The Seven Deadly Sins in Middle-earth

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

The idea for this topic arose during a conversation with another member last week, in which I suggested that the many of the evils in the legends of Middle-earth can be attributed to one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins of medieval Christian thought. Although this was originally an idle, throw-away thought, we managed to come up with quite a few examples that appear to cover all of the sins; and as I’ve thought about it since it has seemed more likely that a Christian with a thorough grounding in medieval literature might well be influenced by that sort of thinking when constructing an artificial mythology.

My theory began, as could so many, with the Fall of Gondolin. Here we see a number of pivotal characters whose actions can be interpreted in terms of the deadly sins: Turgon’s pride causes him to reject Ulmo’s instructions and to trust in the impregnability of his powerful and hidden fortress; Aredhel’s wilfulness, which arises from pride, causes her to fall into the hands of Eöl, whose actions in forcing her to marry him can be attributed to lust. Finally, Maeglin’s treachery is made easier for him by his envy of Tuor and lust for Idril. Of course, pivotal in this downfall is Morgoth Bauglir, himself a being twisted by overweening pride and lust (note the description of his attitude towards Lúthien, particularly in the earlier forms of the story), until he has become, if you will, the fallen angel of Tolkien’s legends.

Casting my net further afield, Ungoliant is a glutton, “…desiring to be mistress of her lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness.” (The Silmarillion Ch 8), and Melkor uses this to obtain her assistance in satiating his own greed for the jewels of the Elves. Therefore the Darkening of Valinor can be seen to result from two of the Deadly Sins, and the later flight of the Noldor is more or less attributable to the wrath of Fëanor, who spurns all reason in his quest for revenge.

Sloth was more difficult to pin down, but when it was pointed out to me it became rather obvious. Consider Saruman’s ruffians in The Scouring of the Shire, whose main occupation is lounging around, taking food from the hard-working Hobbits. They commit evil acts purely because they cannot be bothered to work for what they want (and eventually suffer beggary as a result, when they are driven out of the Shire).

Returning to the subject of pride: according to Thomas Aquinas "inordinate self-love is the cause of every sin” (Summa Theologica, 1,77), and it seems to me that much of the misery, particularly in the Silmarillion can be attributed to this. Consider the fate of Túrin and Nienor, so much of whose troubles seem to have resulted from Morwen’s excessive pride in not accompanying her son to his fostering with Thingol. When Melian invites her to seek refuge in Menegroth, deeming that this might avert the curse of Morgoth, she turns down the invitation, mainly due to her distaste for receiving charity:

But Morwen would not depart from her house, for her heart was yet unchanged and her pride still high; moreover Nienor was still a babe in arms.

(Unfinished Tales - Narn I Hîn Húrin)

Morwen’s decision is pivotal, since one of its results is that Túrin and Nienor have not met, which makes their eventual marriage possible. Also the presence of his family in Hithlum gives Glaurung the leverage he needs to make Túrin abandon Finduilas and go seeking his mother and sister after the fall of Nargothrond, an event without which, we are told, he might have escaped his doom. Although Nienor’s infancy is also presented as a motive for denying the summons, it seems almost an afterthought tacked onto the end of the sentence; and since Tolkien was never averse to altering word order to place the more significant concepts near the beginning of a sentence, pride would seem to be the major factor. Almost directly, Morwen’s pride brings about the downfall of her children (although Túrin’s own unwillingness to submit to Thingol’s justice prevents their meeting later).

Now obviously the presence of examples such as these is not in itself evidence that Tolkien had the Seven Deadly Sins (or, indeed, the Seven Cardinal Virtues) in mind while writing his stories. It could just as easily be the case that the sins are themselves universally applicable, and that it is thus only understandable that they should appear working their evil in Tolkien’s legends. However it does not seem unlikely that Tolkien, with his abiding interest in medieval literature and his own religious conviction, might think of the corruption of individuals and the fall of civilisations in terms of virtue and vice, and this seems to me a subject worthy of some discussion.

[ August 17, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[Dancing_Hobbit]

i don't think Tolkien purposefully worked the seven deadly sins into the books, but i am sure that sort of thing would have been at the back of his mind somewhere and just naturally worked itself in. pride especially is very common in mythology both as a good thing and as a bad. we find both in Tolkien. the elves, dwarves and humans especially tend to be very proud. while this can lead to problems, as you suggested, it can also be an admirable characteristic. one of Gollum's faults was his LACK of pride, which caused him to be willing to live his live sneaking, stealing and murdering. admitedly that was partially the ring's fault, but it can also be atributed to his not taking pride in himself and his actions. as to the story of Turin and Nienor, it seems to be and adaptation of the Oedipus story.

i'm afraid i'm not quite sure what i'm trying to say here, i'm just sort of thinking out loud. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] you have a very intersting theory, though. congrats, and i enjoyed reading your post. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lush]

Grima Wormtongue, I believe, serves a good example of a character undone, in part, by his lust.

As for Gollum, I think he suffers from something that could be attributed to lust. For the Ring, that is. The whole "my Preciousss" refrain, I believe, is indicative of Gollum's "special" case of lust.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Nice, Squatter. I agree most with your last paragraph, and therefore with Dancing Hobbit; the Seven Deadly Sins were, and this makes a lot of sense, set down in the first place because they are more or less the main 'unvirtuous' aspects of humanity.

Examples of the commiting of the Seven Sins are found universally in our own world, and that is without a Catholic literary genius writing our history.

Therefore, since JRRT obviously included many examples of sin in his works, it is natural that the themes of the Seven Deadly Sins -- largely in a more complicated form, but as you say, still fundamentally there -- should be discernable in these sins. The philosophy of the Seven Sins was written to cover all sins in some way, and this extends to Tolkien's mythology.

(Again, good thought, Squatter. I'm going to have to have one of my own one of these days...)

[Kaiserin]

Interesting theory, Mr. Squatter!

The predominant "sin" (if we may call it that) in M-E conflicts would be pride, since it is from this self-love, arrogance and elevation of the self, that all other acts of evil stem from. Second to this, I believe, would be lust - NOT the sensual-sexual kind of lust, but a lust for power or control.

The "Seven Deadlies" of course, since they cover almost every form of wrongdoing, is found in every villain in every good piece of literature.

[Oddwen]

I should think that the sins would work their way into the works, conciously or no, because they are a common trait with everyone. Even the Valar, of which Morgoth submitted to many.
What really hits me about LotR and etc. is that everyone seems to be proud, wether it be Boromir or Sam or Thingol. Maybe it was a pride not in themselves but in their surroundings? Maybe they weren't thinking of it as pride in themselves. Did they think that pride was wrong, even if they were kings?

Gollum seems to me to have a great deal of envy, that blinded him from what was meaningful and led him to death and darkness.

The "Seven Deadlies" ... is found in every villain in every good piece of literature.

And some good guys too. Even Gandalf had a quick temper. That's what adds depth and makes characters real. Aragorn, for me especially, might seem less real if not for the episode at the doors of Meduseld.

I'm not really sure exactly what I'm trying to say...it's a subject for thought.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

What really hits me about LotR and etc. is that everyone seems to be proud, wether it be Boromir or Sam or Thingol.

Pride in oneself is something that we must all have, or we are gradeless and low beings. You would, I take it, have pride in yourself too. And in what you do. If you are not anything to be proud of, you are worthless.

The sin of pride is different. This is when pride makes us haughty, having higher opinions of ourselves than we should -- where I live, colloquially termed being 'up oneself' -- or when we refuse to accept our situation, being obsessed with keeping up appearences. Neither Sam nor Boromir were either of the two points of this latter (although Thingol was the latter of the latter), accepting their situation, making the best of it and proud of this (and of the fact that they were opposed to Sauron and working against him, of their personalities etc as we all are -- and in Boromir's case, his own greatness (his opinion of himself was true, not inflated)).

It is right to be like this.

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

Very interesting thread, Squatter ! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

As you have suggested, it would be a good idea to try to find examples of the Seven Contrary virtues in Tolkien stories. Humility vs. Pride; Kindness vs. Envy; Abstinence vs. Gluttony; Chastity vs. Lust; Patience vs. Wrath; Liberality vs. Greed; and Diligence vs. Sloth. But this is much more difficult than finding representatives of the Deadly Sins, because of the marring of Arda [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

For the moment, I have only found the first couple Sin/Virtue: Pride/Humility, I think that a good example for this are Saruman and Gandalf.

Saruman is proud, thinks he is the most intelligent of all Istari, the only one that can match Sauron; undervalues Gandalf and Radagast, instead of counting on them; and that leads him to his fall.

On the other hand, Gandalf is humble, he accepts Saruman as the chief of the order (although we are told that Olorin is the most powerful of them); he likes to be with 'lesser creatures' like hobbits, and doesn't think he is wasting his time in doing it; and finally, he accepts his destiny in Moria, and that leads him to the final success on his mission. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Quote:
For the moment,I have found the first sin virtue couple Pride/Humility,I think that is a good example for this are Gandalf and Saruman.


True,but htere is another couple for Gandalf
and Saruman Kindness/Envy.Saruman envied Sauron and Gandalf,he envied Sauron for the power he held,and Gandalf for the power he had.

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

Yes, Finrod, Saruman is also a good example of envy. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I didn't want to say that it was impossible to find examples of the sin/vitue couples. Probably, most of you will find them much quicker and better than me [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

As another example of the couple Envy/Kindness I have been thinking of Gollum/Frodo:

Gollum envies Frodo, as the actual Ring-bearer, he wants the Ring, and tries to take it from Frodo; even at the end, at Mount Doom, he wants the Ring and, paradoxically, his envy is what saves Frodo.

Frodo is kind to Gollum because he undestands him. His kindness to Gollum almost saves Smeagol, and in the end, Frodo's kindness towards Gollum is also what saves him at Mount Doom.

[Lhunardawen]

Another example of Humility/Pride is Manwe and Melkor. Manwe was appointed by Iluvatar to rule over Arda, but even so, he still acknowledges the will of Iluvatar and accepts that there are some things beyond his control and power which only Iluvatar can deal with. (Remember the case of Earendil, Elwing, and their children?)
On the other hand, Melkor seeks dominion in everything. If I am right, I think he even wants to usurp Iluvatar's rule over the whole of Ea, as he showed during the Ainulindale. He would not even humble himself before Manwe and the Valar, and even before Iluvatar. What pride!

[ August 21, 2003: Message edited by: Lhunardawen ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It seems to me that were characters in Middle-earth just to exhibit the deadly sins then I could put these examples down to simple ubiquitousness. There does seem to be a moral framework involved, however, in that the sins lead to catastrophe in all of the cases that I've seen quoted above.

Of course the villains of the piece would exhibit the sins, but when otherwise "good" characters (ie those opposed to Morgoth) fall prey to them the results are normaly disastrous. Now, to my mind it only follows that sin leads to destruction in a moral system built around that concept, so it seems reasonable to assert that Tolkien had such a system in mind. Admittedly I'm still looking through the Letters and associated literature for more evidence, but I was hoping to inspire some debate, rather than just a list of examples.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

What sort of debate, exactly, would you like? I believe that if you look over the posts we've had, you will find some interesting stuff on your topic (not greatly varying, but there you go) that was talked about in posts; further 'debate' on the topic different to that already done would require some more material...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

First of all, I'd like to clarify that it's only the later posts that seem to be turning into a catalogue of evidence. Your point Gwaihir, was exactly what I feared when first I began to look at this probem: that universally applicable ideas had found their way into the legendarium, and that I was indulging in over-analysis. Similarly, Dancing Hobbit's point that certain aspects of Tolkien's moral outlook were included in his writings without a conscious decision has occurred to me, but it seems that the outcome of wrongdoing is too considered, too carefully woven into the fabric of the legends for there not to be some sort of auctorial intent involved.

Even certain names seem to bear out this opinion (although I may be looking too hard for evidence). 'The Mound of Avarice', for example makes no mention of whose avarice caused the slaughter of those beneath the sad barrow, so that the only impression that posterity would receive is that greed itself was the villain. Is this a moral comment by those who buried the slain, a comment by the author, or both? Although I'm inclined towards the latter point of view, the clear reference by name to one of the Deadly Sins seems quite clear.

Amarie makes an interesting point with the idea of contrasting the Cardinal Virtues and their effects with those of the Deadly Sins. On the face of it something like Húrin's defiance of Morgoth, both on the field of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad and later while a captive, was ultimately pointless, since Turgon and his people were later scattered in any case. However, his refusal to betray the Elves of Gondolin does buy sufficient time for Tuor to arrive with Ulmo's message, for him to meet and marry Idril and for Eärendil to be born. The workings of virtue do not benefit directly those who show it, but they do ultimately turn out for the best. Perhaps this was Tolkien's way of telling us that our virtuous acts are never in vain.

What I was really wondering is whether or not my theory was realistic. Since all sorts of things, from subconscious projection of the author's own values to general applicability, to simple coincidence could have led to the appearance of these aspects in the legends of Middle-earth, I'm well aware that I might be completely off-beam, and I was hoping to see something here that would put me back on course.

Anyway, my apologies to those of you who were actually debating. The posts that led to my somewhat dejected attitude last night appear to have been deleted overnight in any case.

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

I think that your theory is quite realistic, and that maybe it could be esaily proven by looking at the virtues rather than the sins.

In my opinion, and I agree in this with most of you, the Seven Deadly Sins can be identified as sins in almost every culture and piece of literature. But, what makes the biggest difference for me, between christian thought and the rest of cultures, is what is considered a virtuous behaviuor, based on the Virtues. And, for me, Tolkien writings show this Christian set of values.

One obvious example is the extensive use of the word Hope (Estel) in Middle-Earth. And Hope is one of the Theological Virtues (faith, hope and love). From Eärendil to Aragorn, and not forgetting the mention to the 'Old Hope' in the Athrabeth, Tolkien always shows here the importance that this virtue has in the fight against Evil.

[Lord of Angmar]

Cardinal Virtues and Deadly Sins, in any form, are platforms of Western theology, and Tolkien, as a Brit, would naturally imbue his own works with such pillars of the common world ideology. While it does seem in some instances that certain sins are particularly magnified and represented within Middle Earth (pride is a good example), it would be said by many that it was just Tolkien's way of thinking as a member of modern society that endowed his stories with examples of the Virtues and Sins.

I think Iluvatar knew well in his all-encompassing mind what actions and thoughts were to be considered 'evil' and 'sinful' within his realm, and that these sins are close if not identical to the idea of sins in Christianity, since Tolkien, being raised as a Catholic was inherently inclined to see these as the definitive evils of life.

Engaging in analysis of Tolkien's representations of evil and sin is by no means a waste of time, but the only question that seems to need answering is whether Tolkien thought specifically of the Seven Sins and the Cardinal Virtues when he wrote of Middle Earth. In my mind, a man's work can only be a representation of that which he knows, no matter how hard he tries to avoid symbology and allegory. Since the Deadly Sins and Cardinal Virtues are an extremely critical part of everyday life (the media, the judicial system and life in general all exemplify what is considered 'good' and 'bad'), and thus they are the simple and recognizable basis for almost any piece of fiction.

[Aredhel Idril Telcontar]

I personally agree with everyone's ideas in this post. Come to think of it, one might suggest the whole thing being plain old 'common sense', i.e. overwhelming pride leads to downfall etc.
There are many examples of sins/virtues in most decent pieces of writing, but Tolkien, once again, gave it a special flavour.
Yes, pride does seem to be the 'biggest' sin in Tolkien's writings, from creatures like Melkor - overwhelming pride, to creatures like Gollum - no pride at all.
That can be seen as 'Catholic morals', humility being superior to pride in the long run (living in a country where 80%+ people are Catholics, and being one myself, seems to make that impression).

-Aredhel

[Kaiserin]

Your theory, Squatter, is of course realistic. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

We know that these sins /virtues were very much present in Tolkien's mind (whether consciously or subconsciously, it is still there) and it spilled over into Middle-Earth's standards for right and wrong. It is clear that Tolkien deliberately - though maybe subtly - defined a sense of good and evil in his mythology. If he did not purposely inject the 7 deadly sins / cardinal virtues, he at least had a standard of morality in mind, which is obviously based on the virtues (as observed in the above examples).

Having established that Eru is the source of all and is good, his ways and principles (or those which we may consider as the virtues) must be the acceptable standard of behavior. The selfish and harmful desires that go against Eru's original intent (or - sin?) are therefore wrong and are seen by the readers as a conflict or "threat". The gravity of the wrongdoing creates that sense of a pressing need for those virtues (like a desperate cry for righteousness, perhaps?).

Though the consideration of the Seven Deadlies as evil / sinful, may not exclusively a Catholic belief, what is probably distinctively Catholic / Christian is the belief that these virtues are signs of strength and spirituality, and not weakness. What comes to mind right now is Gandalf's wise words to Frodo at Moria:

"I daresay [Gollum] does [deserve to die]. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment... I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it... my heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill before the end. And when it comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many"

We find here that pity / kindness / the humility to forgive must be chosen over judgment. Surely, it was harder for Frodo to think kindly of Gollum, but he ended up showing mercy and understanding (before the finger-biting incident at Mt. Doom, at least) - and that demonstrated his real strength over his own proud attitude toward Gollum.

[ August 23, 2003: Message edited by: Kaiserin ]

[Dancing_Hobbit]

just a small addition. myths are just about always built around a system of morals. i'm sure Tolkien had this in mind when writting his own mythology. as so many people have said, the Catholic moral system would be the most logical for him to use. i don't think he would have purposefully used the specific cardinal sins and virtues, but that's pure conjecture on my part. it's certainly a valid theory.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Ah, well then. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Squatter, your theory is of course viable. As a Catholic who clearly explores much theology and morality (not to mention the extensive study of God) in his work, he may have deliberately included the Seven Sins in what he wrote.

As I said, though, I think it just as likely that they found their way in inadvertently. Remember that the Sins, seven of them, were set down because they are the seven deadly sins that are a part of us; they were defined because that definition covers all bad sinning. As there is sinning in Middle-Earth, the Seven Deadly Sins (and I'm sure the Cardinal Virtues) express themselves.

[Sharkû]

Very clearly, the origin of all evil in Eä lies in Melkor, precisely in his discords in the Music:

"In this Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the World (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable." (Letter 212)

As can be seen, he is not only the originator of evil in Eä, but also the very embodiment and incarnation of Sin: "Melkor had abandoned for ever all 'spiritual' ambitions, and existed almost solely as a desire to possess and dominate matter, and Arda in particular." (MT)

This ab-original evil is, in turn, the very sin of Pride; per Later QS, Laws A [= HoME X, 3, II, iii]: ""trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of all evil, and its end is in despair" (emphasis mine).

With that cf. Summa Theologiae: ""inordinate self-love is the cause of every sin (1,77) ... the root of pride is found to consist in man not being, in some way, subject to God and His rule."

It is therefore clear that Pride may not on all occasions be the origin of Sin, or the reason behind committed evil; but it is very much the first and greatest sin on a cosmogonical level – Melkor's pride led to him introducing new themes of his own, thereby introducing evil in Eä.
Pride in Middle-earth usually does not reach that far, it is generally unknowing rejection of Eru's will; sometimes, that is, in later ages, simply because many people do not know Eru or his will at all.

Those more in the know, sc. the Quendi, are different: "but not one [Elf] had ever entered the service or allegiance of Melkor himself, nor ever denied the existence and absolute supremacy of Eru. Some dreadful things of this sort, Finrod guesses, Men must have done, as a whole;" (HoME X, 4 [Athrabeth commentary])

Now arises the question to what degree we can counterpose Sin, especially as explained above, to Virtues. I would hesitate to go beyond what Finrod explained:

"'Have ye then no hope?' said Finrod.
'What is hope?' she said. 'An expectation of good, which though uncertain has some foundation in what is known? Then we have none.'
'That is one thing that Men call "hope",' said Finrod. 'Amdir we call it, "looking up". But there is another which is founded deeper. Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves.
This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy. Amdir you have not, you say. Does no Estel at all abide?' " (HoME X, 4)

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

In that passage of the Athrabeth, Finrod explains very well the difference between hope as a moral virtue (Admir) and Hope as a Theological Virtue (Estel):

1804. [...] The moral virtues are acquired by human effort.
[...]
1813 The theological virtues [...] are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life. [...]
1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises [...]
1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. [...] In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."
Catechism of the Catholic Church

[Lathriel]

The seven deadly sins are what makes Arda human. Besides the seven deadly sins have been part of our morals for thousands of years. No wonder that it gets into Tolkien's books.People like my father who don't believe in god or have read the bible still have those sins stuck in their mind somewhere even though they don't know it.

You must remember a human wrote this story and therefore the human morals are in it.

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]