The curse of Morgoth in CoH.

[skip spence]

I just re-read the Children of Hurin and was struck by the dark tone of the book. The characters, especially the mortal men, just can't do anything right. Whether they have good intentions or not, all their actions lead to further evil.

I thought about Morgoth's curse on Hurin and what it really meant. Hurin thinks Morgoth is lying when he says he can curse his family and affect it from afar. Clearly Hurin was mistaken. So how does this curse work then? This is my theory:

In 'Morgoth's Ring' we're told that the whole ME is to Morgoth what the One ring is to Sauron. In his quest to be the undisputed Lord of ME, Morgoth has dispersed much of his vast powers into the very 'hroa' of the earth, which had the downside of making his own physical persona more earthbound and less potent. On the upside though, the earth itself became charged with his evil and able to exert his will: to urge on the orcs far away from Angband and to cause his enemies to mistrust and fight each other. In fact, if we believe what is written in MR, Melkor isn't just a renegade Vala, doing what is evil; he is evil itself, and the rote cause of everything that is wrong with the world . Without his discord during the creation of Arda there wouldn't be any evil deeds whatsoever, and the whole of ME would have remained a blissful paradise, akin to the garden of Eden.

I imagine the curse of Morgoth to be like an everpresent voice, whispering dark suggestions into Turin's unconsiousness, much like the rings of power does to its carriers. And although his intentions are good and noble, he just isn't strong enough to resist the will of Morgoth which is concentrated on him. And the burden of Morgoth's evil will does not rest on Turin alone. It seems like all the characters in the book are affected badly, as Morgoth's power over Beleriand is great at this time. Just think of the woman Turin rescued from his outlaw buddies and her bloodlust, demanding a head for a bride's gift.

I don't think Morgoth could plan Turin's fate in detail; after all he wouldn't have planned for Turin to slay Glaurung. Also Morgoth doesn't know where Turin is or what he does when he has no direct information from his servants, so he can't send any direct unconscious messages to him. But what he can do is to focus his evil will on Hurin and his kin, making the little red devil on their shoulders so much stronger and causing them to constantly make the wrong decisions.

Any other ideas?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

In 'Morgoth's Ring' we're told that the whole ME is to Morgoth what the One ring is to Sauron. In his quest to be the undisputed Lord of ME, Morgoth has dispersed much of his vast powers into the very 'hroa' of the earth, which had the downside of making his own physical persona more earthbound and less potent.

Do you have quotes? I don't recall this from MR (then again, it's been about a year since I read it). The reason, as far as I could gather, for Morgoth's decrease in power was due to his putting his power into his servants, not the earth itself. His influence seems to go with the creatures that do his bidding. Weather or not this is more prominent in some, like Sauron, or less in others, like orcs, I don't know.
We come again to the 'seeds' of Morgoth, as mentioned most predominately in the Fall of Numenor. We know he was the spreader of lies and the account of his 'rise to power' before the slaying of the trees is a good example, I think, of how he worked.
As for Turin, we have an interesting problem. I do often wonder about his 'bad luck' as it were and exactly how involved Morgoth was in it. This raises further questions about what exactly the power of the Valar even is. Can they influence creatures that are not their servants. Certainly the moving and to an extent, controlling of things tends to be something they do, although I think Morgoth is the only one to do it extensively with living things. (Depending on how you view Manwe's Eagles). It always seemed to me that, in order for a Valar to have an effective influence on someone there had to be some willingness on the part of the one being influenced. Given Turin's hatred (albeit, of Morgoth), it may have been the source of Melkor's hand in him, if indeed this is true.
Then again, it could just be that Turin was dreadfully unlucky.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Hookbill

Do you have quotes? I don't recall this from MR (then again, it's been about a year since I read it). The reason, as far as I could gather, for Morgoth's decrease in power was due to his putting his power into his servants, not the earth itself.

It's found in Myths Transformed, HoME X:

Originally Posted by Notes on motives in the Silmarillion, II

Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the hroa, the 'flesh' or physical matter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it. A vaster, and more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient', and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.
...
Sauron's, relatively smaller, power was concentrated;Morgoth's vast power was disseminated. The whole of 'Middle-earth' was Morgoth's Ring, though temporarily his attention was mainly upon the North-west.

Edit: x-posted with WCH

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Do you have quotes? I don't recall this from MR (then again, it's been about a year since I read it). The reason, as far as I could gather, for Morgoth's decrease in power was due to his putting his power into his servants, not the earth itself

"To gain domination over Arda, Morgoth had let most of his being pass into the physical constituents of the Earth- hance all things that were born on Earth and lived on or by it, beasts or plants or incarnate spirits, were liable to be 'stained'...Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the hroa, the flesh or physical metter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it...Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient', and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.....The whole of Middle-earth was Morgoth's Ring."

EDIT: X-posted with Raynor

[skip spence]

^^I can't be bothered to look up any direct quotes right now, maybe later.

In any case, the title "Morgoth's Ring" is derived from the idea that Morgoth has dispersed his powers into the very fabric of earth in similar fashion to how Sauron put forth his much more limited powers into the One ring. This means that every being that draws its physical being or 'hroa' from the fabric of the earth, comes with a piece of Melkorism in it, which is a capacity and often a tendency towards evil (you might also call it a free will). Read the debate of the Valar in MR concerning the unnatural death of Miriel, mother of Feanor, for more info.

Melkor can't control any of the Children of Illuvatar directly, as the 'fea' (sp?) of the Children is indomitable by nature. He can influence and make them fear him however and does it at all times too. Some can resist his bidding better than others but all are affected. Like I said, in the metaphysics of Arda, Melkor is evil, and when ever someone does what is evil and unnatural, he or she obeys the will of Morgoth. And this goes on even after his defeat and banishment. Just like Sauron can't be destroyed completely unless the One ring is destroyed, the marring of Morgoth can't be wholly undone unless Arda itself is destroyed.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

In fact, if we believe what is written in MR, Melkor isn't just a renegade Vala, doing what is evil; he is evil itself, and the rote cause of everything that is wrong with the world . Without his discord during the creation of Arda there wouldn't be any evil deeds whatsoever, and the whole of ME would have remained a blissful paradise, akin to the garden of Eden.

I disagree that Melkor himself introduced evil as a moral category: I would say he was merely its most potent agent. The choice to do good or evil was there, given to him and all the others by their Creator; I would say it is a prerequisite of free will, which all the Valar/Eruhini have. The potential for good and evil actions/thoughts would have existed without Melkor; we could speculate if it would have been better worse without Melkor, but that's fallaciously based on a hypothesis contrary to "reality", so I don't think it could serve us much.

Originally Posted by skip spence

Like I said, in the metaphysics of Arda, Melkor is evil, and when ever someone does what is evil and unnatural, he or she obeys the will of Morgoth.

I disagree; one counter-example is Ungoliant:

Originally Posted by Of the darkening of Valinor, Silmarillion

But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness; and she fled to the south, escaping the assaults of the Valar and the hunters of Oromë

Just like Sauron can't be destroyed completely unless the One ring is destroyed, the marring of Morgoth can't be wholly undone unless Arda itself is destroyed.

In the Atrabeth, it is presumed by Finrod that Eru himself will enter and heal Ea - without destroying it.

Finrod, however, sees now that, as things were, no created thing or being in Arda, or in all Ea, was powerful enough to counteract or heal Evil: that is to subdue Melkor (in his present person, reduced though that was) and the Evil that he had dissipated and sent out from himself into the very structure of the world. Only Eru himself could do this. Therefore, since it was unthinkable that Eru would abandon the world to the ultimate triumph and domination of Melkor (which could mean its ruin and reduction to chaos), Eru Himself must at some time come to oppose Melkor.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One reason the Valar refrained from making war on Melkor was the fear that in so doing, all of Middle-earth or indeed Arda would be undone. We see what did in fact happen to Beleriand.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

One reason the Valar refrained from making war on Melkor was the fear that in so doing, all of Middle-earth or indeed Arda would be undone. We see what did in fact happen to Beleriand.

Yes, I am aware of that passage from MT; however, since skip's statement was not qualified, I felt compelled to make my argument.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree that Melkor himself introduced evil as a moral category: I would say he was merely its most potent agent. The choice to do good or evil was there, given to him and all the others by their Creator; I would say it is a prerequisite of free will, which all the Valar/Eruhini have. The potential for good and evil actions/thoughts would have existed without Melkor; we could speculate if it would have been better worse without Melkor, but that's fallaciously based on a hypothesis contrary to "reality", so I don't think it could serve us much.

The Ainur existed before the creation, but whether they have a free will to do good or evil is not certain, although I belive thay do. It is possible though that Eru created Melkor to do exactly what he did, so his children could rise above it. After all, good deeds aren't possible without a choice to do wrong. Obviously there are a lot of parallells to christian mythology in Tolkiens works. Now, the use of the word "evil" can be debated, but I certainly believe that Morgoth was the rote cause of "evil" or whatever you want to call it, and that Arda was marred by 'Melkorism' from the very beginning.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree; one counter-example is Ungoliant:

When I say that doing evil is doing Morgoth's bidding I'm not talking about obeying a direct order. Feanor for example wouldn't dream of obeying Morgoth directly, but certainly did so indirectly, inflamed by his lies and subtle influence.
So when Ungoliant disowns her master, she disowns Morgoth as an incarnate being, but not the primeval discord he put on Arda.

Originally Posted by Raynor

In the Atrabeth, it is presumed by Finrod that Eru himself will enter and heal Ea - without destroying it.

Eru is the exception as he is omnipotent. He is free to end or heal the world at any time. Besides, Finrod is a character, and although he is wise, he is merely speculating.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

The Ainur existed before the creation, but whether they have a free will to do good or evil is not certain, although I belive thay do.

Are you implying that Eru created the valar without free will? I would say this goes contrary to his work and I know of no future point where they are given such free will. Or do you imply there can be free will without the ability to choose between good and evil? I don't think I follow.

Feanor for example wouldn't dream of obeying Morgoth directly, but certainly did so indirectly, inflamed by his lies and subtle influence.
So when Ungoliant disowns her master, she disowns Morgoth as an incarnate being, but not the primeval discord he put on Arda.

I believe we are talking again about two different things: choosing rather freely between good and evil (and Feanor did his share of bad choices) and being coerced towards evil, which is what Melkor's marring was in essence about. To return to my previous example, Ungoliant was perfectly well outside Melkor's will when she nearly finished him off when he refused to honor their understanding.

Eru is the exception as he is omnipotent. He is free to end or heal the world at any time. Besides, Finrod is a character, and although he is wise, he is merely speculating.

Then again, I think we should ask which is the proper perspective: that of Eru, of hope, of faith, or that of the marring. All throughout the works, there are numerous and consistent references to the level of involvement of Eru, to the futility of evil, even in temporal times and to how He guarantees the success of good.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by skip spence

In fact, if we believe what is written in MR, Melkor isn't just a renegade Vala, doing what is evil; he is evil itself, and the rote cause of everything that is wrong with the world . Without his discord during the creation of Arda there wouldn't be any evil deeds whatsoever, and the whole of ME would have remained a blissful paradise, akin to the garden of Eden.

Tom Shippey, in "Author of the Century", pointed out that Tolkien was very careful to keep evil in Middle Earth in a balance of seeming opposites. The two poles are called "Manichaean" and "Boethian". In Manichaeen, evil is considered equal to good, whereas in Boethian, Good is considered to be the ALL, and evil is merely its negative. I think Shippey was right that Tolkien was careful to keep these two poles in balance.

So to say that Melkor was evil itself, would be too Manichaean. Besides, I don't think striking a balance between these two really messes up your thinking here.

[littlemanpoet]

Allow me to quote myself, since I have offered the only reasonable answer to your debate, which would have been unnecessary had you paid attention.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Tom Shippey, in "Author of the Century", pointed out that Tolkien was very careful to keep evil in Middle Earth in a balance of seeming opposites. The two poles are called "Manichaean" and "Boethian". In Manichaeen, evil is considered equal to good, whereas in Boethian, Good is considered to be the ALL, and evil is merely its negative. I think Shippey was right that Tolkien was careful to keep these two poles in balance.

So to say that Melkor was evil itself, would be too Manichaean. To say that evil originated with Eru would be taking the Boethian argument too far. Both points of view are going to be able to find material in Tolkien to support your view because he put both in there. He kept them in balance. We would do well to do the same in our understanding of his works.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Allow me to quote myself, since I have offered the only reasonable answer to your debate, which would have been unnecessary had you paid attention.

You didn't really expect us to go along with that, did you?

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So to say that Melkor was evil itself, would be too Manichaean. To say that evil originated with Eru would be taking the Boethian argument too far. Both points of view are going to be able to find material in Tolkien to support your view because he put both in there. He kept them in balance. We would do well to do the same in our understanding of his works.

And if I ignored you, it was because I didn't really understand this Shippey fella's ideas and what significance they have to our debate. And I'm afraid I don't now either. Perhaps I'm not clever enough.

Did Tolkien ever use these terms?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by skip spence

You didn't really expect us to go along with that, did you?

And if I ignored you, it was because I didn't really understand this Shippey fella's ideas and what significance they have to our debate. And I'm afraid I don't now either. Perhaps I'm not clever enough.

Did Tolkien ever use these terms?

No doubt he was familiar with them, whether he made reference to them himself. The names for the two points of view aren't important. The content is. Simply put: View # 1 is a creator originated all good things, and that being good, cannot have created evil; yet evil exists. The answer to how it can exist, is that evil is the negative of good. View #2 is that good and evil are equal and in an eternal struggle for dominance. Shippey is saying that Tolkien held these two views in tension, in balance, in his descriptions of evil in LotR (and probably elsewhere). The Ringwraiths, for example, are described as actual beings with real (though unseen) flesh, but they exist on a negative, "wraithed" plane, as it were. So both views #1 & #2 are implicit. Hope that helps.

[skip spence]

^I'm not convinced Tolkien had these two concepts in mind and tried to balance them. In Tolkien's Eä Eru is allmighty and created everything in it, good or bad, as Raynor pointed out. I guess what we were debating was the orgin of evil. Did Eru create Melkor with knowledge that he would rebel and torment the earth, to test the children and give them the choice to freely choose their path in life? Or did evil arise independently in the mind of Melkor to the dismay of Eru?

And as for the ringwraiths, I don't believe these concepts are applicable on them. Tolkien separates between the spirit world (or a similar term), which concerns the 'fea' (cf. soul) and the physical world which concerns the 'hroa' or the body. The wraiths operate mainly in the spirit world and that's where their powers are greatest. The fear they can put into the mind of others is therefore a more important weapon for them than for example swords. When Frodo puts on the One ring he also enters the spirit world and that's why he can see them clearly. But the spirit world is not inherently evil; far from it. The Valar (with the exeption of Morgoth) exists wholly in the spirit world and their physical bodies are more like clothes to them than an actual part of their being.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by skip

We can speculate whether Eru already knew Melkor was going to rebel (which indirectly would be an argument against free will) or if he didn't. I suggest we drop this point as you can find plenty of support for both options in the texts.

Though I would gladly debate over whether pure psychological knowledge is at odds with free will, I guess we will have to bag this.

But all the rational beings under Eru were created with this free will to choose between the good and the bad, so that they would do good IMO. Melkor, the mightiest under Eru, failed this hope.
...
Melkor didn't create evil per se, that I can go along with. But he is still the mythologiocal equivilance of evil. What he did do was to corrupt the creation with his discord, so that the creatures on earth would be swayed towards doing was is bad, something that would've been against their nature without the marring.

I believe we are in complete agreement over this; I also previously called him the most potent agent of evil.

The question of evil without Melkor is moot.

Oh, I browsed Morgoth's Ring and immideately found a quote to support my view (though I do not doubt you can do the same):

This is from 'the orgin of orcs' writings:

"Orcs can rebell agaist him [Sauron (my addition)] without losing their own irremediable alligiance to evil (Morgoth)."

So there you have it in JRRTs own words: Morgoth is evil.

Hm, those are some very interesting points for me to ponder over these few days, until I have the pleasure to return to our discussion .

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Hm, those are some very interesting points for me to ponder over these few days, until I have the pleasure to return to our discussion .

I look forward to it.