Fair Fight

[Elmo]

Skimming through my newly aquired copy of Morgoth's Ring, I noticed in the Annals of Aman, that because there was only one of Melkor against the many of the Valar, they sent forth Tulkas alone to fight Melkor. This seems a stupid bit of chivalry when the fate of Arda is at stake. What would have have happened if Melkor had defeated Tulkas? Would Orome or someone else fought then? Would the Valar have formed an orderly queue waiting for their chance to fight? The Valar completly lost their advantage of being many against one.

SImilar idiocy is shown by Sauron when he sends his wolves one by one to get killed by that mangy mutt of the Valar. Is this the same chivalry shown in this instance? I doubt it because Sauron was the master of treachery but maybe he still followed the Valar's equivalent of the samurai code or something

[The Might]

Sauron knew that Huan would anyway kill the wolves since I believe he knew about the prophecy. He expected that he would be the greatest wolf of all times in his wolf form, however that "honor" belonged to Draugluin.
As for the Valar...I am not sure what to say
I guess many of their deeds seem idiocy, but at a closer look show much wisdom from them. Of course many led to the deaths of thousands, but as long as it was fair it seems the Valar had no problem with it. I personally also don't like their ideas, but I guess it is hard as lesser beings to understand how a spirit of their level would handle.

[Bêthberry]

Before throwing about words such as 'idiocy' perhaps we should read Tolkien's own words on the subject of heroic versus chivalric behaviour. They are available in his essay The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son, especially in the section discussing the Old English word ofermod.

[Raynor]

It is worth mentioning that in the Converse of Manwe and Eru, also found in HoME X, it is stated Eru was active on the part of the good guys regading this war: "Eru would not have permitted Melkor so greatly to damage Arda that the Children could not come, or could not inhabit it ".

[Boromir88]

Thanks for bringing ofermod up Bethberry; I would never have thought about that if it wasn't for you.

To give a little background to the word ofermod here, it's like an excessive pride (to the point of arrogance or foolhardiness). Several of Tolkien's characters demonstrate ofermod (Denethor, Boromir, Sauron to name some off the top of my head). Pride, spirit, and confidence are good things to have, but too much could be your own downfall.

Our very own Lalwende brought this up to my attention (thanks Lal) :

The word ofermod which appears in "Maldon" (describing Beortnoth’s state of mind when allowing the Vikings free passage) has, since Tolkien, become open to interpretation. The Old English noun ’mod’ is usually translated ’spirit’ and, when unqualified, is usually read as a positive trait. Tolkien’s interpretation of the qualifying ’ofer-’ is central, however. He argues that the word in fact suggests excess, and thus presents a serious indictment of Beortnoth’s character. Apparently, Tolkien was preoccupied also with defining the limitations of heroism. His translation of ofermod clearly implies a distinction between the bold and the foolhardy, high spirit and excessive spirit.

The full essay (if you think it may be of some help) can be found here. (Again thanks Lal, great stuff).

And thanks Bethberry, I think you're definitely on to something with the word ofermod. Though, as far as I know, that word never appears in Middle-earth related texts...it's still quite clear that Tolkien uses heroism, chivalry, excessive pride, throughout the Lord of the Rings. And we can see it in his characters like Sauron, Denethor, Boromir, Saruman (and probably more that aren't coming to my mind right now).

[Lord Melkor]

Hmmm, it may be interesting to note that the word ofermod sounds very similar to the Dutch word overmoed, which in modern Dutch has the same meaning Tolkien ascribed to ofermod. It seems quite likely that the professor was right on this one.

[Bêthberry]

What I find interesting about Tolkien's discussion, Boro88, is his contrast between chivalry (and a related excess of selfish pride) and heroism. He seems to be suggesting a difference between the Old English heroic epics and the Middle Ages' chivalric literature. And Tolkien adds in not only the psychology of the individual warrior, but also the status of the men 'above' and 'below' the leader: how much does a warrior hero owe to his tribe and the men who fight with him? The knights of the Round Table, to my recollection (and it's been some years since I read the various versions of Arthur), aren't beholdin' to a social group, but to themselves, as much as they are knights of Camelot. They are individualists.

This point of Tolkien's seems appicable to the initial post of hwaim where he points out that the fate of Arda is at stake.

EDIT: ofermod is a well discussed word in OE studies, and its meaning highly contested. We should get Squatter in on this, as possibly he is the most recent student of OE on this forum.

[Thenamir]

For some reason I am reminded of the 80's made-for-TV version of The Scarlet Pimpernel, in which Monsieur Chauvelin (played by a much-younger but still-estimable Ian McKellen), held defeated at swordpoint by an ever-so-British Sir Percy Blakeney, mocks the mercy of his opponent (who lets him live to return to humiliation by his superiors) by saying, "Oh, you British and your stupid sense of fair play..."

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

EDIT: Cross-posted with half the forum

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

EDIT: ofermod is a well discussed word in OE studies, and its meaning highly contested. We should get Squatter in on this, as possibly he is the most recent student of OE on this forum.

Your wish is my command.

Some of you may recall Joy's thread about The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth [1], in which I made one or two points about Tolkien's views on the subject and related them to The Silmarillion. In that post I accepted Tolkien's opinions about what ofermod means, partly because that clarified some of the actions of his characters and partly because I'm still not qualified to argue with him about linguistic matters. However, I do know of some people who are so qualified, and I happen to have some photocopies of their opinions on the subject left over from my course. Tolkien's is neither a generally accepted one nor is it immune from criticism. He does not even identify all of the occurrences of ofermod in the Old English corpus, but semantics are on his side.

In the world of Anglo-Saxon literary studies, ofermod has been overdone. Since Tolkien's article was printed, a bewildering number of distinguished Anglo-Saxonists have published their opinions on the disputed lines 84-90 of The Battle of Maldon; yet still no definitive conclusion has been reached as to whether the word is meant to imply overweening pride, overconfidence, high-spiritedness or great courage.

Helmut Gneuss [2] identifies five distinct meaning groups for the word as given by past reviewers and editors:

1. pride, great pride, excessive pride, foolish pride, foolhardy pride; arrogance, haughtiness, disdain; overweening courage
2. overconfidence, superb self-confidence
3a. recklessness, rashness, rash courage, foolhardiness, German Übermut (= high spirits, wantonness, exuberance?)
3b. over-courage, overboldness
4. great, high courage
5.magnanimity, greatness of heart, over-generosity.

Gneuss proceeds to point out that a volume by Hans Schabram [3] lists all the translations of superbia extant in Old English, declaring that "It is to be expected that this will also include the final word on ofermod in Maldon."

Armed with Schabram, Gneuss informs us that there are four occurrences of ofermod in Old English, and that in all cases other than Maldon they translate the Latin word superbia. To take but two examples, in Genesis B, Lucifer is se engel ofermodes (the angel of pride) and in Instructions for Christians, the phrase from Maldon is even repeated:

Ac se ðe sylfne to swiðe ahefð
for his ofermode, he bið earm for Gode.

But he who exalts himself too much
because of his pride, he will be wretched before God

This passage is itself an echo of St. Luke:

Originally Posted by Luke XVI:15, Vulgate and Douai-Rheims Bible

et ait illis vos estis qui iustificatis vos coram hominibus Deus autem novit corda vestra quia quod hominibus altum est abominatio est ante Deum

And he said to them: You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is high to men, is an abomination before God.

Short time means that I must skip Gneuss' examination of Germanic cognate words and go straight to his conclusions:

1. ofermod (noun) can only mean "pride" in Genesis B, Instructions for Christians, and a glossary, i.e. wherever it occurs;
2. the phrase for his ofermode is found in Maldon and Instructions
3. the OE adjective ofermod denotes "proud" in more than 120 instances; nowhere can it be found to have a sense like "bold, courageous, magnanimous," etc.;
4.the Old Saxon and Old High German equivalents of OE ofermod (noun and adjective) are always used with the sense "pride; proud" in extant written records; [4]
5. there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that ofermod (noun) could have a signification like "recklessness," "over-courage," "great courage," "magnanimity";
6. the context in which ofermod appears in The Battle of Maldon makes it likely that the word is a term of criticism, if not of reproach; lytegian (l.86) and alyfan landes to fela (l.90) clearly point to an error of judgment committed by Byrhtnoð.

But things are never so simple in the world of medieval studies. There is very little evidence to go on, and Professor Gneuss' opinion is based on an extremely small set of data. His conclusions were questioned in 1995 by Paul Cavill [5], who observed that Gneuss had only proved that ofermod normally translates superbia, and that both words may have more meanings than 'pernicious pride'. Responding to Gneuss' postulation that "Byrhtnoth was employing the right tactics but did not, or did not yet, have a fighting force sufficiently strong to carry through his plan," he wonders

Originally Posted by Paul Cavill

In what sense is it because of Byrhtnoð's pride that he takes on the Vikings before he has enough men? It would make sense to call such an attitude "recklessness", "over-courage", "great courage", possibly even "magnanimity" ... At the very least, pride here would have strong connotations of recklessness, over-courage and so on.

Those are but two arguments in a huge debate, which I've condensed drastically so as to avoid boring you and spending all night on this post. Essentially what remains to be seen is how wide a semantic range ofermod really has and what its sense is in The Battle of Maldon, which is the only context in which its meaning seems to be disputed. Both remain to be seen, but perhaps Tolkien can still have the last word on the poet's approval or otherwise of Byrhtnoth:

Beorhtnoth was wrong, and he died for his folly. But it was a noble error, or the error of a noble. It was not for the heorðwerod to blame him; probably many would not have felt him blameworthy, being themselves noble and chivalrous. But poets are above chivalry, or even heroism; and if they give any depth to their treatment of such themes, then, even in spite of themselves, these 'moods' and the objects to which they are directed will be questioned.

We don't know who wrote The Battle of Maldon, where it was written or exactly when; but if it was written by a monk of Ely, or a poet of the East Saxons, then it is likely that any criticism was made in spite of his reverence for Byrhtnoth as an East Saxon hero and champion of the church militant, as he appears in the Liber Eliensis (Book of Ely) and Vita Sancti Oswaldi (Life of Saint Oswald). If he was a monk, it may have been that he felt the need to explain why God had abandoned the English to the mercies of the pagan Vikings; and there is enough Biblical precedent for blaming his countrymen's own sins that perhaps he couldn't resist. Such speculation is, however, simply my own speculation this evening. I doubt very much that it would stand up to real academic analysis.
--
[1] I should note here that Tolkien has used an archaic spelling; the rest of the world refers to the Ealdorman at Maldon as 'Byrhtnoth', as in the manuscript.
[2] Helmut Gneuss, 'The Battle of Maldon 89: Byrhtnoð's ofermod once again'. Studies in Philology LXXIII.2 (April 1976), 117-37.
[3] Hans Schabram, Superbia. Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz. Teil I: Die dialektale und zeitliche Verbreitung des Wortguts (München, 1965).
[4]Old Saxon ('v' for crossed 'b') ovarmôd, ovarmôdig: 'proud, superbus'; Old High German ubermuot, ubermuatí and derivatives: 'pride, proud'. But this may mean superbia through semantic borrowing, returning to its original meaning in Middle High German (Werner Betz, Deutsch und Lateinisch. Die Lehnbildungen der althochdeutschen Benediktinerregel (Bonn, 1949).
[5] Paul Cavill, 'Interpretation of The Battle of Maldon, Lines 84-90: A Review and Reassessment', Studia Neophilologica 67 (1995), 149-64

[Celebdil]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Skimming through my newly aquired copy of Morgoth's Ring, I noticed in the Annals of Aman, that because there was only one of Melkor against the many of the Valar, they sent forth Tulkas alone to fight Melkor. This seems a stupid bit of chivalry when the fate of Arda is at stake. What would have have happened if Melkor had defeated Tulkas? Would Orome or someone else fought then? Would the Valar have formed an orderly queue waiting for their chance to fight? The Valar completly lost their advantage of being many against one.

One thing I've always been confused about, is Tolkien repeatedly states in the Sil that Melkor is the most powerful Vala ever, and it really seems sometimes like he's trying to drive this point home so nobody will ever question Melkor's power. But as far as I can tell, he never gives any explicit examples proving that Melkor is the most powerful. And there are quite a few counter-examples - such as Tulkas defeating Melkor in 1v1 battle, and a mere Elf (Fingolfin) giving 7 wounds to the most powerful being ever before dying. I mean, we're told that the Vala have the power to destroy mountains and change oceans, and then a mere Elf is able to deal quite a bit of damage to the most powerful of them?

I'm just curious why Tolkien makes it a point to repeatedly state how powerful Melkor is. I don't think we ever see clear examples of why he's so powerful.

[Elmo]

Doesn't he spend all his power making dragons and the like? I think Tolkien is trying to show that the evil squander their power.

[Celebdil]

Maybe you're right. I don't have the Sil in front of me now, but I remember when Feanor slams his door in Melkor's face in Valinor that Tolkien said something like "he slammed his door on the most powerful resident of Valinor". Had Melkor made the dragons at that point? I forget

[The Might]

He is the most powerful overall.
Eonwe is the greatest as far as fighting with weapons is concerned.
Tulkas is the greatest wrestler.
But Melkor was the greatest of all.
But you are right, by using his powers to corrupt and for other evil purposes he did lose certain powers, for example he was no longer able to change his form and was "stuck" in the shape of an evil lord.

[Elmo]

Here's another side track, if Eonwe is the best at weapons then wouldn't he beat his master Manwe because in the Annals of Aman it says that Manwe has a sword

[Celebdil]

Originally Posted by The Might

He is the most powerful overall.
Eonwe is the greatest as far as fighting with weapons is concerned.
Tulkas is the greatest wrestler.
But Melkor was the greatest of all.
But you are right, by using his powers to corrupt and for other evil purposes he did lose certain powers, for example he was no longer able to change his form and was "stuck" in the shape of an evil lord.

Yes, Tolkien says that Melkor is the most powerful many times. But I can't think of any particular instance where he proves this. Tulkas is said to be a great wrestler and this is proven by him defeating Melkor. But does Tolkien ever give an example of Melkor exerting all his "power" over the other Valar? What kind of power is it? In that world, power seems mostly to refer to the ability to
1) wage war successfully
2) be successful in personal combat
3) create/shape the world

Melkor seems to be inadequate in all these things. He loses many, many wars in the Sil. He loses a fight to Tulkas, and makes a seemingly poor showing against Fingolfin, though he does eventually win. And as I remember, he never really took part in creating the world, since he was off in the void searching for the flame while the other Valar were creating the earth. So what has Melkor ever done to deserve the title of "most powerful Valar"?

[Boromir88]

As hewhoarisesinmight mentions, Morgoth squandered a lot of his power into Arda so he could twist, manipulate, and do what he wanted to it. As is noted in The Silmarillion:

The mightiest of those Ainur who came into the World was in his beginning Melkor...~The Valaquenta

Morgoth would later start squandering his power into Arda to corrupt, to dominate over Men and Elves...etc, and this caused his weakening.

Also, we must look at wording that's used. Tolkien uses 'greatest,' 'mightiest,' 'most powerful,' frequently and you kind of wonder well what does that mean? Melkor being called the 'mightiest' or 'greatest' Vala doesn't mean he is unstoppable and the best at every single attribute. But taking Melkor as a whole he was the 'mightiest.' Let's look at Tulkas:

Greatest in strength and deeds of prowess is Tulkas...He delights in wrestling and tests of strength...~ibid

As far as strength and physical 'prowess' goes Tulkas was called the greatest. This doesn't mean Tulkas was the wisest, fairest,...or any other sort of attribute. But when it came to strength Tulkas was the 'greatest.' You can say that Tulkas was very specialized, he had one trait (strength) where he was the creme-de-la-creme so to say, and that was his specialty.

Being the 'strongest' and taking delight in 'wrestling' it comes as no surprise that he was able to beat Melkor in a wrestling contest. Morgoth was 'great' in several traits (which is probably why in the beginning he was the 'mightiest')...Tulkas was the best at one thing (strength) so in a deeds of strength he was able to beat Melkor. I'm sorry if that's a bit confusing, it's hard for me to get out what I'm trying to say. But try this real-life example if I was too jumbled (I hope your familiar with baseball?):

The best pitcher in baseball is Roger Clemens (I know when we're dealing with this stuff it's debateable, but just bare with me here). Roger Clemens abilities overall and what he's done throughout his career I believe he is the best pitcher.

Joel Zumaya can throw the fastest fastball (he can get into the mid 100's).

Taking this example, eventhough if Clemens is by far the more accomplished and better pitcher...does this mean that if it was a contest of who can throw the fastest that Roger Clemens would beat Joel Zumaya (and everyone else)? No, because Zumaya can throw faster (and indeed he can throw the fastest)...but overall Clemens is a much better pitcher.

Tulkas beat Melkor, because strength and wrestling were Tulkas' specialties but this doesn't make Tulkas the 'greatest' of the Valar.

I hope that helps get across my point a bit more.