Failure and Punishment

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

To treat them separately, to interpret one while disregarding the other, doesn't, Imo, do justice. We may be free to do so, but, at least nowadays, I believe it amounts to an argument from willful ignorance.

I don't think that anyone is seeking to argue that the events described in LotR should not be interpreted in the light of the history relayed in the Silmarillion (although there is, I suppose, an issue over the extent to which the published version reflects Tolkiens true intentions, but that's another debate). Even though I first read LotR without gaining (or needing to gain) any understanding of Eru and his role in the story, I fully accept, having read the Silmarillion, his place as the fictional God of a fictional world. But it does not follow from that that Hobbits were necessarily particularly religious beings, nor that they had any solid understanding, or awareness even, of this God.

However, going back to the original question, I don't see why the concept of "sin" should not exist in Middle-earth, simply because there was no formalised religion. In a world where good and evil exist not just as concepts, but as well delineated causes, it is perfectly possible for its inhabitants to act in a way which we would describe as "sinful", ie contrary to the cause of good. And it is equally possible for them to judge what is a "sin", whether or not they would use that precise word, and whether or not they have any conception of the deity who is the source of good.

So, yes, I would say that, regardless of their state of religious awareness, Hobbits would be able to perceive, and indeed commit, "sin". But, no, I would not say that Frodo "sinned". He may, as I have said, have acted in folly and displayed poor judgement at times (as do almost all of the characters), but he did not sin. Even at Sammath Naur, he had, as Tolkien makes clear in his Letters, achieved all that was, or could ever have been, expected of him. He was overwhelmed by an external, evil force which neither he nor anyone else in Middle-earth (Bombadil excepted) had the power to resist - even Gandalf feared succumbing to the Ring's evil. If it was a "failure", it was a blameless one, but it was not a "sin". Only a cruel, merciless and uncompassionate God could have considered it as such, and Eru is most certainly not portrayed in those terms.

It follows that Frodo deserved no punishment for his actions. Such folly as he may have committed is vastly outweighed by his achievement. And, quite rightly in my view, he received no punishment from those on the side of good, whether that be Eru or anyone else. He may have felt grief, regret and loss, but those feelings were self-imposed, and the only other torments that he suffered where inflicted on him by the agents of evil. From the good, he received only compassion and the opportunity to find healing in Aman - a just reward for his efforts.