Fellowship & Fairydust

Disclaimer: This article follows my article The Underlying Christianity of Tolkien’s stories

The nature of good and evil is the last area of research to comment on now. Actually, a considerable number of the works that discuss morality are, rather than with ethics, concerned with the analysis of the nature of good and evil (mainly with the latter) as power forces. Most of them (for instance, Zimbardo, Pearce, Kreeft, Marcos, Davison) agree that Tolkien’s view of evil is Augustinian, understanding the evil to be just a lack or a perversion of good. But the latest research (Shippey, McIntosh) argues that in his work Tolkien combines the Augustinian view of evil with the Manichean, who believed that evil is an equally powerful and independent entity as good in opposition to which it stands.

Augustinian Evil

One of the first scholars to point out the similarity between Tolkien’s depiction of evil and the teaching of St. Augustine on that matter was Rose Zimbardo in her essay Moral Vision in the Lord of the Rings (1968). Following the doctrine of the Church derived from Augustine, Tolkien believed that nothing was created evil in the beginning because everything is created in the image of God, the goodness itself. Thus nothing can be utterly evil, since every created thing’s good is its mere existence, its being. Evil arises from a lack or a perversion of good and is therefore dependent on the existence of good on which it parasites. Good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good. Consequently, evil as a lack of goodness causes a lack of existence. The direct effect it has is that it makes the life of evil creatures miserable, like in the case of Gollum, because it removes the ultimate source of joy — the ability to enjoy one’s existence — and replaces it with an imperfect temporary joy of possessing material things. However, Tolkien, as a linguist, who liked to play with the meaning of words showed us also the literal implication of the statement: in his stories the evil can disfigure or even physically reduce one’s being, as in the case of Sauron or the Ringwraiths who have lost their visible bodily form as a result of their subjugation to evil. As Marcos (2012, p. 150) remarks, it dehumanizes Men. It turns them into beasts, like Gollum or Wormtongue, or machines, like the orcs; thus bringing us back to the evolutionist and determinist idea of Man.

In Augustine’s view, evil arises when one of their free will chooses to disobey the objective good and natural order established by God. Moreover, it can often come out of apparently good intentions which become perverted when their object ceases to be the well-being of others and instead becomes dominated by egoistic desires. Even Boromir’s intention to help his country was originally good when he tried to take the Ring from Frodo. In the worst case, it comes to the attempt to subject others to the demands of self. Such is the essence of Morgoth’s, and later Sauron’s, evil. 

Unlike Manichean, the Augustinian evil is always internal, stemming from each individual’s lack of prudence and belief in objective good. The evil Tolkien presents in his stories is exactly of such nature; it arises from the internal conflict between good and evil within the characters. The Ring, though it may seem to be an active evil force, is just a symbol of power. So it is not the Ring itself that brings out the characters’ evil qualities and enhances their internal conflicts, but their desire for the power it represents — a power that is beyond their God-given share. So the evil in Middle-earth has its source in an inordinate will, vainglory and disrespect to the natural (or divine) order of the world. But the most terrible thing about it is, as Kreeft (2005, p. 188) observes, that it works only through our free will, our choice and consent to it. There are always two options: to do what is objectively right, or not to do it. Those who choose not to, choose the lack of good — that is evil.

Manichean Evil

The Augustinian understanding of evil is in Tolkien’s stories presented mainly through the members of the Free races, such as Saruman, Boromir, or Fëanor. In their case, the evil is a result of their personal faults. But in his stories, there can be also identified traces of the Manichean understanding of evil.

The Manicheans believed in the existence of two equally powerful principles or gods — a good one and an evil one, who compete for the rule over the world. The Good was associated with Light and the Evil with Darkness. They are both active forces and, to put it simply, they fight through the created things. Therefore, the good or evil that Man does is not a result of his own will, but of the work of the two gods in him. The problem is that under this condition Man could not be morally responsible for his actions, because he did it under the power of the gods. In effect, things could become completely good or evil depending on how much the gods propagated themselves in them (Coyle, 2009; Jones, 2007). Christianity, building on Augustine’s criticism, condemned the Manichean view as heretic.

Tolkien, being an orthodox Christian, naturally dismissed it too. Nonetheless, some elements in his stories also show qualities that resemble the Manichean understanding of evil. As McIntosh (2009, p. 354) remarks, he too associates the good with light and evil with darkness (which Scheps criticized him for), The angelic Valar built all the sources of light in Middle-earth, from the Lamps of Valar, through the Trees of Light, to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. The good characters, such as Elves or Frodo, radiate some kind of inner light. On the other hand, evil creatures are mostly depicted as dark, black, for example, Morgoth, Nazgûls, or Ungoliant, the spider queen of darkness.

Another thing is that in the apparent absence of the good god Eru, both the readers and the inhabitants of Middle-earth perceive the Dark Lords (Sauron but mainly his predecessor Morgoth) to be the gods and sources of evil. Indeed, Tolkien through his characters often names them as the Lords of Evil, or simply the Evil. But we must not forget that they are Eru’s creations, not his equals, and were not created evil in the beginning. Evil they became through their own pride and disobedience of the “natural” law. The two Dark Lords of Middle-earth are identified with Satan and like him are fallen angels. Actually, the story of Morgoth’s fall is a retelling of the Christian myth of Satan’s fall. Morgoth did not create all the evil in the world; there were evil creatures that existed independently of him (Ungoliant) or later of Sauron (the watcher in the lake at Moria). Hence neither of them is the god of evil. They are only the most powerful beings overcome by evil as the lack of goodness, and on account of their power they can incite others to evil.

In addition, both Shippey and Davison discuss two features of Tolkien’s work that recall Manicheanism the most. One of them is the presentation of evil as an active force. Especially the Ring, which seems to have an agency of its own. It not only speaks to Frodo urging him to put it on but also tries to dominate his will. The will of the Ring is so strong that it even moves his hand. But as Gandalf noted, it can also decide to leave its bearer when he does not respond to its call by bringing it to Sauron; it change its shape and slip off his finger without him noticing — as it did to Isildur and Gollum (Tolkien, 2011b, p. 55). Or it can, on the contrary, also slip onto his finger, seemingly by an accident, as it did to Frodo in Bree. Moreover, the Ring is so evil that it would eventually turn all acts done with its help into evil no matter how good the original intentions of its bearer would be. But Davison (2013) argues that the Ring has no will of its own; it is animated by the portion of Sauron’s power he put of himself into it. So it cannot be considered an independent evil force in the Manichean sense, though the idea of evil working through some object certainly is Manichean. Similarly, Melkor put a portion of his power into the Earth, on account of which it became the metaphorical Ring of Morgoth. Caldecott (2012, p. 68) explained that because he disseminated his evil power into the physical matter of the Earth, all things that came out of it bore a seed of evil in themselves. This again partially resembles the Manichean opinion that all matter is evil; however, in their view it was because the world was created by the evil god (Jones, 2007).

In my opinion, the tempting visions of power one might achieve with the possession of the Ring, which incite the lust for it, come from the mind of the individual people rather than from the suggestions of the Ring. As for the urge to put the Ring on and losing control over his hand, Frodo feels it only in the presence of Nazgûls and near and in Mordor. When he puts it on in Bombadil’s house and at Amon Hen it is not against his will as it was in Bree, at Amon Sûl, and possibly at Mount Doom. This suggests that the urge might have actually been provoked by the Nazgûls and Sauron himself than the Ring. Even though they did not know its exact position, they felt the presence of the Ring and appealed to the mind of its bearer to put it on — a process similar to telepathy. And lastly, McIntosh (2009, p. 356) identifies that the reason why all action done through it would turn evil is that this is what it was designed for. It is its function to do evil just as it is the function of the three Elven rings to heal and preserve good.

The second most Manichean feature of Tolkien’s stories is the existence of apparently utterly evil creatures; what is more, whole races that are corrupted beyond redemption. And this is also the most problematic feature of his work. As has been already mentioned, Tolkien struggled to validate his claim that orcs could not be redeemed. The idea contradicted his personal belief that there could not exist an absolutely evil rational creature (Tolkien, 2006, p. 243). In one draft (ibid, p. 195), he mused that some creatures such as trolls were beyond redemption because they were not rational creatures in the true sense — they did not possess souls and could be turned into stone in the daylight. Orcs possibly did not possess souls either, since they as trolls were just counterfeits of Eru the God’s creatures made by Morgoth who had not the power to give it. And since they were begotten in sin — by Morgoth breaking the ban to create things in order to be their lord — they were naturally evil. Tolkien here emphasized that not irredeemably, because by tolerating their making and giving them existence, they were incorporated into Eru’s creation plan which is ultimately good. One way to explain their irredeemability is that at their making they might have been programmed to do evil, just like the Ring. Maybe this is what Tolkien meant by pronouncing them naturally evil, even though he never voiced the idea. Another, more plausible option is that they so completely succumbed to sinful life (full of anger, gluttony, murdering) that they felt no guilt for it or even enjoyed it. And not regretting one’s sins is the only hindrance to redemption.

Characteristics of Evil

The main characteristic of evil in Tolkien’s understanding is that it cannot create in the sense of giving life; it can only destroy, pervert and mock. Most of all, it desires power. Further, as has already been mentioned, evil is unable to understand the designs of good. To this Purtil (1974) adds that it is also distrustful of everyone and hence unable to cooperate effectively. For he who is wicked tends to believe others have the same egoistic thinking as he does. He pictures everyone as his rivals for his power. One effect of this is the frequent quarrelling that arises between the wicked creatures and is often the reason for their failure, as in the case of the trolls in The Hobbit or different tribes of orcs who captured the hobbits in The Lord of the Rings and fought each other to death for them. The other effect is that the alliances established between the evil characters are either based on fear and suppression (Sauron and the Southrons) or on pretended loyalty which is held onto only as long as it is beneficial for the lesser evil  (Saruman and Sauron). The lesser evil has the tendency to supplant the greater evil, which leads to treachery. The reason, as Purtil put it, is that no one wants to be the slave of an evil lord. Instead, the most evil ones, like Saruman, want to take his place, or at least become his satraps. However, Kreeft (2005, p. 187) reminds us of the Hegelian master-slave dialectic according to which it is not the slave who is dependent on his master, but the master is dependent on his slave and thus a slave to his need of slaves. Similarly, in Tolkien’s stories we find evil lords who exercise their power through their slaves or magical tools, but are themselves afraid to come into an open combat. So the evil divides and isolates.

The evil often appears fair, whereby it is tempting and targets the major flaws of the characters. But consenting to what it offers, be it an advice or a magical device, in hopes to do good through it would eventually turn the person and all their actions done via these devices into evil. Yet although the consequences of evil may be disastrous, Tolkien believed that in the end even the evil can serve some good and complements to the divine plan, as it is announced by Eru when Melkor rebelled against him (Tolkien, 1992, p. 6) and illustrated by the final scene at Sammath Naur when Frodo would not be able to destroy the Ring unless Gollum cut it off his hand (Tolkien, 2011b, p. 946). 

The major difference between good and evil in their nature is that while it is possible to become almost utterly evil and damnable (if we omit the fact that existence itself is a good even to evil creatures, and if they reject every opportunity for conversion to good), it is impossible in the earthly life to become perfectly good. The reason is that the evil ones despise good as foolishness (Saruman), but the good ones are all too well aware that they are never safe from evil. They know their faults and weaknesses and recognize the danger that they may any time slip from virtue, give in to their temptations, and do some evil. So in the meanwhile, the most effective way to overcome each person’s internal evil is through the exercise of humility, selflessness, and self-sacrifice, as opposites to pride, selfishness, and terror the evil is based on.

The Nature of Good

While the evil in Middle-earth is represented by Morgoth and Sauron, there is no physical embodiment of good. Of course, there is Eru, the God-Creator, but he is present only in the Ainulindalë, the myth about the origin of Arda, and remains beyond the circles of the world. Although he is recognized as the only god and source of life, he is not worshipped, because Tolkien deliberately removed any references to religion. So in the later ages, he was almost forgotten by the Elves and unknown by the other races. Also the angelic beings Valar, who administer the world in his stead and whose function in Arda is partially similar to that of pagan gods who rule over the natural forces, keep themselves secluded in Valinor (which, in addition, was removed from the physical world) entering the events in Middle-earth only in moments of highest exigency (e.g. the final fight with Morgoth, the destruction of Númenor). The Elves occasionally prayed to them for help, comparable to the Christian saints, but even the Valar were not faultless (consider Aulë’s making of the Dwarves), not speaking of their less mighty counterparts, the Maiar (Sauron and Saruman, for instance). So they could not serve as models of perfect goodness.

The good in Middle-earth then has no single source, no ultimate originator. It is rather the result of the combined successful efforts of all the individuals to overcome their personal faults. It seems to operate on the same principle of intuitive knowledge of the objective morality as Lewis’s Tao. While it may appear that the evil of certain characters is caused or inspired by external forces (the Ring, Saruman’s influence) or exercised under threats, the goodness is always based on their own decisions. The good characters may at most give suggestions or advice, but never force others to do what they perceive as right. This must be pondered about and evaluated by each advisee on their own and chosen of their free will, otherwise it would cease to be good in the true sense.