge of good and evil. To tempt is to know that which is good and convince others not to do it, or at least to know evil and convince others to do that. I know that this isn't what Tolkein wrote about Melkor, but I think that it is interesting to think about.

 

[etburyan]

Since I didn't give my thoughts on Melkor I will put them down now...

Inevitable is an interesting thought because it is based on a concept that no human could ever accomplish...forknowledge. For the same reason that time travel movies don't accurately show what would happen to the person in the future if the changed the past, we can't understand inevitability. Only a being living outside time could truly understand that concept. Humans can only understand it in the past tense. We can understand laws of science and their "inevitable" reactions, but this is truly not inevitability but it is the reaction that happened in all other cases and is almost definitely going to happen. Those are laws...it gets much more complicated with sentient beings

That said, the only one who can judge inevitability would be a being outside of time who could look at the possible actions and outcomes BEFORE any action happens. Therefore, as they say, only God knows.

 

[Boaz]

Wow, I don't know if I ever checked in on this thread since my last post.

In my opinion, Arda's theology and cosmology are tremendously inspired by Judeo-Christian writings but we must be careful of how transfer attributes of YHWH (God) to Eru and from Angels to Ainur.

Most Christian theology, if not all, depicts Lucifer and his followers being cast from YHWH's presence rather quickly... though time before time is fairly impossible to quantify. I think it's significant that after Melkor's two attempts to sabotage Eru's song Eru did not banish him to the Outer Darkness. It seems that Eru admonished Melkor and his followers but did not punish them. So I'm led to believe that the rebellious Ainur, including Melkor, could be forgiven by Eru... they could be forgiven and put again into a correct relationship with their Maker. In Christian theology Angels know better than to rebel... there is no second chance (and third, fourth, fifth, etc.) for them as there is for humans.

Melkor, still abiding in Eru's presence, decided to rebel again and went surreptiously to Arda. His original rebellion seemed forgiven so it does not seem like he was fated to be the Evil One for all time. He chose to go and be the corruptor of Arda. After finally being defeated and imprisoned by the Valar, Melkor was pardoned by Manwe. Since Manwe knows more of the mind of Eru than any other Ainur, I think that redemption for Melkor was still possible at this late date. Yet again, Melkor did not take the chance.

I think all this shows that Melkor was not fated to be evil. He chose repeatedly to be evil. So was it his nature to choose incorrectly? No, Melkor was the greatest of the Ainur. Eru made him to lead and guide as a governor for Eru. Eru made him for a good purpose. Melkor chose to do evil.

Osse was mentioned by a previous poster. He briefly joined Melkor before the awakening of the Quendi. But he repented of this and was allowed to rejoin the Valar and Maiar.

After the victorious Valar captured Melkor a second time, Eonwe asked Sauron to come back to be judged by Manwe. The Silmarillion says something to the effect of Sauron felt remorse and wanted to rejoin his kin in Aman, but that his shame and pride were too great.