Sauron's loyalty after the First Age

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

If Tolkien thought Sauron was truly evil, well that is a biased position. Morgoth was truly evil, but Sauron...no I don't think so.

Well if we can't take Professor Tolkien's word for it I don't know what we can do. While he didn't believe in absolute evil, he thought that Sauron was about as close as you could get:

In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as possible. ~Letter 183.

This suggests to me that Sauron had gone beyond any capacity for a positive emotion like love or admiration. In the same letter he makes this remark:

Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

This is the same quote which includes the note about him pretending to be Morgoth. It doesn't seem to leave much room for Morgoth in Sauron's heirarchy; if he was still loyal, wouldn't he have set up Morgoth as god (even though he was in the void, he could do it in tribute to him or the memory of him) and portrayed himself simply as a disciple? It seems that he wanted the glory for himself. I like to think that Professor Tolkien understood the motivations of his characters better than any of us.
However, in regards to Sauron admiring and admitting the love of superior beings, he wrote this (sorry for the big quote):

there was seen the effect of Melkor upon Sauron: he spoke of Melkor in Melkor’s own terms: as a god, or even as God. This may have been the residue of a state which was in a sense a shadow of good: the ability once in Sauron at least to admire or admit the superiority of a being other than himself. Melkor, and still more Sauron himself afterwards, both profited by this darkened shadow of good and services of ‘worshippers’. But it may be doubted whether even such a shadow of good was still sincerely operative in Sauron by that time. His cunning motive is probably best expressed thus. To wean one of the God-fearing from their allegiance it is best to propound another unseen object of allegiance and another hope of benefits; propound to him a Lord who will sanction what he desires and not forbid it. Sauron, apparently a defeated rival for world-power, now a mere hostage, can hardly propound himself; but as the former servant and disciple of Melkor, the worship of Melkor will raise him from hostage to high priest. ~Morgoth's Ring.

So I guess the Professor leaves it up to us to make up our own minds on the subject. We can look at it in two ways:
1. Sauron promoted Morgoth as a god because he still admired his superiority.
2. Sauron exploited the memory of Morgoth just to make himself powerful; it was pure manipulation and nothing more.
In the end there's some room for both points of view, although personally I find the second one more supportable and consistent with other examples from the texts. I guess the difference here is that I'm relying mostly on scrutiny of Professor Tolkien's writing rather than a broader view of the human condition (in so far as it applies to a non-human fictional character).

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Well if we can't take Professor Tolkien's word for it I don't know what we can do. While he didn't believe in absolute evil, he thought that Sauron was about as close as you could get

what makes you assume that this Legendarium is a closed, rather than an open code? that it can be translated only in terms of Monotheistic tradition, even if said subcreation clearly reflects in very many ways the unconscious ontology of Tolkien?

for the audience - what is this process and conversation saying to you?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Eäralda Halatiriva

what makes you assume that this Legendarium is a closed, rather than an open code?

I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!

and your speculative suppositions are, well, truthful

but i suppose this is like saying that all Signs can have only one meaning, now isn't it? but i will opine that, all Signs, all codes are infinitely fertile, and fecund, yes? inter-subjectively, naturally.

since when was creativity a one-way street? what would Belegûr have to say on that?

[Mumriken]

1. Sauron promoted Morgoth as a god because he still admired his superiority.
2. Sauron exploited the memory of Morgoth just to make himself powerful; it was pure manipulation and nothing more.
In the end there's some room for both points of view, although personally I find the second one more supportable and consistent with other examples from the texts. I guess the difference here is that I'm relying mostly on scrutiny of Professor Tolkien's writing rather than a broader view of the human condition (in so far as it applies to a non-human fictional character).

Why choose Morgoth and not anyone else to put forth as a false god for people to worship? Not only that but his actions all speaks for loyalty towards morgoth. However I do think with the ages passing some of the loyalty was forgotten, he became more consumed by his own being so to speak.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

However I do think with the ages passing some of the loyalty was forgotten, he became more consumed by his own being so to speak.

This thought struck me as well. It doesn't seem unreasonable to view it as a gradual process: Sauron the loyal lieutenant in the First Age, then in the Second Age despite lacking a master he's still very influenced by Morgoth; he's not yet completely dominated by his own pride. Then by the Third, having expended so much of his own potency on himself and his policies, he's much more self-absorbed - the point at which:

his ‘plans’, the idea coming from his own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and an end, the End, in itself ~Morgoth's Ring

Everything decayed "in the wearing of the swift years of Middle-earth" - even the villains.

[Mumriken]

Seems like we have come to an agreement then. Peace