[Bill Ferny]

I don’t own the letters. That being said, in another thread, it is pointed out that Tolkien when he latter devised the origin of orcs (opposed to the corrupted elf theory) stated that orcs are living extensions of Melkor’s evil will. Even their rebellions and chaotic activities in the absence of their masters is an extension of Melkor’s original rebellious will.

Thus, orcs are the epitome of evil, which is demonstrated in the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag. While that conversation reveals that orcs have distinct personalities, you would be hard pressed to prove any virtue resided in their psyches. Just because they had hopes and ambitions doesn’t make them good folks, especially since their hopes and ambitions come from malicious and rebellious greed, rape and pillage that benefits themselves directly, and not their present masters.

No doubt Tolkien, like most educated Christians throughout history, struggled with the reality of war. Though I’m no theologian, I did have the privilege of picking up some Catholic social morality theory while I was a seminarian. Perhaps I can illumine a rather dark corner of Christian morality that obviously influenced Tolkien’s conception of war in Middle Earth.

There is an apparent biblical tension between utter pacifism on the one hand and the realities of a fallen human condition on the other. This is seen in the very subtle wording of Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, when the Hebrew word, usually translated as “kill”, is actually a legalistic term that is better translated as “murder”. Jesus commands in one Gospel that when one is struck on the cheek, to turn and offer the other, but in another Gospel one of His very disciples is carrying a sword. He speaks of there being no greater love than laying down your life for a friend, speaks no words in His own defense, and willingly gives Himself up to execution at the hands of Roman soldiers, but never does He disparage the life of soldiery. Even though he says of the Roman centurion that he has never seen such faith in all of Israel, he tells the soldier to only keep faith, not change his profession.

The early Church struggled with the realities of defending home from the inevitable aggressions of neighbors, but at the same time gave high distinction to passive martyrdom. Paul was blunt about his Roman citizenship. Early Church apologists like Justin Martyr, while critical of the Roman state religion, considered themselves just as Roman, just as Hellenistic, as those who offered pagan sacrifice. Indeed, Justin Martyr considered his Christianity the missing keystone completing all of former Greek thought. With the official recognition of Christianity in the 4th century, Christians had to deal with the political and social realities of a dangerous world on a much larger scale. Christians now found themselves in positions of political authority, not the least of which, was emperor. The chronicler, Eusebius of Caesarea, in the 4th century wrote that God was the author of Constantine’s military victories. Saint Augustine of Hippo saw the acceptance of Christianity as the evolution of a City of God on earth. The role and activity of the soldier was given a Christian interpretation by people such as Eusebius and Augustine who saw the secular, not just the spiritual, world as an integral part of the City of God. Since the economic and political structure of the empire existed for the welfare of the Church, in the same way that Plato saw the plebeians and soldiers existing for the welfare of the philosopher/statesman in his Republic, it was the principle duty of the Roman soldier to protect the empire (physical well being), which in consequence protects the Church (spiritual well being). Soldier/saints, such as George and Martin, found their way into devotional life, and became important figures in the latter chivalric model.

Modern just war theories have their roots in this 4th century mentality, even though Augustine’s vision of a City of God modeled on late antiquity is no longer realistic. It’s not based on determining whether or not someone or some government is evil, rendering discussions about “killing being wrong because no one is completely evil” irrelevant. This is an important point to bare in mind: just war theory does not depend on a judgement in regards to the good or evil of a person or people, but is determined solely on an evaluation of the actions, both present and past, of the parties involved and their responsibilities to others in their care.

A just combatant is someone or some government that protects both the spiritual and physical well being of his charges or a government’s populace in the face of a legitimate threat from an aggressor that does not, or attempts to ensure the spiritual and physical well being of a person or people under the tyranny of another that does not. This is a bit more complicated than the typical self-defense justification. Surprisingly, such a definition does not allow for self-defense unless another person, for whom the defendant is responsible, is threatened. Equally surprising for most people, it also allows for aggression if it can be determined that such aggression is intended to ensure the spiritual and physical well being of others. Take, for example, the person who attacks a rapist in order to stop the rapist from harming another person; it would be unjust, in fact, not to act.

The just war theory hinges on determining whether or not a person or government truly respects the spiritual and physical well being of those for whom it is responsible, or for others who by happenstance they become responsible. Such a determination is highly interpretative and extremely problematic given today’s social complexities. For example, does the United States respect a foreign populace to the degree that it can impose its own will on that populace in regards to both its spiritual and physical well being, regardless of their government’s hostile or aggressive intentions against the United States? Does the United States embody a set of universal social principles that can justly be imposed on another people? Should the spiritual well being of a people be determined by their native religion, or the standard of secularization espoused by the United States? Does the native religion, as it exists, promote the spiritual well being of the populace, and who has the authority to make this determination?

One can see why Pope John Paul II, basing his judgement on Christian social teaching, was able to decry the social injustices of the Baathists and their leadership, but at the same time was unable to promote the actions of the United States against them… in either Gulf War. When some members of the media lumped John Paul with Chirac, they were terribly unfair. The pope’s opposition to the actions of the United States, whether we agree or disagree with his conclusions, originated from an entirely different sphere of thought. At any rate, things were much easier in the days of Christian nations and empires. Secular nations muddy the water for a just war determination.

(Indeed, there are theologians who claim that the just war theory is antedated, and no longer reflects the realities of the modern world. They argue that the social, political and religious complexities of the modern world render the just war theory’s analysis impossible to determine, if not completely obsolete. Most of these theologians would rather we follow, in consideration of the uncertainties of a complex world, the path of utter pacifism, haling Gandhi’s non-violent/non-cooperation as the only legitimate means to combat injustices.)

This, however, is not the case in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. In fact, a just war analysis of the situation is incredibly elementary and explicit. Sauron and his minions represent the epitome of the aggressor nation that does not respect the spiritual or physical well being of their own populace, nor the populace which they wish to conquer. The defendants, the free peoples of Middle Earth, are clearly led by men and women that espouse the spiritual and physical well being of their peoples. They can march to war with the same utter certainty of justification that Mohammed believed he commanded when he and his cohorts raided merchant caravans on their way to and from Mecca. The notion of responsibility in the just war theory is demonstrated by the quotation provided by Estelyn. Éowyn argues rightly that her king has a responsibility to play the aggressor. It would be unjust, in fact, not to act.