Faithfulness in Middle Earth

[Mungo of Bracegirdle]

In reviewing the Ainulindale last night, I started to think about JRRT's message here on loyalty/faithfulness. This idea is undoubtably central not only to this portion of the professors writings, but seems to be the unifing theme of his entire mythology. Perhaps most interesting is how he deals with the unfaithful, more specifically traitors. Melkor, being the greatest traitor of all, through his disloyalty to Eru's vision, sets a precident that follows throughout the rest of Middle Earth's fate. Every major historical event revolves around the idea of treachery. Also, the traitors in these events all seem to share a similar fate. Some of my favorites are Melkor, Feanor, Mim, Sauron, Gollum, Saruman, and Grima. I question the professor's "obsession" with disloyalty and ask how do these ideas resonate in a larger context. What is JRRT trying to tell us about how we live? Any ideas....

PS this is my first post. I'm very excited about joining this new community.

How come everybody always forgets me in the list of traitors???

Er... my user name, at any rate. My poor, unappreciated traitor.... *pets him* People, in my opinion, tend to underrate his significance in the stories. So forgive me if I rant.

Gorlim's struggle with faithfulness is one of the most stirring in all the books, I think. He was faced with a choice between two loyalties: to his wife, or to his captain. He chose wrongly, and what does that say to us, the readers? It's a real pickle, to be sure; especially for those who read religious connotations in the works. Was Gorlim's betrayal an abandonment of chivalry? Was it foolishness? Or is Gorlim merely a character to be pitied for the torments he was put through? Or... can Gorlim be seen as a twisted sort of martyr? It is clear that he had to break *one* oath. He was given a choice to break the bonds of marraige by allowing himself to die, or to betray the faith of his Captain by revealing their hiding place at Tarn Aeluin.

I have not decided one way or another, but I would like to offer the speculation that in this specific case Tolkien is setting an example by having Gorlim remain faithful to his marraige before his Captain. Though the end was still death, he was martyred for the holier of the two bonds.

[The X Phial]

We were actually discussing something similar to this in chat tonight. Does Tolkien represent rehabilition after treachery? It's a different track, but the same theme. We were specifically discussing Maedhros and Maglor. We decided that they come the closest to rehabilitation. What keeps them from repenting, though, is the loyalty you mention. They are loyal to the oath they swore in Valinor. So, loyalty can also be a negative thing, when it is to the wrong purpose.

P.S. Welcome to the Downs.

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[Finwe]

Loyalty is often praised because it is a very strong unifying force. The Fellowship held together (for the most part [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) because of loyalty, and it was only because Boromir became disloyal that they "broke up," although I rather think that it would have had to happen sometime.

Too much of any virtue can be a bad thing. The Fëanorians are an excellent example of that. The idea that they had, of following Morgoth "to the ends of the Earth" after the Silmarils, and to avenge the murder of Finwë (go me!) was a good one, but the degree to which they clung to that oath fast became unhealthy. They let that Oath, that loyalty, blur common sense and probably used it as an excuse to get their way in places, when all else failed (ex. Celegorm and Curufin). Even when they saw that they were in the wrong, and that their right to the Silmarils did not exist any more (in the case of Maedhros and Maglor) they still clung to that loyalty, and it eventually killed every single one of them.

[The X Phial]

In fact, I would argue that Boromir was too loyal. He let his loyalty to Minas Tirith and pride in his own abilities, and those of his city, cloud his judgement. He let it be known early that his first loyalty was always to Minas Tirith. I think the argument is for loyalty tempered with reason and humility. Sam follows Frodo out of loyalty, but he also knows his own weaknesses and uses his own sense when he needs to.

[Silver Dragon]

Wasn't the original topic why Tolkien had his books riddled with betrayals?

Every major historical event revolves around the idea of treachery...This idea is undoubtably central not only to this portion of the professors writings, but seems to be the unifing theme of his entire mythology

It is interesting how he chose to rotate on that one theme...why is that the one he harps on?

[Lyta_Underhill]

The Fëanorians are an excellent example of that. The idea that they had, of following Morgoth "to the ends of the Earth" after the Silmarils, and to avenge the murder of Finwë (go me!) was a good one, but the degree to which they clung to that oath fast became unhealthy.

Perhaps it is more an illustration that an oath taken for the wrong reasons cannot redound to good ends. Vengeance is born of hate, and the real end of the Oath is the regaining of material things, the Silmarils, a sign that the loyalty is misplaced onto a thing and not an ideal. The Oath was too influenced by Morgoth for its fulfillment to end in prosperity, for Fëanor had been marred by that time and his works subsequent were of impure motive. If the kernel of the Oath had been a reasoned taking down of Morgoth (as the Valar should have done, IMO), then it would bear better fruit. The fault in the turn of events is not entirely Fëanor's here, but the Oath is ill-favored because of Fëanor's fall.

On the larger theme of disloyalty, perhaps it reflects the emptiness of swearing fealty to an impure or material end. Perhaps this mars the idea of loyalty in itself. I haven't fully explored this thought, but it is an interesting thing to speculate upon! Thanks for introducing yourself and the topic, Mungo of Bracegirdle!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Silver Dragon]

On the larger theme of disloyalty, perhaps it reflects the emptiness of swearing fealty to an impure or material end

I don't think this was what Tolkien was trying to illustrate in his theme of disloyalty. Neither Melkor, Sauron, or Saruman (the three biggest traitors in the books) swore any oath (that I know of; that pertained to their treachery). It's possible he was going for "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", but not all of his traitors were corrupted by power (ie Mim, Gollum[debatable], Grima, Maeglin[he was corrupt before he got any power]). Anyone have a theory?

[Mungo of Bracegirdle]

It's possible he was going for "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", but not all of his traitors were corrupted by power (ie Mim, Gollum[debatable], Grima, Maeglin[he was corrupt before he got any power]). Anyone have a theory?

perhaps an explination again lies in the Music. Melkor originally changes his theme in order to create his own themes, even though they are just perversions of the theme given to him by Eru. At this time in ME mythology it seems as if power is measured in the ability to create. Eru "creates" the ainur (I say "creates" even though it is more like gives his own thoughts being) Melkor, therefore, is motivated to be unfaithful to his theme to prove his power/ability to create. This orginal betrayal (do i sense an echo of original sin here?) then springs from Melkor's misconcieved ideas about power and his desire to gain it. However, Melkor also convinces others to join in his theme. At first, it is simply the ainur around him who are corrupted. JRRT does not specifically say that they change their song in the pursuit of creation, rather they are merely lead astray by the traitorous Melkor. They are not intrinsically disloyal but are pursauded to stray from the strait and narrow. Isn't it intesting that this is also a trend that flows throughout the rest of ME history. A traitor convinces others to follow him/her to the destruction of all. The Fall of Numenor is an excelent example of this, as well as the fate of the Fëanorians.

[Silver Dragon]

I think that in the Silmarillion, Melkor does not so much "persuade" the other Ainur to change their parts as they are confused, or misled, by the dischord that the change in the tune creates. They are unable to keep their assigned parts in the confusion that follows. But this is interesting. If we're going to dicuss the form of Melkor's music, we might also question the second and third themes that Eru calls forth to battle the din. If Melkor's theme was manifested in treachery, what were Eru's themes embodied as?

[Mungo of Bracegirdle]

If we're going to dicuss the form of Melkor's music, we might also question the second and third themes that Eru calls forth to battle the din. If Melkor's theme was manifested in treachery, what were Eru's themes embodied as?

Interesting question Silver Dragon! I don't know if I have a real clear answer, just speculation. You know how sometimes you get too many thoughts in your head, and you kind of have to sit back and mull it over to clear you mind and come to some new understanding? Perhaps this is what Eru did. While listening to the Music, in fact, the audible embodiment of his own thoughts, he came to this greater understanding. When he percieved Melkor's themes, he simply tried to cover them up with his newly enlightened theme. So maybe his new themes are not so much a diversion from his original themes, but more of an enrichment of them. In physical terms, this would mean that first he created the concept of Arda, then from this concept he developed the idea of Elves and Men. And from that, the ending of the World. This theme correlates with the creation story in the Bible, where God first creates Earth, and then from the Earth he creates humankind. This is no suprise however, as JRRT was a devoute Christian. Again, this is just a speculation, I don't think I have any really clear evidence to back me up. Anyone out there with a real explination?

Cheers

[Silver Dragon]

Sorry, this is going to be rather long...

Perhaps this is what Eru did. While listening to the Music, in fact, the audible embodiment of his own thoughts, he came to this greater understanding. When he percieved Melkor's themes, he simply tried to cover them up with his newly enlightened theme

Okay, this is what I got out of the Silmarillion:

Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been heard before foundered in a sea of tubulent sound...an endless wrath that would not be assuaged...Then Iluvatar arose...and he lifted up his left hand, and a new theme began amid the storm, like and yet unlike to the former theme, and it gathered power and had new beauty . But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before...and Melkor had the mastery. Then again Iluvatar arose...a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike to the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity... (Tolkien, Silmarillion 16)

The way I used to look at this description of the Music was that each theme represented a group of people [Melkor/Discord="Forces of Evil"; Second Theme=Elves, maybe Ents(fought the evil, but left by themselves were overwelmed); Third Theme=Humans, Hobbits, etc. (species that followed after and who were unlike to the Elves)]. But, as you illustrated, it could also be interpreted in other ways. If we interpret the Discord as the epitome of treachery, the Second Theme could be seem as the embodiment of courage, endurance, or some such trait, while the Third Theme represent something constant/enduring (I think I'm looking for "unquenchable") such as optimism or hope. You know, it's a lot more fun to disect the meanings behind the books when you're not in English class. And to think Tolkien put in his LOTR foreword that there was no meaning in the books...I wonder if this means he was wrong, or that we're all extremely delusional...