Was Melkor EVER good?

[BalrogRingDestroyer]

Gandalf pointed out in Lord of the Rings that there was a time when even Sauron was good. However, after reading the Silmarillion at least twice, and maybe more, I get the impression that Melkor was pretty much bad from the moment Illuvatar created him. Even Satan was good for a while after his creation, until his pride caused him to fall, but Melkor seems to have been proud and wanting to be master or at least challenge Illuvatar from day one. So if Melkor was ALWAYS bad, though, does that mean that Illuvatar created evil on PURPOSE and that Melkor really had NO free will to be good?

Granted, Melkor doesn't seem to have immediately tried to supplant Illuvatar directly (rather seeming to have his own will in the creation song and creating discord) nor, to his credit, did he ever try and DIRECTLY attack Illuvatar and topple him, nor, and unlike Lucifer, did he seem to make an attempt to try and persuade the other Vala to join him in a rebellion against Illuvatar, like Lucifer did with the angels. So, while he may not have been as destructive as Lucifer was, it seems that there really was never a point when Melkor was content to serve Illuvatar.

Granted, he's not the only one that seems to have little ability to choose good. Ungoliant, Shelob, as well as the orcs really seem all bad. (Though, it thought I read in one of these forums that Tolkien had a good troll somewhere.)

So that begs the question, did Illuvatar create Melkor and some other beings as evil and did he allow such things as irredeemable races to be created?

 

[Ent]

Gandalf also said in Fellowship of the Ring "for nothing is evil in the beginning."
And he would know, being Maia and created at the same time as Melkor.

Just as Satan was originally good and 'became' through his own pride evil, ('became' being transformed from one thing to another'), so it was with Melkor.

All the Ainur 'learned how to sing' individually at first, then together, until they were ready for Eru's master Themes. We have no idea how long that span of 'time' was... though as with Satan, time was not yet 'counted'.

We don't know when Melkor fell through pride at being 'the highest/mightiest' of them... but 'nothing is evil in the beginning.'

This is a central theme to Tolkien's theology and work(s).

 

[HALETH✒🗡]

Evil hasn't been created by Illuvatar because evil is just the absence of good as cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.

 

[Ent]

Evil hasn't been created by Illuvatar because evil is just the absence of good

Indeed. The central theme. Illuvatar is the "ultimate good". He is incapable of 'creating' evil. The very act of 'creating' evil would be an evil act, thereby destroying Illuvatar's 'ultimate good'. This (mis)understanding is pervasive in many places, and many try to separate the act of 'creating evil' from 'being infinitely good' or 'being evil'... but this simply cannot be done. (Or if it can, we are not talking about the Eru of Tolkien's works, or the God he held in his theology... but some other type of lesser being entirely.)

 

[Olorgando]

... evil is just the absence of good ...

In his religious views, JRRT would certainly have been on the side of this Boethian view of evil. But time and again in LotR he shows situations in which both the Boethian and the opposite Manichaean views are offered as possibilities - and does not "take sides".

 

[Ent]

But time and again in LotR he shows situations in which both the Boethian and the opposite Manichaean views are offered as possibilities - and does not "take sides".

True. Yet if Eru 'created' Melkor as evil, other than the huge break with his fundamental theology, we would also say Gandalf is completely mistaken when he says "nothing is evil in the beginning."

Gandalf as one of Manwe's Maia would certainly know the difference.

And when Eru chastised Melkor before the others for his discord, he made it clear there was nothing Melkor could do to undo his original design, which was good and wonderful. (Some discuss the phrase 'has its uttermonst source in me' as meaning Eru is the 'source of evil'... but this is mistaken. Eru is the source of Melkor the Good, and the source of the Choice with which Melkor was endowed. The issue is, Eru KNEW it would all happen as it did... and his themes already encompassed it all before it even happened. None of it was a 'surprise' to Eru.)

For me, the weight of evidence is pretty clear Melkor was not created evil... and Tolkien's writing Gandalf saying nothing is evil in the beginning turns the tide toward no ambiguity in Eru's creation of good alone.

(this is my viewpoint, rather than opinion given all the material at hand. But 'tis true nowhere does Eru say 'I never created anything evil.' He simply insured it would all, ultimately result in what was good. Funny thing about people, and choice. Another very difficult thing to understand.)

 

[HALETH✒🗡]

In his religious views, JRRT would certainly have been on the side of this Boethian view of evil. But time and again in LotR he shows situations in which both the Boethian and the opposite Manichaean views are offered as possibilities - and does not "take sides".

Could you give an example of Manichaean views of evil in LOTR, please?
As far as I know, Manichaeism is opposed to Christianity. Saint Augustine in his Confessions wrote that supporting Manichaeism had been his youthful mistake. And Tolkien, as a Catholic, probably knew this.

 

[Deimos]

Could you give an example of Manichaean views of evil in LOTR, please?
As far as I know, Manichaeism is opposed to Christianity. Saint Augustine in his Confessions wrote that supporting Manichaeism had been his youthful mistake. And Tolkien, as a Catholic, probably knew this.

You are correct. In all the Christian traditions (not just Roman Catholicism) Manicheism (dualism) is a heresy.
And (correctly again) Tolkien not only probably knew it, he definitely knew it. 🙂

 

[Olorgando]

Chapter VII "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol" of Book Four, in "The Two Towers":

"And as [Frodo] waited, he felt more urgent than ever before, the command that he should put on the Ring. But great as the pressure was, he felt no inclination now to yield to it. He knew that the Ring would only betray him, and that he had not, even if he put it on, the power to face the Morgul-king - not yet [!!!]. There was no longer any answer to that command in his own will, dismayed by terror though it was, and he felt only the beating upon him of a great power from outside. It took his hand, and as Frodo watched with his mind, not willing it but in suspense (as if he looked on some old story far away) it moved the hand inch by inch towards the chain upon his neck. Th have knownen his own will stirred; slowly it forced the hand back and set it to find another thing, a thing lying hidden near his breast. Cold and hard it seemed as his grip closed in on it: the phial of Galadriel, so long treasured, and almost forgotten till that hour. As he touched it, for a while all thought of the Ring was banished from his mind."

Or in chapter II "The Riders of Rohan" of Book Three, in "The Two Towers":

Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are halting on the third day of their chase of the Uruk-hai heading for Isengard, the second day on the plains of Rohan. Aragorn answers Gimli, who sees the end of their hope and toil, as Legolas is certain the Uruks have increased their lead:

"'To hope, maybe,but not to toil.' said Aragorn. 'We shall not turn back here. Yet I am weary.' He gazed back along the way that they had come towards the night gathering in the East. 'There is something strange at work in this land. I distrust the silence. I distrust even the pale moon. The stars are faint, and I am weary as I have seldom been before, weary as no Ranger should be with a clear trail to follow. There is some will that lends speed to our foes and sets an unseen barrier before us: a weariness that is in the heart more than the limb.'
'Truly!' said Legolas. 'That I have known since first we came down from the Emyn Muil. 'For the will is not behind us but before us.' ...
'Saruman!' muttered Aragorn."

There are more such passages.

 

[Deimos]

In his religious views, JRRT would certainly have been on the side of this Boethian view of evil. But time and again in LotR he shows situations in which both the Boethian and the opposite Manichaean views are offered as possibilities - and does not "take sides".

As you like to say, "not quite" 😄
Manicheism is a doctrine of two eternal, opposed and coexisting principles, conceived as good and evil , light and darkness, or some other form of conflicting powers. (Catholic Encyc). Melkor is a created being so that fails the "dualism" test.
I'd have to look up Boethius' works on this, but until I do that, are you meaning something more along the lines of evil personified as opposed to the metaphysical situation of "the absence of good"?

 

[Olorgando]

I mean the recognition that evil exists, whether derived from Manicheism or not. 5,000 years of recorded human history bear witness to this, without a single break. And I have a very low opinion of metaphysics as a whole, the "evil is absence of good" being a prime example. Plato's archetypes are also very deep in 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 territory; geometry and trigonometry may have something of the sort as abstract concepts (whenever something having a "dimension zero" crops up - the point, the line, the plane), but there aren't any such things outside wild-and-woolly speculation.

 

[Deimos]

I mean the recognition that evil exists, whether derived from Manicheism or not. 5,000 years of recorded human history bear witness to this, without a single break. And I have a very low opinion of metaphysics as a whole, the "evil is absence of good" being a prime example. Plato's archetypes are also very deep in 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 territory; geometry and trigonometry may have something of the sort as abstract concepts (whenever something having a "dimension zero" crops up - the point, the line, the plane), but there aren't any such things outside wild-and-woolly speculation.

"I mean the recognition that evil exists,..."
Well, you'll get no argument from me about that.

But time and again in LotR he shows situations in which both the Boethian and the opposite Manichaean views are offered as possibilities - and does not "take sides"
However, I disagree that Tolkien had (or presented) Manichaean views, if you are using the accepted definition of of Manichaeism (as is stated above).
Melkor (a creature, a created being) became evil personified/incarnarte, yes.

"And I have a very low opinion of metaphysics as a whole..."
I find this, well, unfathomable. What we are discussing is "metaphysics" .
Metaphysics is that portion of philosophy which deals with the fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.
If you have such a low opinion of it, then (pax) why are you in this discussion at all? Indeed, how can you discuss any abstract concepts like justice or mercy without "getting metaphysical"?

 

[Olorgando]

"I mean the recognition that evil exists,..."
Well, you'll get no argument from me about that.

But time and again in LotR he shows situations in which both the Boethian and the opposite Manichaean views are offered as possibilities - and does not "take sides"
However, I disagree that Tolkien had (or presented) Manichaean views, if you are using the accepted definition of of Manichaeism (as is stated above).
Melkor (a creature, a created being) became evil personified/incarnarte, yes.

The definition you cite is not from a neutral source, but if you define Manichaeism in narrow terms of dogma, then JRRT probably did not present that.
Tom Shippey discusses the two views of evil in both of his books. In "The Road to Middle-earth", in chapter 5 "Interlacements and the Ring", he has a section (the second) titled "Views of evil: Boethian and Manichaean". In it he states "Tolkien's way of presenting this philosophical duality was through the Ring. It seems in several ways inconsistent." And goes on to elaborate over about four pages. Many (all?) scenes involve Frodo and the Ring and someone else. They are "either - or" scenes, and in no case does JRRT resolve the two possibilities, "take sides". As a WW I veteran (and having endured WW II as well) he knew that Boethius's "evil is the absence of good" might be a nice philosophical stance to take in an ivory tower, but would lead to disaster in the real world - and in his (sub-) created world of Middle-earth, too.

 

[Deimos]

The definition you cite is not from a neutral source, but if you define Manichaeism in narrow terms of dogma, then JRRT probably did not present that.
Tom Shippey discusses the two views of evil in both of his books. In "The Road to Middle-earth", in chapter 5 "Interlacements and the Ring", he has a section (the second) titled "Views of evil: Boethian and Manichaean". In it he states "Tolkien's way of presenting this philosophical duality was through the Ring. It seems in several ways inconsistent." And goes on to elaborate over about four pages. Many (all?) scenes involve Frodo and the Ring and someone else. They are "either - or" scenes, and in no case does JRRT resolve the two possibilities, "take sides". As a WW I veteran (and having endured WW II as well) he knew that Boethius's "evil is the absence of good" might be a nice philosophical stance to take in an ivory tower, but would lead to disaster in the real world - and in his (sub-) created world of Middle-earth, too.

How do you define Manichaeism?
Or, perhaps a better question: What definition of Manchaeism are you using?

 

[Olorgando]

How do you define Manichaeism?

Dualism. Without any metaphysical trappings.

 

[Deimos]

Dualism. Without any metaphysical trappings.

Well, OK, so could you please actually write it out for me?
If I'm going to discuss this I need to know what you are specifically talking about.

 

[Olorgando]

Well, OK, so could you please actually write it out for me?
If I'm going to discuss this I need to know what you are specifically talking about.

No.
I took the terms, the contrast of terms Boethian and Manichaean, from Shippey's books. I couldn't care squat about the metaphysical trappings, their essence for me as far as JRRT's writings (and not only there) are concerned are the opposites "evil is the absence of good" and "evil exists". JRRT presented both of these essences in his writings without taking sides. And I personally flatly disagree with the first stated essence.

 

[HALETH✒🗡]

Chapter VII "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol" of Book Four, in "The Two Towers":

"And as [Frodo] waited, he felt more urgent than ever before, the command that he should put on the Ring. But great as the pressure was, he felt no inclination now to yield to it. He knew that the Ring would only betray him, and that he had not, even if he put it on, the power to face the Morgul-king - not yet [!!!]. There was no longer any answer to that command in his own will, dismayed by terror though it was, and he felt only the beating upon him of a great power from outside. It took his hand, and as Frodo watched with his mind, not willing it but in suspense (as if he looked on some old story far away) it moved the hand inch by inch towards the chain upon his neck. Th have knownen his own will stirred; slowly it forced the hand back and set it to find another thing, a thing lying hidden near his breast. Cold and hard it seemed as his grip closed in on it: the phial of Galadriel, so long treasured, and almost forgotten till that hour. As he touched it, for a while all thought of the Ring was banished from his mind."

Or in chapter II "The Riders of Rohan" of Book Three, in "The Two Towers":

Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are halting on the third day of their chase of the Uruk-hai heading for Isengard, the second day on the plains of Rohan. Aragorn answers Gimli, who sees the end of their hope and toil, as Legolas is certain the Uruks have increased their lead:

"'To hope, maybe,but not to toil.' said Aragorn. 'We shall not turn back here. Yet I am weary.' He gazed back along the way that they had come towards the night gathering in the East. 'There is something strange at work in this land. I distrust the silence. I distrust even the pale moon. The stars are faint, and I am weary as I have seldom been before, weary as no Ranger should be with a clear trail to follow. There is some will that lends speed to our foes and sets an unseen barrier before us: a weariness that is in the heart more than the limb.'
'Truly!' said Legolas. 'That I have known since first we came down from the Emyn Muil. 'For the will is not behind us but before us.' ...
'Saruman!' muttered Aragorn."

There are more such passages.

Thank you for the quotations, @Olorgando . They truly show that evil exists but I doubt that they follow the principles of Manichaeism. To my mind, evil exists but it hasn't been created by Illuvatar. Maybe the absence of good has turned into evil as an independent substance. I agree with @Deimos that Melkor fails the dualism test as a created being. He had been created pure by Illuvatar but then became evil. By contrast, if Tolkien's universe followed the ideas of Manichaean dualism, Melkor would be the twin brother of Illuvatar. Don't take my joke too seriously. What I'm driving at is that dualism presupposes equality, while Melkor is weaker than Illuvatar and evil is weaker than good.

 

[Ent]

evil is weaker than good.

Just to be clear, (and remember I'm an Ent of very little brain), this phrase speaks to the universal concepts of G vs E in Tolkien's theology.

In other words, when Gandalf says ... " I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still.’ "... soon after getting together with Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas again, he is speaking situationally... not universally.

That is, he is speaking specifically of his own 'might' vs. the enemies given the forces 'in view' - not the concepts - as he was earlier when he said "
,,, ‘There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming."

Maybe the absence of good has turned into evil as an independent substance.

This is an intriguing concept, and though I'm reluctant to speak to it, nears what I have come to suppose Ungoliant represents given all I've gathered about the beast thus far. (Still doing much pondering on how it works itself out... but Ungoliant represents, at least to me, 'an explanation difficulty'.)

 

[HALETH✒🗡]

Manicheism is a doctrine of two eternal, opposed and coexisting principles, conceived as good and evil , light and darkness, or some other form of conflicting powers. (Catholic Encyc). Melkor is a created being so that fails the "dualism" test.

I would also like to add that in Tolkien's universe good wins, while according to Manichaeism, the struggle between good and evil will lead to the end of the world, without bringing victory to either side.