Did Gollum deserve death?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

n.b. I've been working on this for the best part of the afternoon. I am sure to have cross-posted with a lot of people. I apologise in advance.

I've come late to this argument, and although I shall try to address as many of the issues raised as possible I can't guarantee that I won't miss out or misrepresent somebody. At the moment I am still desperately trying to digest an unappetising melange of personal, legal and moral philosophy, speculation and at times insufferably arrogant and unjustifiably rude dismissal. I expect that you all know who you are.

The main thing I have noticed up to this point is the woeful paucity of actual quotations. Considering that individual words are taken to be so important in Tolkien's works, there seems very little attention paid to his precise words on certain subjects. One of the reasons I have taken so long to respond is that I have been reading what Tolkien had to say before reaching a conclusion, and much reading it required too.

That said, I shall try to respond to some of the points raised in the discussion thus far. Before I do, though, I should like to quote more fully the original passage from which this debate sprang.

'I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.'

'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in.

'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. 'I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least. In any case we did not kill him: he is old and very wretched. The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with such kindness as they can find in their wise hearts.'

LR Book I, ch. 2: 'The Shadow of the Past' (50th anniversary ed.)

A lot of energy has been expended on the single word daresay in this passage.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

"I daresay..." is incredibly different to "I say...". Remembering that Tolkien was English, it's important to consider how English people use the language, and "I daresay..." is very often used when someone really means "I think you're talking out of your backside, actually".

Originally Posted by Mansun

I am from England, & here things can be meant in a different context to what is written in word. "I dare say he does" - this sounds like a sarcastic comment from Gandalf, he is saying he would be reluctant to give death as punishment. It does not mean he meant Gollum deserves death.

Before I enter into any interpretation of what I think Tolkien meant Gandalf to say, we need some sort of objective source for the word. I have two.

-PHRASES I dare say (or daresay) used to indicate that one believes something is probable: I dare say you've heard about her

The Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd ed. (2003), entry for dare

I ~ say (rare exc[ept] in 1st person; 3rd sing[ular] in reported speech, he ~s to say, past he ~d say or to say), am prepared to believe, do not deny, = very likely (often iron[ic])

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 4th ed. (1951), entry for dare

Of these, naturally the definition given in the 1951 fourth edition of the Concise Oxford will be the more interesting, since it records usage at about the time LR was composed. As we can see above, the ironic meaning given by Lalwendë is recorded as common in the 1950s, but I do not believe that Gandalf means it in this sense. I think he means it in the primary sense 'I do not deny' or 'I am prepared to believe'. My reasoning is quite simple: why would someone sarcastically refute the idea that someone is deserving of death, only to give the moral reasoning behind leaving such a person alive in the very next sentence? If death is not deserved, then the moral implications need no explanation. Gandalf says: "Many that live deserve death," which is absolutely true, and follows it with "some that die deserve life". This is also true, but whereas it is all too easy to kill someone, bringing the dead back to life is rather more difficult. In an indirect way this suggests that who lives and who dies should be up to those who are capable of dispensing both life and death.

Also we should consider the almost contemptuous opening to Gandalf's sentence: "Deserves it!" Why the exclamation? Why not simply open with "I daresay"? It seems unpremeditated; a spontaneous outburst. Following on the heels of Frodo's implication that Gandalf or the Elves of Mirkwood should have killed Gollum, this seems significant to me. At the risk of putting words into the old wizard's mouth, I should say that the emotion here is exasperation. Perhaps Gandalf is in his own way saying the same thing as my title (lifted, to please myself and hopefully Mr. Underhill if ever he sees it, from Unforgiven). It is not the place even of Gandalf to judge who should live, since even Gandalf cannot bring the dead to life. As a matter of fact, only one power in LR can: the very Power to which Gandalf leaves Gollum's eventual fate. It is also very noteworthy that he does so in the hope, which he himself acknowledges to be unlikely, that Gollum can be healed. The word most conspicuous by its absence here for me is 'repent'. Repentence and absolution are a healing process. Even those who deserve death should be given the chance to live out their full span so that they can be given every chance to redeem themselves. This is the message of Gandalf's statements, and significantly this is not the only place where such a philosophy appears in Tolkien's writing. Niggle's purgatory is also portrayed as a healing process.

Lest it be said that I read far too much into this passage, it should be noted that Gollum does, as has been pointed out above, come within a hair's breadth of repentence on the stairs at Cirith Ungol. Tolkien had even gone so far as to formulate possible outcomes from his repentence, which he gives in Letter #246. More significantly, he points out in a letter already quoted here that

I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Letter #181 (drafts) to Michael Straight (c. Jan/Feb 1956)

In short, then, Gollum may or may not deserve death, but this is irrelevant to the moral message of this chapter, which states that whether or not someone has done things that justify their death is for God to decide, just as is the choice of who is to live or die. Doubtless in our secular world it is difficult to grasp a theory which relies on the presence of an omniscient judge: in an atheistic world, either people deserve to die (or it would be more beneficial to the world to kill them) and should be killed or they don't and should be allowed to live. Tolkien cuts through all of it with the simple question: 'Can you bring the dead back to life?' It's a question that implies a warning: 'don't take authority to yourself that you have no right to claim.' Significantly this is just as appropriate in an atheistic universal model as in Tolkien's. We're all agreed that people can't re-animate the dead (unless they have a genetically engineered zombie virus, or some giant lightning-powered machine and a good hand for needlework, but let's not get into that). Gollum might as well argue (if present) using Gawain's words: "But if on floor should fall my head I cannot it restore" (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight ll. 2282-3 (stanza 91). Tolkien's translation).

The above argument basically makes the question of Gollum's guilt or innocence and his level of culpability in his crimes somewhat redundant in my view, but I'll address some of the issues raised anyway. It's possible that Tolkien might have been making a point about the unreliability of hearsay, but given the general accuracy and reliability of hearsay from Gandalf, this seems unlikely. His balanced attitude concerning the treatment of Gollum, and his advocacy of pity in his conversation with Frodo, sit remarkably ill with an idea that he spiced up the evidence to make his subject seem more damnable.

Originally Posted by davem

Leaving this aside one can read Smeagol as 'victim' of the Ring's influence, & I think Tolkien is clear that he is a victim. And even if the story was true I think it would take a very hard hearted approach to the story of stealing babies from cradles for one to interpret it as depicting Gollum's 'evil' or monstrous nature rather than as depicting the horror of his existence, what this 'Hobbit' had been turned into by the Ring

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person.

Second, I wouldn't call his actions towards Bilbo murderous. He was hungry. He didn't want to kill Bilbo because he (Gollum) is an evil person, but because he was hungry. A lion doesn't kill an antilope because it's evil. It kills to satisfy its hunger.

Again, I think the answer is to be found by careful analysis of the passages in LR:

But Sméagol had been watching him from behind a tree , and as Déagol gloated over the ring, Sméagol came softly up behind.

'"Give us that, Déagol, my love," said Sméagol, over his friend's shoulder.

'"Why?" said Déagol.

'"Because it's my birthday, my love, and I wants it," said Sméagol.

'"I don't care," said Déagol. "I have given you a present already, more than I could afford. I found this, and I'm going to keep it."

'"Oh are you indeed, my love," said Sméagol; and he caught Déagol by the throat and strangled him, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful. Then he put the ring on his finger.

LR Book I ch. 2 The Shadow of the Past, 50th anniv. ed. (p.53)

Now this is a conversation which is entirely reported by Gandalf, more than 540 years after the fact, but at the end of his tale, he mentions to Frodo that: "What I have told you is what Gollum was willing to tell". He also says that "Gollum is a liar, and you have to sift his words". How much of this conversation is a fabrication or reconstruction of Gandalf's? Obviously not the murder, since that appears in the Tale of Years as an addendum to the formation of the White Council in 2463 (although this is not the exact year, as the annalist notes). More significantly, Gollum doesn't deny it, and the idea that he actually killed for the Ring provides the most realistic psychological explanation for his subsequent fixation with birthdays. But where does the interpretation of Sméagol's motivation come from? It looks like an intrusion of an omniscient narrator, but in this case the narrator is Gandalf, who isn't omniscient at all. Strangely it skims over Déagol's murder, but is almost poetic about its motive: the gold looked so bright and beautiful that Sméagol killed for it.

This boils down to whether or not one trusts Gandalf: if he reconstructed this scene faithfully from what Gollum told him, then whereas the Ring had to seduce Boromir with the thought of defending his whole country and the city of his birth, and whereas with Sam it offered him the chance to make Gorgoroth green again, all that Sméagol needed as a motive to strangle his kinsman was the fact that the ring was beautiful. The beauty of the Ring is something that many people forget: the brightness of the gold, the perfection of form and the elegance of the characters used to frame its ugly and unspeakable inscription. It is a beautiful object that can easily be desired for that quality alone, if one's spirit is sufficiently small and mean. It is possible that Sméagol could have done this thing for any gold ring, or indeed any item of sufficient beauty or worth.

That Déagol was Sméagol's kinsman (not his brother, as Raynor has quite rightly pointed out) is mentioned in a detailed description of Hobbit birthday customs in Tolkien's letter to A.C. Nunn. A byrding only received presents from relatives, and Tolkien continues:

A trace of this can be seen in the account of Sméagol and Déagol - modified by the individual characters of these rather miserable specimens. Déagol, evidently a relative (as no doubt all the members of the small community were), had already given his customary present to Sméagol, although they probably set out on their expedition v. early in the morning. Being a mean little soul he grudged it. Sméagol, being meaner and greedier, tried to use the 'birthday' as an excuse for an act of tyranny. 'Because I wants it' was his frank statement of his chief claim. But he also implied that D's gift was a poor and insufficient token: hence D's retort that on the contrary it was more than he could afford.

Letter #214 to A.C. Nunn (c. l. 1958 - e. 1959)

Importantly, Tolkien treats the entire conversation between Sméagol and Déagol not as reported speech, but as the actual words of the two characters. Implicitly he accepts that Gandalf has, like an idealised nineteenth-century philologist, assembled a pivotal account from scraps and fragments with complete accuracy. Of course, since everything that happens in LR was invented by Tolkien in the first place, he was in a good position to know the 'facts' of the case, so there's no need to accuse him of credulity. It was also part of his job to reassemble factual accounts from disparate, incomplete and often inaccurate sources, so he had a vested interest in believing that such a thing was possible and reliable, if one can wield the wisdom of Gandalf.

The question of the murdered babies seems very emotive to fellow members. It is not so for me, since as I mentioned above, whether or not Gollum ate babies is largely irrelevant. However, it seems to me that context is very important here, so I shall quote the passage again.

'...[Gollum] set out and came back westward, as far as the Great River. But then he turned aside. He was not daunted by the distance, I am sure. No, something else drew him away. So my friends think, those that hunted him for me.

'The Wood-elves tracked him first, an easy task for them, for his trail was still fresh then. Through Mirkwood and back again it led them, though they never caught him. The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds. The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed into trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.'

The Shadow of the Past LR p. 58 (super-duper bonus nested emphasis mine)

This time, Gandalf deals with second and third-hand accounts that he has collected from those who have hunted Gollum on his behalf. The theft of children from cradles is reported by the Wood-elves as something reported by the Woodmen, but why should the Woodmen invent such a thing? Surely children have been taken, and a mythology has built up around these events of a ghost that drinks blood. Tolkien's profession and inclination had given him a certain respect for folklore which is not encouraged in schools. As the rôle of Ioreth in The Houses of Healing makes abundantly clear, he believed that at the heart of myths, legends and folklore could be found useful kernels of truth. The rhymes remembered by Ioreth identify Aragorn as king and also cause Gandalf to fetch him to tend Éowyn, Faramir and Merry; and Celeborn says to Boromir:

'...do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.'

LR, Farewell to Lórien (p.374)

It does not take a great leap of the imagination to apply this same rule to the vague murmurings of the Woodmen about the nocturnal infanticide. The facts have been clothed in legend, but this is always so when terrible things are done and the perpetrator cannot be identified. There is more legend and speculation surrounding Jack the Ripper than survives about the adventures of Oðinn. Moreover, I think the context of Gandalf's remarks is significant. The Wood-elves have used the Woodmen's legends to track Gollum. If they were merely superstitious fiction this would have been at best coincidence. It is also significant that the terror that stalks the eaves of Mirkwood is not a traditional bogey, but a new horror. Circumstantial evidence at best, but as Saucepan pointed out, a novel is not a court of law. Through Gandalf, Tolkien uses the vocabulary and style of folklore to conjure up a horror of a character's action when to describe it would have a lesser, perhaps almost an unnoticeable effect. It should also be noted that talking birds are not out of order in LR, just as they are perfectly reasonable in Volsunga Saga. Indeed, while there are certainly questions about the origins of the Eagles, the fact remains that Gandalf reports conversations with Gwaihir the Windlord, who is, in fact, a bird. Tolkien uses talking birds rather less in LR than he did in The Hobbit, but they are a possibility within his world, and the Elves' conversations with them are quite reasonable, even likely in that context. In any case, the idea that the Elves of Mirkwood might be able to communicate with animals that are dumb to Men does not seem entirely unlikely, given their closer relationship with the matter of Arda.

Was Gollum a victim of the ring or a naturally evil monster? It seems that he was both. Everything Tolkien wrote about him suggests that he was a deeply unpleasant individual long before the Ring came to him; he appears to wrest the Ring violently from another bearer before it has much of a chance to call out to him, and he immediately uses it for malicious purposes. However, it is also evident that the Ring twisted and tormented him, and eventually abandoned him alone in the dark. The threads are too tangled fully to separate them, but it seems to me that the Ring gained almost instant mastery over Gollum because that within him that responded to it was already so pronounced. Like Lotho Sackville-Baggins, for selfish greed he becomes involved with an evil beyond his power to control or capacity to understand, but the destruction of his character and personality can still be traced to his own actions. Tolkien's world was not morally relative, and he genuinely believed the Gospel philosophy that the intent is the action. Whether or not we believe it is just as irrelevant as whether or not we personally believe in capital punishment. Gollum's eventual tortured corruption is so complete because his immediate response is not, like Bilbo's, pity, but instead immediate homicide.

I'll end with a thought that seems to have been missed in the general haggling: what is the great virtue in pity if it is only offered to the deserving? Surely it becomes a matter of greater moral courage, a genuine leap of faith, if those on whom we take pity are guilty. What if there is every likelihood that they will do more evil if left alive? Tolkien even considered this in respect of Gollum and Frodo:

At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly* betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden.

[Tolkien's footnote]

*Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent.
Letter #181 op. cit.

The question that arises is: what would have been the result for the world if temporal 'justice' had been served on Gollum? Very likely the victory and dominion of Sauron. A typically hard-hitting expression of Tolkien's own moral beliefs.

Finally, at the enormous risk of missing too many arguments, I'll address Bêthberry's very pertinent question:

Perhaps we are looking at this question from an inappropriate perspective, one derived more from attitudes in the Primary World than from those in the sub-created world. In Middle-earth, death is the gift of Eru. Therefore, it should not be used or seen as a form of punishment. All Men deserve death.

My foregoing comments have probably made it clear that I share your belief that this debate is looking at all the wrong angles, and although I'm looking at the question as one of the right to judge, and to exercise the high justice as well as the low, yours is also a valid point. Part of Sméagol's misery and tragedy is that he has lived far beyond his natural span, but a poor sort of life and one scarcely preferable to death. Although he seems terrified at the prospect of death in his final confrontation with Sam on the slopes of Orodruin, his actual death looks much more like a release. Doubtless he wouldn't have agreed with me as he plummeted into the fire, but I think that Tolkien might.