The roots of the Work

[Helcaraxë]

After reading BoLT1, I think I have a general idea of where Tolkien's work with the later-abandoned Lost Tales originated; however I would like some professional opinion *ahem* INDERJIT!!*ahem*:D. I got the idea that the Lost Tales were originally closely associated with the mythology of the British Isles, and that Eriol, when coming to Tol Eressea, would eventually witness the ruin of its elvish civilization and its repopulation by men and converison into England ("I may have that mixed up..). :confused:

But exactly how deep did this connection run? What precisely was the relationship between Anglish myth and the early Lost Tales?

MB

[FoolOfATook]

(!Far too brief of an answer below!)
The famous Tolkien quote is that he set about creating the Middle Earth legendarium in order to create "A mythology for England". England doesn't have a mythology in the same way that most countries do, largely as a result of the Norman Conquest.

[Helcaraxë]

Thanks. I do remember him saying something in "on fairy stories" about how england was myth-deprived.

MB

[fat baggins]

As professor of Anglo-Saxon, the roots of Tolkien's work come indirectly through much of Medieval literature, most notably Beowulf and Wagner's Ring Cycle (Der Ring Des Niebelungen).

Here is a discussion of the latter:
http://users.rcn.com/wotan.interport//ring1.html


Also from various Northern European sources: Yggdrasil (http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Island/8492/yggdrasil.html) (The World Tree from Norse Myth), The Green Man (http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~greenmen~DanNoel.html) as Treebeard the shepherd of the forest, and many many others.

Hope this helps!
fb

[Helcaraxë]

Originally posted by Walter
MorgothsBane, your other thread (about the Celtic Myths & LotR parallels) contains already many answers to your question here. And many more will you find in BoLT2 (esp. The History of Eriol or Ælfwine) as well as in the rest of the HoMe-series.



It seems odd that Tolkien considered England to be Myth-starved when there is such a rich multitude of Celtic myth. Why is this?

Second of all, I am slightly confused about the relationship between Tolkien's possible inspiration by Celtic myth discussed in my other thread, and the origins of his work.




Basically I am asking: LotR (as in Lord of the Rings alone, nothing else) was only indirectly influenced by Tolkien's possible Celtic inspirations; it was Tolkien's MYTHOLOGY that was directly influenced by them and in turn influenced LotR?

I apologize for the bad wording of this post, but it's monday:D.


MB

[jallan]

It seems odd that Tolkien considered England to be Myth-starved when there is such a rich multitude of Celtic myth. Why is this?Think English, not British. There are few surviving English legendary tales compared to the large amount of Scandinavian and Germanic tales that have survived or compared to the French chançons des gestes about Charlemagne and his peers and other early French kings and heroes.

The Arthurian material in Middle-English is largely of French origin, tales brought into England by Normans and Bretons from the continent. Actually, very little Welsh legendary material survives.Second of all, I am slightly confused about the relationship between Tolkien's possible inspiration by Celtic myth discussed in my other thread, and the origins of his work.

Would I be correct in making this flow chart?

Some Celtic and other mythological influences (rather superficial,as Humphrey Carpenter says)--------------->The early mythology (Lost Tales)------------------> Tolkien's Later Ideas about the Silmarillion and what it should contain------->The Early LotR material--->ect. ect. ect.Not really. Tolkien’s early mythology and legend has Irish, Norse, Finnish and even Classical roots. Celtic is not particular more influential than anything else. All of it is fundamental rather than superficial, but the great differences between the various mythologies in part encouraged Tolkien to mix and invent freely rather than to copy one of them alone.

Númenor comes from Atlantis with echoes of the dectruction of Judah because of its sins and of the story of Noah. The Hobbit adds stone-trolls from Norwegian and Icelandic folklore, a shape-changing bear-man similar to Björn in the Icelandic tales of Hrolf Kraki, a white stag which is a common appearance in French medieval romances. In The Lord of the Rings the concept of time seeming to be shortened in "faërie" realms appears in respect to Lothlórien (a motif found often in Irish tales). The desciption of the Rohirrim contains motifs from the Old English Beowulf. Some of the Ring history resembles that of the cursed Ring in the Icelandic Volsunga story of Sigurð.

[Helcaraxë]

All of it is fundamental rather than superficial, but the great differences between the various mythologies in part encouraged Tolkien to mix and invent freely rather than to copy one of them alone.




But Tolkien intended his work to be "true" in the sense of adhering to the moral truth of Christianity. The story's most important theme is "God and his sole right to divine power." Sauron and Melkor, desiring to be creators rather than sub-creators, rebel against the authority of Iluvatar, attempting to gain the Flame Imperishable. None of this is present in the Icelandic sagas, nor in Wagner's "Ring of the Nibelungen," nor in any other souce from which Tolkien seems to have partially drawn his work. How could Tolkien inspirations be fundamental if they had an utterly different underlying theme than Tolkien's works?

MB

[jallan]

Helcaraxë posted:But Tolkien intended his work to be "true" in the sense of adhering to the moral truth of Christianity. The story's most important theme is "God and his sole right to divine power." Sauron and Melkor, desiring to be creators rather than sub-creators, rebel against the authority of Iluvatar, attempting to gain the Flame Imperishable. None of this is present in the Icelandic sagas, nor in Wagner's "Ring of the Nibelungen," nor in any other souce from which Tolkien seems to have partially drawn his work. How could Tolkien inspirations be fundamental if they had an utterly different underlying theme than Tolkien's works?Tolkien did not confine himself to any single theme. Many Christians besides Tolkien have been very attracted to pagan myths and legends.

Dante’s Inferno is as much based on classical conceptions of Hades as on Christian legends of Hell. Milton’s Paradise Lost is stuffed with metaphors and similes taken from classical myth.

As a boy Tolkien was first attracked to classical mythology. Later his tastes swung more to northern myths.

In the Milton Waldman letter a Tolkien explains one reason for the existance of his Valar:On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the ‘gods’ of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity.As Wordsworth wrote:Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.—Great God! I’d rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.So Tolkien created a legendarium in which in the earliest days there were divine beings in the world who filled somewhat the role of the Hebrew/Christian/Islamic angels but whose iconography and deeds and style draw instead from pagan deities.

But Norse myth does give us Loki who has some parallels to Melkor. Probably the Elves on hearing tales of Loki would have told Ælfwine that Loki was Melkor as they explained the Manwë was Woden (Icelandic Óðin) and that Tulkas was Thunor (Icelandic Thór). Also Norse myth provides a dualism with the gods on one side and the Giants and other monsters on the other similar to the conflict between God (with his angels) and Satan (with his devils).

Irish mythology provides the monstrous Balor, King of the Fomorions, chief enemy to the Tuatha Dé Danaan who are the gods. Egyptian mythology knows the serpent Apep who oppose the sun-god Re and the evil god Seth responsible for slaying Osiris.

Hindu mythology is replete with stories of demons who come close to obtaining rule over the universe or who do obtain it until brought down, in the earliest tales by the god Indra, in later tales by the god Vishnu or the god Shiva or the goddess Deva/Kali.

Greek myth has little of this. The battle of Zeus against Typhon and of the gods against the Giants occur but are not stressed.

One problem Tolkien had was that his Valar corresponded mythologically with gods but could not, legitimately, be worshipped as the pagan gods were, though they could of course be prayed to and venerated as are saints like St. Michael (who might possibly be equatable with Manwë).

He seems to have had difficulty making use of them and in his earlier works it is strongly suggested that they failed rather badly. Criticism of the Valar mostly disappears in Tolkien’ later writing.

[Helcaraxë]

Tolkien may not have confined himself to a single "theme," but his stories have a very firm foundation in a very Christina concept. The idea of God's right to divine power is, essentially, the basis of Tolkien's work. It is the underlying truth. And it is not present in pagan mythology.

~Helcaraxë

[Sarde]

I tend to agree with Walter. The underlying truth that Helcaraxë mentions, is not the underlying truth for everyone. Even if it was the writer's intention, which I believe it wasn't. Tolkien stated very clearly that his work was not an allegory. The above said seems to imply that Tolkien's work is a kind of allegory of Christian ideas and values. Definition of an allegory (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English):

"A story in which the events and characters represent ideas or teach a moral lesson"

The story is the story, nothing more, nothing less. And it is a personal matter what meaning one attributes to it. There is no absolute truth in this (or any other) matter. Discussing roots is not the same as discussing intentions. And when it comes to intentions, I believe the author himself has said the last word on the matter... If the story had indeed been so clearly 'Christian', then it might appeal only to Christians. The fact is that it is a universal story which appeals to people of all beliefs, even agnostics and atheists.

[jallan]

Helcaraxë posted:Tolkien may not have confined himself to a single "theme," but his stories have a very firm foundation in a very Christian concept. The idea of God's right to divine power is, essentially, the basis of Tolkien's work. It is the underlying truth. And it is not present in pagan mythology.It is an underlying truth in Tolkien's work, inasmuch as he believed this of the world as it exsists. Similarly God's ominipotence and omniscience and so forth are equally underlying truths in Tolien's work. So is God's tolerance of evil. Other underlying truths are the yearly cycle, that trees have roots, that sky is blue, the existance of war, the existance of greed, of love, of bravery, self-sacrifice, loyalty, selfishness and so forth.

I don't think any of these can be called the underlying truth as though there were only a single underlying truth in Tolkien's legendarium.

But you are correct that developed interlaced pagan mythologies do not generally justify the rights of the gods to hold their power. Gods just do hold power, often having taken it from an earlier generation of gods and they hold it under continuing threats from other supernatural beings who might be said to have as much right to divine power as the gods.

They quarrel with each other.

Jews developed monotheism. So did the Medes and Persians. So did Greek philosophy.

Greek philosophy generally believed in a single great God, usually identified with Zeus. The tales of Zeus gaining power by overthrowing his father Cronos were thrown out as lies of the poets along with most other tales of gods dealing with men. Or the tales were interpreted as allegory. Yet the Greeks and Romans continued to tell these supposed lies because they loved them and those tales continued to be told by Christians.

Pagan cosmologies are mostly generation cosmologies in which powers arise from Chaos and beget new powers on one another. The right of particular gods to supremecy becomes as arbitrary as the right of people of European descent to dominate North America: just a matter of history.

Zeus is not necessarily a better ruler than was Kronos. But he's the one whom you have to deal with.

Tolkien did not make that kind of belief part of his legendarium. Manwë and Varda are legitimate rulers of Arda.

[Helcaraxë]

I tend to agree with Walter. The underlying truth that Helcaraxë mentions, is not the underlying truth for everyone. Even if it was the writer's intention, which I believe it wasn't. Tolkien stated very clearly that his work was not an allegory. The above said seems to imply that Tolkien's work is a kind of allegory of Christian ideas and values. Definition of an allegory (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English):

"A story in which the events and characters represent ideas or teach a moral lesson"

The story is the story, nothing more, nothing less. And it is a personal matter what meaning one attributes to it. There is no absolute truth in this (or any other) matter. Discussing roots is not the same as discussing intentions. And when it comes to intentions, I believe the author himself has said the last word on the matter... If the story had indeed been so clearly 'Christian', then it might appeal only to Christians. The fact is that it is a universal story which appeals to people of all beliefs, even agnostics and atheists.

Well, whether there is no absolute truth whatsoever is another matter entirely. ;)

But Tolkien himself said that one of the most important theme in LotR is that of "God and his sole right to divine power." So there you have it. Tolkien himself says that this was an underlying theme. Of course, we are free to interpret the theme as we will, but that is his intention. But I agree with jallan when he says it is not the only underlying truth; although, I don't think "the sky is blue" was particularly high up on Tolkien's thematic priority list. ;)

There is another very important thing, Sarde. What I mentioned was definately not allegory. Tolkien's world, like all worlds, is built on rules. The divine right happens to be one of these. Tolkien, in creating ME in this way, was certainly not trying to teach a moral lesson about the world. This rule is an integral part of the story itself. The story is the story, true. But the story is set in a world that has laws which are the basis of it. This was one of the laws at the basis of ME. There is really nothing allegorical about it. Put simply, the "divine prerogative" right that exists in Tolkien's work really has nothing to do with our world. It is inherent in Tolkien's universe, but this does not automatically imply that he meant it to represent our world. Tolkien's universe is a self-contained thing. Tolkien modelled it after our world, because he meant ME not to exist in an imaginary world, but in an imaginary time period. So it stands to reason that Tolkien would create ME in such a way that it would be consistent with what he, as a Christian, thought the world to be.


~Helcaraxë

[Sarde]

It seems to me that Tolkien either contradicts himself in this matter or that he had a different definition of allegory than my dictionary does. If Tolkien did say that 'God's sole right to divine power' is the most important theme in TLotR, then it would be an allegory, not in the sense of teaching a moral lesson, but in the sense of representing ideas... :confused:

But to me as a reader, this theme is not part of TLotR. I for one am happy that Tolkien doesn't mention 'Eru and his sole right to power' in the whole LotR story, since I would probably then have put it aside. To me, the story (in itself, disregarding information from Silmarillion etc.) is about power and how it corrupts people. Though I have not finished the book (at the Battle of Pelennor Fields now), I don't think anyone is ever mentioned who does have the right to power and is not corrupted by it. Thank God (:D) it isn't because I could just as well have read the Bible then.

[Helcaraxë]

It seems to me that Tolkien either contradicts himself in this matter or that he had a different definition of allegory than my dictionary does. If Tolkien did say that 'God's sole right to divine power' is the most important theme in TLotR, then it would be an allegory, not in the sense of teaching a moral lesson, but in the sense of representing ideas... :confused:



Even by your definition, it is not really allegory. It is a part of the world itself; it is not meant as "representative." Simply because something in a story coincides with reality (in this case, Tolkien's Christian view on reality), does not mean it is an allegory. Following this logic, anything that a fictional world shares in common with ours can be considered allegory. :eek:

Walter: No, this quote is not merely the "foundation" (why the quotes?) of my theory.

The whole reason Melkor rebels (and thus corrupts Sauron, as without Melkor there would be no evil), is because Iluvatar refuses to give him the flame imperishable. Hence, Eru's sole right to the power that he alone can possess.

The conflict started by Melkor is not merely a plot device. It is an inherent and fundamental part of Tolkien's universe. If there was no evil, if Melkor hadn't rebelled, than the world JRRT created wouldn't be Arda as we know it. So you see why this concept (the concept that ultimately caused the rebellion and the discord) is an integral part of the world and not just a theme.

~Helcaraxë

[Helcaraxë]

Walter, I don't recall stating that it was the only underlying truth. If I implied that, then I misspoke. I don't think there is only one underlying theme. However the theme in question is still vitally important to the story, and is one of the most important underlying truths.

Anyway, regarding the importance of that theme, see my post above. The theme about Eru's exclusive right to the Flame Imperishable is essential to the story. If this theme was not present, none of the events in the Silamillion and LotR would ever have happened.

You see, I had seen the quote about "God and his sole right to divine honour," in another book, which probably took it out of context. So when you provided the actual quote, I realized that I had misapplied the statement. However, the importance of this theme is still observable even without a direct quote from JRRT, as I pointed out above. I apologize for the confusion.

~Helcaraxë

[jallan]

Helcaraxë posted:The theme about Eru's exclusive right to the Flame Imperishable is essential to the story. If this theme was not present, none of the events in the Silmarillion and LotR would ever have happened.This stretches matters.

Eru is God. Eru has an exclusive right to anything he wishes. But if Eru were to share the Flame Imperishable by Eru's will, Eru's divine power would not be lessened.

The rebellion did happen (as the explanation for evil) according to Zoroastrian/Jewish/Christian/Moslem mythology/theology. It becomes therefore a fact in any tale using that mythology whether it is Tolkien's The Lord of the Ring or Ira Levin's Rosemary's Baby.

But that the world is very much an unfriendly and evil place appears in numerous stories which indicate no necessary belief in monotheism or which even speak against it. The origin of evil is often unimportant in such tales. The origin of Evil is unimportant in The Lord of the Rings as written.

Even the theme of worshipping another than God is not made an important one in either The Silmarillion or The Lord of the Rings. We do not clearly see anyone tempted to worship Sauron. Even Saruman who will join with Sauron will be a potentially trecherous servant rather than a sincere worshipper.

What Tolkien seems to be talking about is why within the legendarium Sauron is wrong and those who oppose him are right. Tolkien points out that it is not just a matter of freedom from oppression (otherwise the Dunlendings who freely chose to follow Sauron are just as right as the Rorhirrim who throw in their lot with Gondor).

Sauron demands divine honor. But giving divine honor to Sauron is just wrong, wrong in the normal unmoral sense that paying divine honor to any single created being is wrong, if by divine honor we mean confusing that being with the creator, upholder and sustainer and subordinating all to that being.

But however this might have been an underlying theme in his legendarium, Tolkien did not make it a strong theme in the Silmarillion or The Lord of the Rings. He might have done so in his proposed sequel The New Shadow, the beginning of which contains a philosophical discussion of the meaning of Orkishness and implies that we are entering a tale in which decisions about what powers one should revere and worship will be central.

[Helcaraxë]

Helcaraxë posted:This stretches matters.

Eru is God. Eru has an exclusive right to anything he wishes. But if Eru were to share the Flame Imperishable by Eru's will, Eru's divine power would not be lessened.

Yes, but if Eru had shared the Flame Imperishable with Melkor, I think things would turn out a little differently. ;)

The rebellion did happen (as the explanation for evil) according to Zoroastrian/Jewish/Christian/Moslem mythology/theology. It becomes therefore a fact in any tale using that mythology whether it is Tolkien's The Lord of the Ring or Ira Levin's Rosemary's Baby.

But that the world is very much an unfriendly and evil place appears in numerous stories which indicate no necessary belief in monotheism or which even speak against it. The origin of evil is often unimportant in such tales. The origin of Evil is unimportant in The Lord of the Rings as written.

Even the theme of worshipping another than God is not made an important one in either The Silmarillion or The Lord of the Rings. We do not clearly see anyone tempted to worship Sauron. Even Saruman who will join with Sauron will be a potentially trecherous servant rather than a sincere worshipper.

What Tolkien seems to be talking about is why within the legendarium Sauron is wrong and those who oppose him are right. Tolkien points out that it is not just a matter of freedom from oppression (otherwise the Dunlendings who freely chose to follow Sauron are just as right as the Rorhirrim who throw in their lot with Gondor).

Sauron demands divine honor. But giving divine honor to Sauron is just wrong, wrong in the normal unmoral sense that paying divine honor to any single created being is wrong, if by divine honor we mean confusing that being with the creator, upholder and sustainer and subordinating all to that being.

But however this might have been an underlying theme in his legendarium, Tolkien did not make it a strong theme in the Silmarillion or The Lord of the Rings. He might have done so in his proposed sequel The New Shadow, the beginning of which contains a philosophical discussion of the meaning of Orkishness and implies that we are entering a tale in which decisions about what powers one should revere and worship will be central.

You are right in that it is not a strong underlying theme in the LotR. But I am not so sure about the Silmarillion. Melkor plays a crucially important role, and if not for Eru's refusal to give him the Flame Imperishable, Melkor would never have rebelled.

[jallan]

Helcaraxë posted:Melkor plays a crucially important role, and if not for Eru's refusal to give him the Flame Imperishable, Melkor would never have rebelled.But that is not mentioned again outside of the Ainulindalë. Nornor even in the Ainulindalë is anything say about a refusal of the Flame Imperishable to Melkor. As far as we are told Melkor had never asked and knows little about it.

But from the point where he created his own theme during the Music Melkor/Morgoth is the monstrous foe of the Valar who attempts to destroy all their works and to pervert Arda. Why Melkor refused to follow Eru's theme is not given any importance in later tale. Except in the legend of the Fall of Man in the notes on the "Athrabeth" there is no emphasis on chosing between Eru and Melkor/Morgoth.

In Aman Melkor influence is damaging. But he works though misleading words and misrepresentation, not by prposing himself as a leader in Eru's place or in any way acting openly against Manwë or Eru. When his lies are made clear even those who had listened to him in Aman reject him.

[Helcaraxë]

Helcaraxë posted:But that is not mentioned again outside of the Ainulindalë. Nornor even in the Ainulindalë is anything say about a refusal of the Flame Imperishable to Melkor. As far as we are told Melkor had never asked and knows little about it.

But he knows that he cannot be a primary creator, and he desires it.

But from the point where he created his own theme during the Music Melkor/Morgoth is the monstrous foe of the Valar who attempts to destroy all their works and to pervert Arda. Why Melkor refused to follow Eru's theme is not given any importance in later tale. Except in the legend of the Fall of Man in the notes on the "Athrabeth" there is no emphasis on chosing between Eru and Melkor/Morgoth.

No, but it is clear that Melkor wanted his own creations. It is said that evil can only mock, not create.

In Aman Melkor influence is damaging. But he works though misleading words and misrepresentation, not by prposing himself as a leader in Eru's place or in any way acting openly against Manwë or Eru. When his lies are made clear even those who had listened to him in Aman reject him.

True. But Melkor is by nature a deceiver. This has nothing to do with his desire for power. What else does Melkor want? He wants mastery, and mastery is the ability to create; the ultimate power.

[jallan]

But he knows that he cannot be a primary creator, and he desires it.True enough. But that motive never appears again.No, but it is clear that Melkor wanted his own creations. It is said that evil can only mock, not create.Irrelevant. Melkor can't do lots of things. Melkor is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent either. The idea that Melkor could not create by himself was a relatively late one in Tolkien's thinking and I don't see that this effects most of Tolkien's writing one way or the other. The theme doesn't appear in them.

That Melkor could not created spirits did make problems for Tolkien in considering such things as whether Orcs had souls and if so what became of them when an Orc died. But the same difficulty would arise for spirits created by Melkor.But Melkor is by nature a deceiver. This has nothing to do with his desire for power. What else does Melkor want? He wants mastery, and mastery is the ability to create; the ultimate power.Mastery is separate from the ability to create. One can imagine someone creating something over which he or she has no mastery. (See tales of the Frankenstein monster.) One can imagine someone mastering something which he or she has not created.

For the purposes of a story there is usually no difference between creatiing from nothing and creating from pre-existing material.

Melkor of course wants all every power and all power, as much as he can get of all kinds. But the power to create is not especially singled out beyond the Ainulindalë and Melkor's particular desire to create is not a theme in Tolkien's other writings. Indeed, according to Tolkien's later writing, by the time he entered Middle-earth Melkor had become a nihilist bent on spoiling and uncreating rather than creating to fit his own vision.

Tolkien might have put emphasis elsewhere on Melkor's own theme as an alternate vision of how things should be. He does not. Melkor is simply the great spoiler who resists Eru in every way he can. Melkor's motivations are not explored again save that Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring protrays him as falling from would-be creator to nihilist to would-be tyrant over creation as it did exist.

[Lhunithiliel]

But he knows that he cannot be a primary creator, and he desires it.
This makes Melkor look extremly stupid. :eek: Oh, no! Hi did NOT know that he could not be a creator! Just on the contrary! He felt his power too well and he wanted to use it! He never doubted that he CAN create and taht he can wield the Flame Imperishable.
Yes, in fact what he intended to do is imitate Eru. But in fact Melkor himslef did not understand it this way! He just felt strong enough as to match Eru! It's simple - Melkor sees what Eru can do with the Flame Imperishable (FI), feels his own powers are great and he IS absolutely and most sincerely convinced he can wield this supreme power (FI) too. Melkor obviously considered himself almost a match to Eru and the only thing that made the difference was the FI. So, what he needed was to "erase" the diference! How? By finding some of the FI that Eru wielded, obviously believing that this "substance" is freely spilt somewhere in the Void and one just has to find it! :p . He searched for it throughout the Universe (=Void) - No chance! ;) Well, then, why not steal some? This explains Melkor's constant pursuit after light and this theme Tolkien introduced in his earliest writings and kept it later. Yes - the idea had many forms of interpretation - from Melkor-sun maiden (BoLT1), to Melkor destroying the Trees.... One reads through the development of the Legendarium and it is remarkable how Melkor always aimed at having the creative light. What for? To CREATE, of course!
So, you see, he did believe he could create and that's why he desired it!

No, but it is clear that Melkor wanted his own creations. It is said that evil can only mock, not create.
Not only evil, I'd say. Remember Aule's dwarves? ;)

True. But Melkor is by nature a deceiver.
Mmmmm.... I would not count too much on Melkor's "subttle" mind. No. I see him quite direct in his attitude. Yes, he tried sometimes to be cunning, but most of the time Melkor was direct and brutal in achieving his aims. I remember now that episode when he went to Formenos to speak to Feanor and ...well... if he was such a skillfull deceiver, Feanor wouldn't have understood his true intentions... No! Melkor is hardly to be described as a skillfull deceiver.
Sauron ... Ooooh! Yes! That was a true mastery of deceiving!!!
And I remember also that to back up my opinion there is that essay by a certain Tolkien where he compares the characters of both Dark Lords and he (Tolkien ) seems to agree with my opinion! ;) :D :D :D

[Helcaraxë]

This makes Melkor look extremly stupid. :eek: Oh, no! Hi did NOT know that he could not be a creator! Just on the contrary! He felt his power too well and he wanted to use it! He never doubted that he CAN create and taht he can wield the Flame Imperishable.
Yes, in fact what he intended to do is imitate Eru. But in fact Melkor himslef did not understand it this way! He just felt strong enough as to match Eru! It's simple - Melkor sees what Eru can do with the Flame Imperishable (FI), feels his own powers are great and he IS absolutely and most sincerely convinced he can wield this supreme power (FI) too. Melkor obviously considered himself almost a match to Eru and the only thing that made the difference was the FI. So, what he needed was to "erase" the diference! How? By finding some of the FI that Eru wielded, obviously believing that this "substance" is freely spilt somewhere in the Void and one just has to find it! :p . He searched for it throughout the Universe (=Void) - No chance! ;) Well, then, why not steal some? This explains Melkor's constant pursuit after light and this theme Tolkien introduced in his earliest writings and kept it later. Yes - the idea had many forms of interpretation - from Melkor-sun maiden (BoLT1), to Melkor destroying the Trees.... One reads through the development of the Legendarium and it is remarkable how Melkor always aimed at having the creative light. What for? To CREATE, of course!
So, you see, he did believe he could create and that's why he desired it!



Of course he knew he could not be a creator! The light that Melkor hates (I do not see him desiring it as much as I do Ungoliant) is completely distinct from the Flame Imperishable. Perhaps it is a remnant of his earlier ideas, that light was a "liquid" substance that was flowing everywhere (BoLT 1). But the Flame Imperishable was never described as a light, and certainly it was not a material substance, and Melkor knew this. He hated light, but he did not desire it. It was the bane of all his machinations; he was a thing of darkness. He did have some fire-ish qualities associated with him, such as Thangorodrim, but he always cloaks it with shadow.

Melkor was smart enough to understand the ontological power difference between himself and Eru. He desires Eru's power, certainly; he wants to create, more than anything. But he understands that he cannot. And this makes him all the more bitter and jealous, and all the more dangerous.

Not only evil, I'd say. Remember Aule's dwarves? ;)



True. But the motivation for Aulë's attempts at primary creation and for Melkor's are very different.


Mmmmm.... I would not count too much on Melkor's "subttle" mind. No. I see him quite direct in his attitude. Yes, he tried sometimes to be cunning, but most of the time Melkor was direct and brutal in achieving his aims. I remember now that episode when he went to Formenos to speak to Feanor and ...well... if he was such a skillfull deceiver, Feanor wouldn't have understood his true intentions... No! Melkor is hardly to be described as a skillfull deceiver.



Bear in mind that Feanor is a very perceptive Elf. Anyway, what about when he subtly planted the seed of rebellion into the minds of the Noldor, inevitably causing them to leave Valinor. I do see him as a deceiver, just as Sauron was after him.

Sauron ... Ooooh! Yes! That was a true mastery of deceiving!!!
And I remember also that to back up my opinion there is that essay by a certain Tolkien where he compares the characters of both Dark Lords and he (Tolkien ) seems to agree with my opinion! ;) :D :D :D

Are you mocking me, Lhunithiliel? Sauron was certainly more subtle and deceptive than Melkor, but the quality was still present in Melkor's mind.

[Helcaraxë]

True enough. But that motive never appears again.

The motive itself does not appear again, but the effects of it are very profound. I believe it is safe to say that his desire to create was what ultimately fueled his rebellion. What does Melkor truly want, most of all? Power. He wants power, and creation is the greatest power.

Anyway, this is the cause of his discord, the inevitable cause of evil in Arda: desire for power. The motive does not appear later because the evil is already set in motion. But it is important to remember that this creative desire was what inevitably caused the evil. Tolkien does not concentrate on this theme, because the cause of evil is not as relevant as its existence. But it is still a very important theme, because it was the desire which set in motion all of Tolkien's tales; the Silmarillion, the War of the Ring (I daresay Sauron had the same desire), ect.

Irrelevant. Melkor can't do lots of things. Melkor is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent either. The idea that Melkor could not create by himself was a relatively late one in Tolkien's thinking and I don't see that this effects most of Tolkien's writing one way or the other. The theme doesn't appear in them.

Melkor is not omnipotent or omiscient, but he wants to be. It is what fueled his rebellion, the desire for power. The theme is not revisited later on because the effect is more relevant than the cause. But it is still important to consider the cause, as it is the reason for the existence of an effect. Melkor's creative desire was the Aristotlean "first cause" of evil; it was the push that toppled all of the dominoes.

That Melkor could not created spirits did make problems for Tolkien in considering such things as whether Orcs had souls and if so what became of them when an Orc died. But the same difficulty would arise for spirits created by Melkor.Mastery is separate from the ability to create. One can imagine someone creating something over which he or she has no mastery. (See tales of the Frankenstein monster.) One can imagine someone mastering something which he or she has not created.

True, but this is irrelevant.

For the purposes of a story there is usually no difference between creatiing from nothing and creating from pre-existing material.

But it is an important disctinction; Melkor has the power to create from pre-existing material; the orcs he created from the elves, for instance. But this does not satifsy him.

Melkor of course wants all every power and all power, as much as he can get of all kinds. But the power to create is not especially singled out beyond the Ainulindalë and Melkor's particular desire to create is not a theme in Tolkien's other writings. Indeed, according to Tolkien's later writing, by the time he entered Middle-earth Melkor had become a nihilist bent on spoiling and uncreating rather than creating to fit his own vision.

But creation is the primary power. It is what distinguishes between the Valar and Eru. You are correct in saying that Melkor wanted to destroy more than create, although this applies only to the Valar's sub-creations. But the desire for creation was an antecedent for his desire of destruction.

Tolkien might have put emphasis elsewhere on Melkor's own theme as an alternate vision of how things should be. He does not. Melkor is simply the great spoiler who resists Eru in every way he can. Melkor's motivations are not explored again save that Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring protrays him as falling from would-be creator to nihilist to would-be tyrant over creation as it did exist.

But this does not negate the importance of the desire that set everything in motion.

[Lhunithiliel]

Are you mocking me, Lhunithiliel?
Oh, no! Please! I would not do that to you! :eek:

[Helcaraxë]

You're right of course. It seemed like you had a faint hint of mockery, but apparently that was a misperception. I apologize.

[jallan]

The motive itself does not appear again, but the effects of it are very profound. I believe it is safe to say that his desire to create was what ultimately fueled his rebellionThe motivation is important within the Ainulindalë as one of the causes for Melkor's rebellion. But it is still not an important theme throughout Tolkien's writing. There is a difference between the two.What does Melkor truly want, most of all? Power. He wants power, and creation is the greatest power.Not necessarily.

God's creation is part of his ominipotence. As I've already indicated one can certainly imagine a creator who has no power at over his creations. One can imagine a being unable to create but omnipotent over all that is created by others.

That second being would be able to control what others created and so would have the greater power, able even to compel those who could create to create what he wished. Who is more powerful, Aladdin or the genie?

This is not irrelevant at all except insomuch as Tolkien does not get into discussing such things. But you do, in ranking creative power against other kinds of power.

Power to create from nothing is not necessarily the greatest power if one is chosing between various powers.Anyway, this is the cause of his discord, the inevitable cause of evil in Arda: desire for power.Desire for power is not the same as desire to create. Tolkien sometimes mentioned the difference. An artist may create without any desire for power.The motive does not appear later because the evil is already set in motion. But it is important to remember that this creative desire was what inevitably caused the evil.Then show why] it is important to remember this? What portions Tolkien's writings would one not understand or not appreciate if one had never read that section of the Ainulindalë? I can't think of any.

Where else in the any of the other writings would one say: "Ah! the desire-to-create-from-nothing theme."

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings can even be read and quite well understood without reference to The Silmarillion at all.

If the desire to be able to create from nothing is thematically important throughout Tolkien's writings then show examples.

Furthermore, it is likely enough that the creative desire in Melkor was placed there by Eru and was not itself evil. Varda will later create stars and Yavanna will create living things. Aulë will even attempt to create, like Melkor, outside of Eru's music. The difference is that Aulë repents.

Had Melkor repented, perhaps his theme might have been taken up in a friendly way within the Music.Tolkien does not concentrate on this theme, because the cause of evil is not as relevant as its existence. But it is still a very important theme, because it was the desire which set in motion all of Tolkien's tales; the Silmarillion, the War of the Ring (I daresay Sauron had the same desire), ect.You continue to confuse its use in a very important happening in the legendarium with it being important as a theme throughout the lengendarium. There is a difference. No-one is denying the motivation is important in Tolkien's account of the origin of Evil. But even there Melkor's impatience and Melkor's pride and his failure to repent are surely just as important. Without those the desire to create would have been harmless.Melkor is not omnipotent or omiscient, but he wants to be. It is what fueled his rebellion, the desire for power. The theme is not revisited later on because the effect is more relevant than the cause. But it is still important to consider the cause, as it is the reason for the existence of an effect. Melkor's creative desire was the Aristotlean "first cause" of evil; it was the push that toppled all of the dominoes.Eru himself is the first cause in the Aristotelean sense.But creation is the primary power. It is what distinguishes between the Valar and Eru.The ability to create something from nothing is one of the many differences between the omnipotence of Eru and the very limited power of the Ainur.You are correct in saying that Melkor wanted to destroy more than create, although this applies only to the Valar's sub-creations. But the desire for creation was an antecedent for his desire of destruction.Yes "an antecedent" but not the only antecedant.But this does not negate the importance of the desire that set everything in motion.Of course it does not negate what importance it has. But it is for you to show what kind and amount of importance it has as a theme throughout Tolkien's writings, rather than only a partial motivation in Tolkien's account of the origin of evil.

"God and his sole right to divine power" was what you orginally claimed to be a very important theme. It certainly was for Tolkien in his philosophy. It is part of the world portrayed by Tolkien in his legendarium. So are the sun and mooon. But that theme does not appear as an important theme in most of the tales he writes, at least not as stated in such words.

God's right to power and other questions of that kind are never discussed at all.

[Helcaraxë]

This is not irrelevant at all except insomuch as Tolkien does not get into discussing such things. But you do, in ranking creative power against other kinds of power.
What is the power that separates the Valar from Eru? Creation. Not merely the power of control; the Valar can control to a lesser extent, but their abilities of creation are on an entirely different level.

Power to create from nothing is not necessarily the greatest power if one is chosing between various powers.Desire for power is not the same as desire to create. Tolkien sometimes mentioned the difference. An artist may create without any desire for power.Then show why] it is important to remember this? What portions Tolkien's writings would one not understand or not appreciate if one had never read that section of the Ainulindalë? I can't think of any.

Where else in the any of the other writings would one say: "Ah! the desire-to-create-from-nothing theme."

I'm not talking about "what portions of his work we would not understand." I'm speaking from within the mythology. I'm thinking about the importance of the theme in the origin of evil only.



The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings can even be read and quite well understood without reference to The Silmarillion at all.

If the desire to be able to create from nothing is thematically important throughout Tolkien's writings then show examples.
The orcs. The orcs are a mockery; Melkor is jealous of the Elves because they are "kindled with the Flame Imperishable."

Furthermore, it is likely enough that the creative desire in Melkor was placed there by Eru and was not itself evil. Varda will later create stars and Yavanna will create living things. Aulë will even attempt to create, like Melkor, outside of Eru's music. The difference is that Aulë repents.

Had Melkor repented, perhaps his theme might have been taken up in a friendly way within the Music.You continue to confuse its use in a very important happening in the legendarium with it being important as a theme throughout the lengendarium. There is a difference. No-one is denying the motivation is important in Tolkien's account of the origin of Evil. But even there Melkor's impatience and Melkor's pride and his failure to repent are surely just as important. Without those the desire to create would have been harmless.Eru himself is the first cause in the Aristotelean sense.

Eru is not in any way evil. You suggest He is, because to be a first cause of evil he would have to be partially evil himself. Eru did not create evil, he created Melkor in such a way so that he could do evil. He created the possibility of Evil, but not evil itself. It's an important distinction.

The ability to create something from nothing is one of the many differences between the omnipotence of Eru and the very limited power of the Ainur.Yes "an antecedent" but not the only antecedant.Of course it does not negate what importance it has. But it is for you to show what kind and amount of importance it has as a theme throughout Tolkien's writings, rather than only a partial motivation in Tolkien's account of the origin of evil.

You are right in that it is only one of the motivations, but it seems to me to be a primary one. Again, I'm talking from inside the mythology; I'm not considering its thematic importance in other parts of the story per se.



"God and his sole right to divine power" was what you orginally claimed to be a very important theme.

And I still claim that. The quote I had used to back it up turned out to be invalid, but the theme is very much observable, or at least its effects are.

It certainly was for Tolkien in his philosophy. It is part of the world portrayed by Tolkien in his legendarium. So are the sun and mooon. But that theme does not appear as an important theme in most of the tales he writes, at least not as stated in such words.

God's right to power and other questions of that kind are never discussed at all.
Again, not as a pervasive theme present in all of Tolkien's work, but rather as an important theme when considering the effects of evil.

[jallan]

Helcaraxë posted:What is the power that separates the Valar from Eru? Creation. Not merely the power of control; the Valar can control to a lesser extent, but their abilities of creation are on an entirely different level.All their powers are on an entirely different level. Ainur are not omnipotent in any sphere, not omniscient, not omnipresent.I'm not talking about "what portions of his work we would not understand." I'm speaking from within the mythology. I'm thinking about the importance of the theme in the origin of evil only.Then stop pretending it has a greater importance for Tolkien’s work as a whole. If the entire passage about the Flame was missing the loss to the Ainulindalë would be minimal. Accordingly it is not especially important.The orcs. The orcs are a mockery; Melkor is jealous of the Elves because they are "kindled with the Flame Imperishable."Everything that is real in Tolkien’ legendarium is "kindled with the Flame Imperishable" including therefore, Orcs. The Flame Imperishable (all of it?) is set at the heart of the World amdst the Void. Nowhwere is it stated that Melkor is jealous of the Elves because they are “kindled with the Flame Imperishable.”Eru is not in any way evil. You suggest He is, because to be a first cause of evil he would have to be partially evil himself. Eru did not create evil, he created Melkor in such a way so that he could do evil. He created the possibility of Evil, but not evil itself. It's an important distinction.I pointed out that you were wrong about the Artistotelian First Cause in Tolkien” legendarium. The Aristotelian First Cause is Eru. Read Aristotle or any discussion of Aristotle.

I did not therefore suggest Eru is evil. I am quite aware of Christian theology on the origin of Evil. But the Aristotelian First Cause is generally and naturally identified in Christian theology with God, not with a some supposed motive that led Satan to rebel, since both motive and Satan himself obviously have causes.And I still claim that. The quote I had used to back it up turned out to be invalid, but the theme is very much observable, or at least its effects are.I do not obvserve that theme much. If the effects are observable than they are likely to be more important themes than one of their causes.Again, not as a pervasive theme present in all of Tolkien's work, but rather as an important theme when considering the effects of evil.What effects of what evil? What has Morgoth’s stealing of the Silmarils or the devastation of Mordor or the death of Théoden or Smaug”s attack on Laketown or Gríma’s treachery or Gollum’s betrayal to do with "God and his sole right to sovereignty"?

Locate a discussion of the effects of evil in Tolkien by anyone that indicates that God’ sole right to divine power is especially important. Or write your own that supports your claim instead of asserting it without supporting it.



Any connection is very tenuous.

[Helcaraxë]

Helcaraxë posted:All their powers are on an entirely different level. Ainur are not omnipotent in any sphere, not omniscient, not omnipresent.

True, but I don't think that Melkor particularly wanted omniscience.

Then stop pretending it has a greater importance for Tolkien’s work as a whole. If the entire passage about the Flame was missing the loss to the Ainulindalë would be minimal. Accordingly it is not especially important.Everything that is real in Tolkien’ legendarium is "kindled with the Flame Imperishable" including therefore, Orcs. The Flame Imperishable (all of it?) is set at the heart of the World amdst the Void. Nowhwere is it stated that Melkor is jealous of the Elves because they are “kindled with the Flame Imperishable.”

You are right in that considering the entire mythology, this creative desire is not a primary theme. But when considering the origins of evil.

I pointed out that you were wrong about the Artistotelian First Cause in Tolkien” legendarium. The Aristotelian First Cause is Eru. Read Aristotle or any discussion of Aristotle.

I have read Aristotle. The efficient cause, is the cause of motion or being. Eru is not the cause of evil. He is the cause of the possibility of Evil, but not of Evil itself. He does not set Evil in motion, Melkor's own nature does. So Eru is not the cause.

I did not therefore suggest Eru is evil. I am quite aware of Christian theology on the origin of Evil. But the Aristotelian First Cause is generally and naturally identified in Christian theology with God, not with a some supposed motive that led Satan to rebel, since both motive and Satan himself obviously have causes. I do not obvserve that theme much. If the effects are observable than they are likely to be more important themes than one of their causes.What effects of what evil? What has Morgoth’s stealing of the Silmarils or the devastation of Mordor or the death of Théoden or Smaug”s attack on Laketown or Gríma’s treachery or Gollum’s betrayal to do with "God and his sole right to sovereignty"?

The motive and Satan both have causes, but God is only indirectly the cause of evil. He creates Satan, the motive, and the possibility for Evil. But he does not create evil. Indirect causes are not first causes.

Locate a discussion of the effects of evil in Tolkien by anyone that indicates that God’ sole right to divine power is especially important. Or write your own that supports your claim instead of asserting it without supporting it.

I believe I have supported it. The fact that I have not supported it to you satisfaction is a different matter.

[jallan]

You are right in that considering the entire mythology, this creative desire is not a primary theme. But when considering the origins of evil.Yes. Only in considering that. But the origins of evil is so little covered in Tolkien’s legendarium that it would be more accurate to say it is an indicent in the origin of evil.I have read Aristotle. The efficient cause, is the cause of motion or being. Eru is not the cause of evil. He is the cause of the possibility of Evil, but not of Evil itself. He does not set Evil in motion, Melkor's own nature does. So Eru is not the cause.You stated that the you meant the first cause in the Artistotelian sense. From Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil? (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104902.htm):But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (1) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (22, 2, ad 2; 48, 2), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." But when we read that "God hath not made death" (Wis. 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.Helcaraxë posted:The motive and Satan both have causes, but God is only indirectly the cause of evil. He creates Satan, the motive, and the possibility for Evil. But he does not create evil. Indirect causes are not first causes.Aquinas claims that God created a universe in which by necessity some things must fail. Accordingly God has created in universe in which Evil will arise, if not in one way then in another. How important is it by what actual means Evil arises? In any case Melkor’s desire to himself create in the Void rather than wait on Eru must come from Pride. His desire to find the Flame Imperishable has some prior cause. Why then is Pride or this other prior cause not more important to you if you are concerned with early causes? In all cases Eru remains the first cause of everything in some sense, including Evil, though without being evil himself by Aquinas’ reasoning.I believe I have supported it. The fact that I have not supported it to your satisfaction is a different matter.You have supported it only by reducing it to being important only from a particular viewpont of Tolkien’s legendarium concentrating almost solely on the Ainulindalë and even there by ignoring such other causes of various kinds for Melkor’s introduction of his own theme into the Music of the Ainur.

It is a reason for Melkor to rebel, and important as are all details given by Tolkien in the Ainulindalë and exactly as important. But even within the Ainulindalë the theme that greater good will come from evil seems to me a far more important theme, one more stressed in the Ainulindalë and one that also appears more elsewhere in Tolkien’s writing.

Yet even that them is not always of importance compared with other themes in different parts of Tolkien’s writing.

[Helcaraxë]

Yes. Only in considering that. But the origins of evil is so little covered in Tolkien’s legendarium that it would be more accurate to say it is an indicent in the origin of evil.

Perhaps. We aren't getting anywhere debating this.

You stated that the you meant the first cause in the Artistotelian sense. From Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil? (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104902.htm):Helcaraxë posted:Aquinas claims that God created a universe in which by necessity some things must fail. Accordingly God has created in universe in which Evil will arise, if not in one way then in another. How important is it by what actual means Evil arises? In any case Melkor’s desire to himself create in the Void rather than wait on Eru must come from Pride. His desire to find the Flame Imperishable has some prior cause. Why then is Pride or this other prior cause not more important to you if you are concerned with early causes? In all cases Eru remains the first cause of everything in some sense, including Evil, though without being evil himself by Aquinas’ reasoning.
Eru is the first cause of everything, but he still only created the possibility of Evil and not evil itself. He is only indirectly the cause of Evil.

You have supported it only by reducing it to being important only from a particular viewpont of Tolkien’s legendarium concentrating almost solely on the Ainulindalë and even there by ignoring such other causes of various kinds for Melkor’s introduction of his own theme into the Music of the Ainur.
I don't recall saying that it was the only motivation for Melkor's rebellion (I misspoke if I did). But would he still have rebelled without the creative desire?
It is a reason for Melkor to rebel, and important as are all details given by Tolkien in the Ainulindalë and exactly as important. But even within the Ainulindalë the theme that greater good will come from evil seems to me a far more important theme, one more stressed in the Ainulindalë and one that also appears more elsewhere in Tolkien’s writing.

This is an important theme, but it is a different sort of theme.