The curse of Morgoth in CoH.

[skip spence]

^^I can't be bothered to look up any direct quotes right now, maybe later.

In any case, the title "Morgoth's Ring" is derived from the idea that Morgoth has dispersed his powers into the very fabric of earth in similar fashion to how Sauron put forth his much more limited powers into the One ring. This means that every being that draws its physical being or 'hroa' from the fabric of the earth, comes with a piece of Melkorism in it, which is a capacity and often a tendency towards evil (you might also call it a free will). Read the debate of the Valar in MR concerning the unnatural death of Miriel, mother of Feanor, for more info.

Melkor can't control any of the Children of Illuvatar directly, as the 'fea' (sp?) of the Children is indomitable by nature. He can influence and make them fear him however and does it at all times too. Some can resist his bidding better than others but all are affected. Like I said, in the metaphysics of Arda, Melkor is evil, and when ever someone does what is evil and unnatural, he or she obeys the will of Morgoth. And this goes on even after his defeat and banishment. Just like Sauron can't be destroyed completely unless the One ring is destroyed, the marring of Morgoth can't be wholly undone unless Arda itself is destroyed.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

In fact, if we believe what is written in MR, Melkor isn't just a renegade Vala, doing what is evil; he is evil itself, and the rote cause of everything that is wrong with the world . Without his discord during the creation of Arda there wouldn't be any evil deeds whatsoever, and the whole of ME would have remained a blissful paradise, akin to the garden of Eden.

I disagree that Melkor himself introduced evil as a moral category: I would say he was merely its most potent agent. The choice to do good or evil was there, given to him and all the others by their Creator; I would say it is a prerequisite of free will, which all the Valar/Eruhini have. The potential for good and evil actions/thoughts would have existed without Melkor; we could speculate if it would have been better worse without Melkor, but that's fallaciously based on a hypothesis contrary to "reality", so I don't think it could serve us much.

Originally Posted by skip spence

Like I said, in the metaphysics of Arda, Melkor is evil, and when ever someone does what is evil and unnatural, he or she obeys the will of Morgoth.

I disagree; one counter-example is Ungoliant:

Originally Posted by Of the darkening of Valinor, Silmarillion

But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness; and she fled to the south, escaping the assaults of the Valar and the hunters of Oromë

Just like Sauron can't be destroyed completely unless the One ring is destroyed, the marring of Morgoth can't be wholly undone unless Arda itself is destroyed.

In the Atrabeth, it is presumed by Finrod that Eru himself will enter and heal Ea - without destroying it.

Finrod, however, sees now that, as things were, no created thing or being in Arda, or in all Ea, was powerful enough to counteract or heal Evil: that is to subdue Melkor (in his present person, reduced though that was) and the Evil that he had dissipated and sent out from himself into the very structure of the world. Only Eru himself could do this. Therefore, since it was unthinkable that Eru would abandon the world to the ultimate triumph and domination of Melkor (which could mean its ruin and reduction to chaos), Eru Himself must at some time come to oppose Melkor.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One reason the Valar refrained from making war on Melkor was the fear that in so doing, all of Middle-earth or indeed Arda would be undone. We see what did in fact happen to Beleriand.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

One reason the Valar refrained from making war on Melkor was the fear that in so doing, all of Middle-earth or indeed Arda would be undone. We see what did in fact happen to Beleriand.

Yes, I am aware of that passage from MT; however, since skip's statement was not qualified, I felt compelled to make my argument.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree that Melkor himself introduced evil as a moral category: I would say he was merely its most potent agent. The choice to do good or evil was there, given to him and all the others by their Creator; I would say it is a prerequisite of free will, which all the Valar/Eruhini have. The potential for good and evil actions/thoughts would have existed without Melkor; we could speculate if it would have been better worse without Melkor, but that's fallaciously based on a hypothesis contrary to "reality", so I don't think it could serve us much.

The Ainur existed before the creation, but whether they have a free will to do good or evil is not certain, although I belive thay do. It is possible though that Eru created Melkor to do exactly what he did, so his children could rise above it. After all, good deeds aren't possible without a choice to do wrong. Obviously there are a lot of parallells to christian mythology in Tolkiens works. Now, the use of the word "evil" can be debated, but I certainly believe that Morgoth was the rote cause of "evil" or whatever you want to call it, and that Arda was marred by 'Melkorism' from the very beginning.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree; one counter-example is Ungoliant:

When I say that doing evil is doing Morgoth's bidding I'm not talking about obeying a direct order. Feanor for example wouldn't dream of obeying Morgoth directly, but certainly did so indirectly, inflamed by his lies and subtle influence.
So when Ungoliant disowns her master, she disowns Morgoth as an incarnate being, but not the primeval discord he put on Arda.

Originally Posted by Raynor

In the Atrabeth, it is presumed by Finrod that Eru himself will enter and heal Ea - without destroying it.

Eru is the exception as he is omnipotent. He is free to end or heal the world at any time. Besides, Finrod is a character, and although he is wise, he is merely speculating.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

The Ainur existed before the creation, but whether they have a free will to do good or evil is not certain, although I belive thay do.

Are you implying that Eru created the valar without free will? I would say this goes contrary to his work and I know of no future point where they are given such free will. Or do you imply there can be free will without the ability to choose between good and evil? I don't think I follow.

Feanor for example wouldn't dream of obeying Morgoth directly, but certainly did so indirectly, inflamed by his lies and subtle influence.
So when Ungoliant disowns her master, she disowns Morgoth as an incarnate being, but not the primeval discord he put on Arda.

I believe we are talking again about two different things: choosing rather freely between good and evil (and Feanor did his share of bad choices) and being coerced towards evil, which is what Melkor's marring was in essence about. To return to my previous example, Ungoliant was perfectly well outside Melkor's will when she nearly finished him off when he refused to honor their understanding.

Eru is the exception as he is omnipotent. He is free to end or heal the world at any time. Besides, Finrod is a character, and although he is wise, he is merely speculating.

Then again, I think we should ask which is the proper perspective: that of Eru, of hope, of faith, or that of the marring. All throughout the works, there are numerous and consistent references to the level of involvement of Eru, to the futility of evil, even in temporal times and to how He guarantees the success of good.

[skip spence]

I've a feeling you're arguing mostly for the sake of the argument, as you've cut out the parts I wrote that can answer your questions. I didn't suggest that the Valar lack free will, although it is a possibility, depending on how you define "free will". Besides, the Valar would remain untouched by the marring as they are all spirit and without a 'hroa' drawn from ME.

In Arda Unmarred the Children were meant to be pure and to do only what is good and natural for them, by the resoning in MR. This you may or may not call lack of free will, depending on how you definie it. If you mean the ability to make a decision, for example of whether to have fish or steak for dinner, then they certainly were meant to have a free will even in Arda Unmarred. But if you mean the ability to do right or wrong, than they weren't meant to have a free will, as they could do only what is good according to their nature.

From Raynor
"I believe we are talking again about two different things: choosing rather freely between good and evil (and Feanor did his share of bad choices) and being coerced towards evil, which is what Melkor's marring was in essence about. To return to my previous example, Ungoliant was perfectly well outside Melkor's will when she nearly finished him off when he refused to honor their understanding."

The choice between good and evil is a direct result of Melkors marring IMO. Feanor was able to choose only as a result of the marring. In Arda Unmarred Feanor would never have acted as he did, as the thought to do so never would have occured to him. As for Ungoliant, I already explained how she could disobey him in person and at the same time do his bidding, just like Feanor did. Besides, Ungoliant is an intentional enigma, much like Tom Bombadill.

But let's get back on subject: How do you think the curse of Morgoth did work?

[Raynor]

I've a feeling you're arguing mostly for the sake of the argument, as you've cut out the parts I wrote that can answer your questions.

I am sorry if you feel that way about my post, it was not my intention. Concerning your statement that Morgoth was the rote cause of "evil", my understanding is best expressed in this (bolded) passage, from a version of Ainulindale in BOLT 1:

Through him has pain and misery been made in the clash of overwhelming musics; and with confusion of sound have cruelty, and ravening, and darkness, loathly mire and all putrescence of thought or thing, foul mists and violent flame, cold without mercy, been born, and death without hope. Yet is this through him and not by him; and he shall see, and ye all likewise, and even shall those beings, who must now dwell among his evil and endure through Melko misery and sorrow, terror and wickedness, declare in the end that it redoundeth only to my great glory, and doth but make the theme more worth the hearing, Life more worth the living, and the World so much the more wonderful and marvellous, that of all the deeds of Iluvatar it shall be called his mightiest and his loveliest.

Even in the published Silmarillion, Eru makes a similar statement about Melkor being but an instrument in his design.

Besides, the Valar would remain untouched by the marring as they are all spirit and without a 'hroa' drawn from ME.
...
The choice between good and evil is a direct result of Melkors marring IMO.

I don't know how to reconcile these two statements of yours. If the ability per se to choose between good and evil appears only because of Melkor's marring, and if the valar are not affected by the marring, then how could they have this ability to choose?

In Arda Unmarred the Children were meant to be pure and to do only what is good and natural for them, by the resoning in MR.

Hm, where is that said?

But if you mean the ability to do right or wrong, than they weren't meant to have a free will, as they could do only what is good according to their nature.

In my opinion, the foremost sign of the existence of a fea would be the very ability to discern and choose between good and evil, and, again, I know of no reference about the Eruhini not having this ability by nature, for better or for worse. I don't see how Melkor could change in such a fundamental way the very essence of these beings - Ainulindale, at least, makes it clear that "none of the Ainur had part in their making". Not only did he modify them, he added to them this, what I believe, greatest manifestation of the spirit, the moral choice.

Furthermore, don't you agree that even small choices can carry a moral aspect, one choice being morally superior to another, no matter the triviality of the issue - like say, sleeping instead of helping, in general choosing comfort over responsibility?

I might also add that another sign of the Eruhini being conceived by Eru alone is that the elves were created with a body to endure until the end of time, but this wasn't made to take into calculation the marring of Melkor.

I believe the closest we can come to reconciling these positions is that Melkor was a great source of making conflicts, thus creating a much greater necessity (not the ability per se) to choose.

Feanor was able to choose only as a result of the marring. In Arda Unmarred Feanor would never have acted as he did, as the thought to do so never would have occured to him.

But this is the essence of the problem; even if he may not have had to act (or react), he still retained the ability to do so, regardless of the existence of Melkor and his marring. Moreover, the lack of marring does not guarantee that certain thoughts would not come to someone, or that that everybody would have the strength to resist temptations, however trivial they may be.

Besides, Ungoliant is an intentional enigma, much like Tom Bombadill.

Hm, I know of Tom being said to be an intended enigma, in the Letters, but not of Ungoliant; there are "credible" sources of information regarding her, unless we consider all maiar, and by extension all spirits, an enigma.

How do you think the curse of Morgoth did work?

Seeing that Isildur to put under a "spell" an entire people, who remained so long after his death, I would say that the "mistery of names" allows, in certain conditions of "legitimacy", to do such things. However, with Melkor being evil and having evil reasons, I would say it was mostly his power at work at a "causal" level, if I am allowed to say so. I also allow for the possibility that the curse was just a piece of the puzzle, allowed to take effect to test those were greatly endowed - "unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required".

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Concerning your statement that Morgoth was the rote cause of "evil", my understanding is best expressed in this (bolded) passage, from a version of Ainulindale in BOLT 1:
...
Even in the published Silmarillion, Eru makes a similar statement about Melkor being but an instrument in his design.

True, Melkor was created by Eru. But was Melkor always destined to rebel against Eru like he did? Because if he was, he did not have a free will and was only doing what Eru created him to do. I say he acted independently of Eru however, as I don't think it fits the mythology to have Eru himself as the prime cause of "evil" as your resoning would suggest, even if the evil in the end will make the world a more beautiful place.

This is a quote from Morgoth's Ring; Ulmo is speaking regarding the death of Miriel:

"And death is for the Eldar an evil, that is a thing unnatural in Arda Unmarred, which must proceed therefore from the marring. For if the death of Miriel was otherwise, and came from beyond Arda (as a new thing, having no cause in the past) it would not bring grief or doubt. For Eru is the Lord of All, and moveth all the devices of his creatures, even the malice of the Marrer, in his final purpuses, but he doth not of his prime motion impose grief upon them."

So death, grief and sorrow would not exist in the perfect vision that is Arda Unmarred. These things come from the marring and Morgoth, and without him none of it would occur. The Valar were also greatly surprised to find that sorrow and death could be brought into the hallowed Valinor. Why were they surprised? If the Eldar could do wrong, then the Valar would surely not have been surprised to find that they eventually faultered, even in the Blessed Realm. Yet they were. This leads me to the conclusion that the Eldar in Arda Unmarred (had it been) weren't meant to be able to do wrong. Well, maybe they still would be able to do wrong, but they would never have had the will for it.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't know how to reconcile these two statements of yours. If the ability per se to choose between good and evil appears only because of Melkor's marring, and if the valar are not affected by the marring, then how could they have this ability to choose?

The marring concerns the created world. The Ainur existed before the creation and whether they have the ability to make moral choices is an different question than what effect the marring had on the Children. I certainly think that the Ainur had a free will to act independently of Eru.

Originally Posted by Raynor

In my opinion, the foremost sign of the existence of a fea would be the very ability to discern and choose between good and evil, and, again, I know of no reference about the Eruhini not having this ability by nature, for better or for worse. I don't see how Melkor could change in such a fundamental way the very essence of these beings - Ainulindale, at least, makes it clear that "none of the Ainur had part in their making". Not only did he modify them, he added to them this, what I believe, greatest manifestation of the spirit, the moral choice.

We're actually having a discussion about fictional theology here (christ, don't we have anything better to do?). But what we are talking about is basically the "fall of man", straight from christianity. Adam and Eve at first lived blissfully in Eden, in complete obedience to God. This is parallelled with life as it would have been in Arda Unmarred or life in Valinor without Morgoth. Then Eve is tempted or decieved by the snake, eats from the forbidden tree and gains knowledge of good and evil. The part of the snake is in Arda played by Morgoth. You can certainly criticise the logic in Genesis, and you can also criticise the logic in Tolkien's religious ideas. This, however, is the basic idea: What Morgoth brought into creation is a lower path to choose, apart from the high road ordained by God. And without a possible low road to take, good deeds would be without merit.

Originally Posted by Raynor

But this is the essence of the problem; even if he may not have had to act (or react), he still retained the ability to do so, regardless of the existence of Melkor and his marring. Moreover, the lack of marring does not guarantee that certain thoughts would not come to someone, or that that everybody would have the strength to resist temptations, however trivial they may be.

I agree that Feanor always had the abilily to make choices. I have never said anything different. I don't agree that the thoughts of pride and rebellion that arose in Feanor could have done so without the marring. No, they were a direct result of the marring and of Morgoths discord in the great music.