Origins of the Great Goblin

[Zigûr]

Does anyone have any personal theories on how Professor Tolkien could have reconciled the origins of Orcs with the metaphysics of the story? Something he might have overlooked? While I think the "corrupted Elves" idea is an elegant one, I do agree that the question of how Morgoth could make their condition inheritable and why Eru would continue to endow them with fëar is problematic. That being said I was never entirely convinced that turning them into corrupted Men was necessarily the best alternative, because it always seemed to me that Men didn't need to be corrupted in the same way as Elves might to become Orcs - that they already Fell further and had a greater vulnerability to Evil without the need for them to be subjected to torments and experimentation.

It's the same as the Sun and Moon origin and Round vs Flat First/Second Age World conundrums I think - the earlier, more mythological stories are so poetic that it's a shame they started to jar so much with the Professor's desire for Arda to seem like a realistic place.

In that regard as a reflection of Professor Tolkien's philosophical ruminations perhaps a definitive origin of Orcs is best left ambiguous - it would certainly emphasise that suggestion in the aforementioned Letter 153 of "Orcism" as a state of character or behaviour being a persistent degeneracy among people in the present day; that the hatefulness and moral decrepitude of the monstrous soldiers of the ancient past are almost a standard of normalcy in the "grey and leafless world" of modern times.

[Galin]

Thanks Troelsfo; and after reading your citations above I agree with your conclusions.

I also think it a little odd that Christopher Tolkien did not note this statement with respect to the larger issue of the origin of orcs [if I recall correctly he did not refer to it in the Annals of Aman commentary either], but there is a lot going on in HME of course, and CJRT is pretty comprehensive in general regarding the orc issue.

Anyway, great digging!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigur

Does anyone have any personal theories on how Professor Tolkien could have reconciled the origins of Orcs with the metaphysics of the story? Something he might have overlooked?

Not really. I mean, he played with just about every conceivable variant and I don't think any of them work on the level he wanted– substituting Men for Elves, for example, doesn't actually solve any of the metaphysical difficulties either, making them beasts "reeling off records" seems hopelessly strained, etc.

However. All this arises only because Tolkien was, by then, struggling to make his work consistent with a philosophical framework that wasn't necessarily in place when he actually wrote it. "In-story" there isn't a problem, because, as usual, the "translator conceit" means he doesn't have to provide the reader with a final, definitive answer.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Rumil

In one of the earlier texts there's reference to Boldogs, who appear to be sort of minor spirits and followers of Morgoth. IIRC they were interbred with orcs. Perhaps the Great Goblin was one in whom the Boldog ancestry 'ran true' to some extent?

I seem to remember something like this was suggested in Myths Transformed, or at least that's how I see the Great Goblin.

Also I can't remember if it was Rumil or somebody else that I repped and told that in Hungarian, boldog means happy, but in any case, you all need to know it because it's seriously the funniest thing ever.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I see no reason to think Morgoth would have been different. The Silmarillion says more than once that the Fire is with Ilúvatar, and that Fire (of creation) cannot thus be used by any other. If Morgoth were able to truly create his own incarnate creatures, would he not then be the equal of Eru?

This is either something I've cobbled together from a fairly canonical source (as in HoME, as opposed to Wikipedia) or something Lommy or some other Downer has said to me, but I've got this notion that Melkor could, in a way, bring things to life by giving up some of his own essence and weakening himself (which Ilúvatar didn't do). On the one hand I think orcs are mere beasts, on the other, I see them as some kind of Incarnates. I can't imagine them as having fëar given to them by Ilúvatar, though.

As for CaptainFaramir's original question, the idea is funny but what is maybe the biggest factor against it is the Great Goblin's age. He would have to be thousands of years old to be Salgant, and given the orcish lifestyle, I don't see he could have survived that long.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

I seem to remember something like this was suggested in Myths Transformed, or at least that's how I see the Great Goblin.

That's rather complicated. "Boldog" is the name of an orc in the "Lays of Beleriand". At this point it is pretty clearly a personal name.

Later, though, in "Morgoth's Ring", the Maia--Orc concept appears: first in some notes on Orc origin ("Myths Transformed" VIII) in which Tolkien is more-or-less "thinking aloud", trying out different possibilities to see if they work. At this point, at least as a sole origin, he seems to reject it, but then Maia-Orcs show up again in two more texts (IX and X), now as special, "greater" Orcs (rather than being their main source). In X, we find the following:

Those whose business it was to direct the Orcs often took Orkish shapes, though they were greater and more terrible. Thus it was that the histories speak of Great Ones or Orc-Captains who were not slain, and who reappeared in battle through years far longer than the span of the lives of Men. [footnote] Boldog, for instance, is a name that occurs many times in the course of the War. But it is possible that Boldog was not a personal name, and either a title, or else the name of a kind of creature: the Orc-formed Maiar, only less formidable than the Balrogs.

Which neatly illustrates the whole canonicity problem. Can we really take that tentative "it is possible... or else..." and say, "yes, yes, there was a kind of creature in Middle-earth called a 'Boldog'"?

Originally Posted by Aganzir

This is either something I've cobbled together from a fairly canonical source (as in HoME, as opposed to Wikipedia) or something Lommy or some other Downer has said to me, but I've got this notion that Melkor could, in a way, bring things to life by giving up some of his own essence and weakening himself (which Ilúvatar didn't do). On the one hand I think orcs are mere beasts, on the other, I see them as some kind of Incarnates. I can't imagine them as having fëar given to them by Ilúvatar, though.

What does become fairly consistent in Tolkien's later writing is that he sees Orcs as corruptions of beings that already existed, and mostly he favours these beings having been rational creatures, i.e. Elves and/or Men– but yes, the problem of their fëar bugged him no end.

By the way, Troelsfo:

Originally Posted by Troelsfo

Not according to the laws as described later, according to which the Orcs should always be spared if they surrendered:
Quote:
But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not ‘made’ by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.

But the next line is: "This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded". And there is a footnote to the effect that Orcs rarely surrendered anyway.

This is all really a quibble, as there is other evidence Tolkien had not yet come up with the "corrupted Eruhíni" idea at the stage under discussion. I'm just saying, as a matter of principle, that I don't think you can argue from "the laws as described later" without noting that it also says those laws weren't necessarily followed.

And I do agree with your basic, original point: it is just not possible to reconcile all Tolkien's various writings on Orcs without creating "some hybrid that is far from anything Tolkien ever imagined".

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

(...) Later, though, in "Morgoth's Ring", the Maia--Orc concept appears: first in some notes on Orc origin ("Myths Transformed" VIII) in which Tolkien is more-or-less "thinking aloud", trying out different possibilities to see if they work. At this point, at least as a sole origin, he seems to reject it, but then Maia-Orcs show up again in two more texts (IX and X), now as special, "greater" Orcs (rather than being their main source).

Perhaps I've been too much influenced by texts IX and X, but I took VIII to also describe the Maiar orcs as one kind of orc compared to the greater numbers of 'regular orcs', which in this text turn out to be perverted beasts.

Reading it again, I admit there's not much evidence for this in VIII itself, but if I recall correctly Tolkien does refer to the Maiar-orcs as primitive, and much more powerful and perilous -- I took that to mean more powerful than the regular orcs, about whom Tolkien was still musing about -- but seemingly not for long until the beast idea came to him.

In other words, I did not take the 'Maiar section' in VIII to be about the sole origin, but rather Tolkien reflecting on whether they could be part of the picture here; although I see how it can be read that way in any case, and cannot claim my interpretation is correct.

And again, perhaps reading VIII now more times after reading texts IX and X is the real reason. I can't really recall my interpretation when first reading VIII in Myths Transformed, which came before IX or X...

... I assume

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Let's remember that CT was under both time and space pressure in Vols VIII-IX of HoME; it "grew in the telling" much like the LR itself had (originally his account of the Lord of the Rings was to be just two volumes!) and a great deal of compression was involved.

Add to this the fact that the majority of the papers associated with Book VI, IIRC nearly all of them, had gone to Marquette and so CT was working from photocopies of those manuscripts he asked for, not, as was the case with most of the FR drafts, still in his possession.

It would however be entirely possible for someone who was able to get to Milwaukee to review the succeeding versions of Chapter VI/1 and determine when the passage in question entered (anyone can view the documents on microfilm).

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

This is either something I've cobbled together from a fairly canonical source (as in HoME, as opposed to Wikipedia) or something Lommy or some other Downer has said to me, but I've got this notion that Melkor could, in a way, bring things to life by giving up some of his own essence and weakening himself (which Ilúvatar didn't do). On the one hand I think orcs are mere beasts, on the other, I see them as some kind of Incarnates. I can't imagine them as having fëar given to them by Ilúvatar, though.

This thought has occurred to me as well. We know that Melkor spent vast amounts of his strength on his armies at the expense of his own personal potency, but in what way? According to Morgoth's Ring controlling the Orcs and other creatures gradually eroded Morgoth's power; I take it that in that sense the exercise of will diminished the fëa. Otherwise I would suggest that perhaps Orcs achieved the semblance of will because each of their fëar was a sliver of Melkor's own. I'm not sure that's a very satisfying notion either, though, of thousands of miniature Morgoths running around.

Personally I think that the Orc-scenes in The Lord of the Rings, especially the conversation of Gorbag and Shagrat, are so much less intriguing if they're not rational incarnates, because I think it's important that at some level Orcs are not altogether different from Men and Elves. I think that's why I prefer the "corrupted Eruhíni" explanation. Perhaps it could have been considered that Orcs having fëar was incorporated into The Plan by Eru because at the end of they day they were still his children, no matter how corrupted. Asking how they were permitted to exist seems no more difficult a question than why he permitted Melkor to continue existing after his fall, or Sauron, or virtually anyone else who was evil in Arda; it would all be incorporated into the greater whole.

[Alfirin]

Eru might also have wanted the orcs around as a sort of object lesson to his other children. We are told Melkor made the Orcs, but not really how. That is, if the orcs are corrupted elves we are not informed as to how Melkor corrupted them, whether it was wholly involuntary or not. I tend to think the "wholly involuntary" route is a bit unlikey since it would probably clash against Tolkien's Christian beliefs (Since it would mean that Melkor basically had the ability to corrupt elves and turn them evil against thier will.) So that leaves the semi-voluntary path, that the orcs are the decendents of elves who, through some failing or weakness of thier own came into darkness sort of by thier own volition. This fits a lot more with the Christian view of evil, that it can only tempt, not compel. It is easly to fall to temptation, but no one can be thrown to it (leaving aside posession). In that case, the Orcs serve as a very good warning to the elves, provided they know (or at least, believe) the story of Orchish origin in elves; a warning or what can happen if you allow your weaknessess and temptations to master you, the consequences of listening to the little shadows in your head. And, should an orc ever return to the path of light be it in this life or the afterlife (If orcs really are the decendents of elves, then it is still possible that the fea of slain orcs do go to the Halls of Mandos.) it would show that NO ONE, no matter how far gone, is wholly beyond the chance of redemption.