The Moral Universe of Middle-earth

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know whether anyone will have anything more to say on this subject (though obviously there is much more that could be said). But I felt that it was important that these two threads be linked to here, because in some ways they are the mother and father of this messageboard.

Tolkien's Moral Universe

Jackson's Moral Universe

[Jnyusa]

I have plenty more to say on this subject!

Just haven't had time to think straight on B77.

Jn

[Cerin]

I never was able to grasp the concepts of Jnyusa's initial posts well enough to work with them. Now I have another chance!

[Jnyusa]

Thank you, Cerin!

I love being picked apart. Seriously. It hones the brain better than anything ... to go point by point and refine one's ideas? It's like solving a puzzle.

Jn

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If an existential ‘yes’ is the moral choice required of us, then it must also be possible for us to say ‘no’. The existence of Free Will is therefore foundational to this story - not only our free will but also God’s. (If Jesus had no choice, his ‘yes’ would have no meaning either.)

From this comes Roäc’s observation that the Ring is about imposing one’s will on others. Dr. Strangelove noted that no one in the council would have forced another to be the ringbearer. If my will is free then everyone’s will is free, and when I impose my will on others I do something that even God Himself would not do. I agree with Roäc, Queen B., Dr. S. and Angbasdil who all said that the power bestowed by the Ring is the power to usurp free will.

The story is about free will in that free will is the first and most important thing that must be affirmed by all the ‘good’ characters. There are many, many textual examples of this particular affirmation.

Re-reading this again, something clicked in my head as to why many people prefer LOTR to the Silmarillion. LOTR is largely about characters that say "yes" (in the sense that Jn describes) when faced with this moral choice. Primarily Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf, but most of the other characters to a lesser extent as well. However, the Silmarillion and its related works are largely about characters of great power and majesty that demonstrate that possibility of saying "no" that Jn described. Melkor and Fëanor and Ar-Pharazôn are the most vivid examples, but even among "good" characters, the theme repeats itself, from Aulë creating the dwarves and the Valar selfishly bringing the Elves to Valinor, to Thingol bringing destruction upon himself out of greed and pride.

I think that is why Tolkien was so anxious to have the two works published together. I think that they do balance each other, and together present a fuller picture of the moral universe of Middle-earth as conceived by Tolkien then either do by themselves. Because I don't think that one can fully understand the significance of Frodo's ultimate success without also considering the significance of Fëanor's failure.

[Athrabeth]

Voronwë, that last paragraph of yours reminded me of something that I wanted to say in the Sil discussion, but never really had the time to flesh out properly.

I was thinking how similar (in some ways) the Silmarils are to the Ring. Each beautiful beyond measure to the beholder. Each the greatest work of their makers, who pour the better part of their subcreative powers into them so that they never again can hope to match such perfection. Each a source of temptation that threatens the very heart of wisdom and will. Each the ultimate cause of the downfall of their creators.

That something created from the blessed light of the Two Trees could cause such debasement, while something created from the malice of Sauron could cause such enoblement, is exceptionally intriguing to me.

You are quite right, my friend. These works (LOTR and the Sil, the Ring and the Silmarils) are meant to balance each other as a complete reflection of the human condition.

[Impenitent]

I was thinking how similar (in some ways) the Silmarils are to the Ring. Each beautiful beyond measure to the beholder. Each the greatest work of their makers, who pour the better part of their subcreative powers into them so that they never again can hope to match such perfection. Each a source of temptation that threatens the very heart of wisdom and will. Each the ultimate cause of the downfall of their creators.

Can't agree with this - or, rather, can't agree with "...that threatens the very heart of wisdom and will." in the case of the Silmarils.

The ring seeks to subjugate Will. That is its raison d'etre. The Silmarils stand like blind justice: they weigh the measure of each person who comes into contact with them, but there is no power in them to bend the will.

That something created from the blessed light of the Two Trees could cause such debasement, while something created from the malice of Sauron could cause such enoblement, is exceptionally intriguing to me.

Can agree with this wholeheartedly.

You are quite right, my friend. These works (LOTR and the Sil, the Ring and the Silmarils) are meant to balance each other as a complete reflection of the human condition.

True insight - but not the reason Tolkien wished them to be published together, I think. IMO he had much more humble and human reasons - he didn't think The Silmarillion had a chance for publication unless on the coat-tails of LoTR because he knew it would not get the popular vote.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was thinking how similar (in some ways) the Silmarils are to the Ring.

I had this very thought today.

Can't agree with this - or, rather, can't agree with "...that threatens the very heart of wisdom and will." in the case of the Silmarils.

The ring seeks to subjugate Will. That is its raison d'etre. The Silmarils stand like blind justice: they weigh the measure of each person who comes into contact with them, but there is no power in them to bend the will.

Imp, I only partly agree. The Silmarils may not have been consciously intended to :threaten the very heart of wisdom and will" as the Ring was, but they certainly had that effect, on Fëanor and his sons, and on Thingol. I think the difference in intention is signficant, but I also think the similarity of effect is significant as well.

[Athrabeth]

Can't agree with this - or, rather, can't agree with "...that threatens the very heart of wisdom and will." in the case of the Silmarils
The ring seeks to subjugate Will. That is its raison d'etre. The Silmarils stand like blind justice: they weigh the measure of each person who comes into contact with them, but there is no power in them to bend the will..

Point taken, Impy! I probably should have said "wisdom or will". I do see the Ring as testing the wisdom of Gandalf and Galadriel, just as the Silmaril tests the wisdom of Thingol. But recently, I have also been musing on the "fall" of Thingol: how did it happen that one so "high", with Melian at his side, descend to act upon such base, self-serving motives?

BTW, I love your idea of the Silmarils standing "like blind justice". I suppose I should now consider "the measure" of Thingol (which is difficult, given the structure of the tale........but I'll definitely try!!)

True insight - but not the reason Tolkien wished them to be published together, I think. IMO he had much more humble and human reasons - he didn't think The Silmarillion had a chance for publication unless on the coat-tails of LoTR because he knew it would not get the popular vote.

But I do think that he considered them parts of a whole; that each served as a complement to the other, forming the greater tale of Middle-earth and Arda, which in turn, reflected a more complete view of the human condition - from the base and tragic to the noble and triumphant - with the blessing and burden of free will at its centre.

My apologies if I've taken this thread into the realm of the Sil discussion.......it's just that Voronwë's thoughts started this little avalanche in my brain that just kind of spilled out into Osgiliath.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ath no need to apology - I was the one that brought the Sil into the discussion, but after all, the title of this thread is The Moral Universe of Middle-earth. The Sil is part of that world.

But recently, I have also been musing on the "fall" of Thingol: how did it happen that one so "high", with Melian at his side, descend to act upon such base, self-serving motives?

As have I.

[Athrabeth]

Spooky!

Yet somehow, very kewl!

[Frelga]

That's one of those threads where I sit in the bleachers, mouth hanging open, straining to follow the fast-flying volleys of wisdom. But Athrabeth's comment that Silmarils "created from the blessed light of the Two Trees could cause such debasement" reminded me of something I once osgoogliated into - Rashi's (not the dog, Imp ) commentary on a biblical verse. If you can bear a few Hebrew words thrown into the quotes:

And ELOKEEM (G-d in His spirit of divine justice, as He is manifest in nature, in the laws of nature or physics) saw the light KEE TOV (that it was good, or that there was good), VAYAVDEIL ELOKEEM (And ELOKEEM made a division) BEIN HA'OR OO'BEIN HA'CHOSHECH (between the light and between the darkness)."

Parenthetical text in the original article.

Rashi [...] says "This also requires the words of the AGGADAH (a deeper than literal interpretation). He (G-d) saw that it was not fitting for the wicked to use it (i.e. the light) so He HEEVDEELO (separated it) for the TZADEEKEEM (righteous) for the future (i.e. world) to come.

The commentary proceeds to explain that the God did not just separate light from darkness thus creating night and day, but that He made a division within light itself, taking out the good (TOV) in the light and hiding it from this imperfect world. Therefore while we today can see the daylight, the full goodness of it is hidden from us.

I have seen no indication that Tolkien was at all familiar with Rashi. But it occurred to me that by trapping the light of the Trees in the Silmarils, and then selfishly refusing to use the jewels to save the Trees, Fëanor effectively accomplish the division. The light was in the jewels, yet the goodness of the light was gone - it was not fitting for the wicked to use. Perhaps that is what was meant when Tolkien said that had Fëanor not refused to lend the Silmarils for the restoration of the Trees, the outcome might have been different even though by that time Melkor already stole the jewels.


I don't know, it seemed to make sense when I thought of it.

[Jnyusa]

Frelga, that's fascinating!

I think quite possible that Tolkien had at least passing familiarity with Rashi because he (T) was one of the translators of the New Jerusalem Bible.

Jn

[Alatar]

True insight - but not the reason Tolkien wished them to be published together, I think. IMO he had much more humble and human reasons - he didn't think The Silmarillion had a chance for publication unless on the coat-tails of LoTR because he knew it would not get the popular vote.

My impression was that Tolkien did not so much wish for LotR and the Sil to be published together. Rather, he wished for the Sil to be published. I'm quite certain that if the Silmarillion had been published, as he wished, after the Hobbit, that the Lord of the Rings would never have been written. Also, without the Lord of the Rings to bear it up and give it context the Silmarillion would have been an unmitigated disaster.

We have much to thank Mr Unwin for.

[Impenitent]

That is quite true, Alatar, on both points. Thank you.

Frelga, your allusion to Rashi is fascinating - and yes, that's right! Tolkien did have a role in the translation of the bible but a very, very small role. IIRC he was given only a few verses. However, his sincere religiosity may have led him to delve into Talmud to some extent. I don't recall reading anything about this, but it would be interesting to learn more.

Now...the Silmarils, the light and the Trees...an eternal fascination for me!

I went back to look at the VTSG discussion (because I know I rambled long and wide on this topic back then) and - apart from descending into melancholy nostalgia - realised that the post I was going to make actually belongs in the Silm discussion thread. So I won't osgiliate here - I'll just take a little walk around the corner, shall I?

[Túrin Turambar]

Great to see this bought up again – I haven’t had a serious Tolkien discussion in a long while. It’ll take me a bit of time to sort everything out, but I’ll definitely be back sooner or later.

[vison]

Serenditpity at work, I guess. I was thinking about this yesterday whilst driving home in a bit of a blizzard. One does odd things to keep one's concentration at such times.

I was never in that "other place" very long, so I was unaware of these threads over there. I came late to the party, anyway.

Tolkien's Middle Earth is a conundrum to me. While reading LOTR I am willingly lost in it, and willingly, happily, enthusiastically accept its reality and its systems.

But driving along in the snow I'm not lost in a book. Driving along in the snow I saw again several aspects of Middle Earth that confused and even annoyed me. I had several insights (insights to me, anyway) yesterday, and one of them is this: Is Middle Earth (as in LOTR) a Moral Creation stripped too bare?

[Sassafras]

Can you elaborate, vison?

Do you mean ... simplified, as in reduced to the minumum. Good/evil.
Light/dark. Free will/fate?

[vison]

Can you elaborate, vison?

Do you mean ... simplified, as in reduced to the minumum. Good/evil.
Light/dark. Free will/fate?

Oh, I can elaborate all right! But not just now, I'm too caught up in RW stuff at the moment.

However, I don't mean "simplified" as much as "curiously.......empty"?

I don't wish to draw down flames upon my head, but I sometimes find Tolkien's depictions of Evil to be less than satisfactory. "Oh, those awful orcs", in other words, although that's only part of it. Besides, that critic did not love LOTR and I do, and he had presumably read it only once and I have read it many dozens of times.

Anyway, I have to go and make dinner and think.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's interesting, vison, because I have come to think that a big part of Tolkien's great brilliance was his ability to show the subtleties of evil. But you have to look at characters like Melkor, Fëanor, Thingol, Denethor, Boromir, Saruman, Túrin and Húrin to see that, not the orcs. His ability to show how innately good characters come to do evil things is one of his most important themes, in my opinion.

Turning back for a moment to the question of his desire to have the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings published together, I did want to quote these excerpts from a letter to Sir Stanley Unwin, for what they are worth:

My work has escaped from my control, and i have produced a monster: an immensely long, complex, rather bitter, and very terrifying romance, quite unfit for children (if fit for anybody); and it is not really a s sequel to The Hobbit but to The Silmarillion ... Worse still: I feel that it is tied to the Silmarillion. ... [T]he Silmarillion and all that has refused to be suppressed. It has bubbled up, infiltrated, and probably spoiled everything (that even remotely approached 'Faery') which I have tried to write since. ... It has captured The Lord of the Rings, so that that has become its continuation and completion, requiring the Silmarillion to be fully intelligible -- without a lot of references and explanations that clutter it on one or two places.

Ridiculous and tiresome as you may think me, I want to publish them both -- The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings -- in conjunction or in connection. 'I want to' -- it would be wiser to say 'I should like to', since a little packet of, say, a million words, of matter set out in extenso that Anglo-Saxons (or the English-speaking public) can only endure in moderation, is not very likely to see the light, even if paper were available at will.

All the same that is what I should like. Or I will let it all be. I cannot contemplate any drastic re-writing or compression. Of course being a writer I should like to see my words printed; but there they are. For me the chief thing is that I feel that the whole matter is now 'exorcised', and rides me no more. (Letter 124, pp 136-137.)