At the beginning of The Silmarillion (1977) there is the creation story Ainulindale - which describes, in musical terms, how the universe is created; starting from Eru, The One, prime creator God.
JRR Tolkien regarded this myth as broadly compatible with his orthodox Roman Catholic Christianity - such that Eru has the attributes traditionally ascribed to the God of Catholic theology - being wholly-perfect in goodness; and one who creates everything from nothing; is omnipotent, omniscient etc.
The first thing Eru does is to create the Ainur; the senior angels or "gods" who later become the Valar (the senior angels) and the Maia (the subordinate angels).
It seems that the creation of the Ainur involves Eru dividing his "elemental" attributes and distributing them among the angelic beings; so that Vala suuch as Melkor has a link to fire (including spiritual fire), Manwe the airs, Ulmo all the waters etc.
More junior Maia have more specific powers and responsibilities - so that Osse represents just the coastal waters of Middle Earth.
Thus far, we can envisage the Ainur as being subdivisions of some of Eru's all-including characteristics, and with made-into a divine being that each has "agency": autonomy and freedom.
It is from the interactions of these separated Ainur that the actual universe is made; the process being described as a great music, a developing harmony; with each of the Ainur as-if an instrument/ composer with a distinctive tone and disposition.
These combine to make a great "improvised" symphony - which is creation.
The problem is Melkor - who later becomes called Morgoth; who is represented as the source of dissonance in the harmony of the great music; and thereby - when that music is revealed to be creation - the source of evil and the confusion and corruption of other beings: including Ainur, and the lower orders of beings such as dwarves, elves and Men.
More exactly, the problem is:
Considering that Eru is perfectly good, and all-that-is comes-from Eru - where does the evil in Melkor's nature originate?
If Eru is perfectly good, then there can apparently be no evil from-which Melkor could derive it.
The question of Melkor's agency is secondary, in that Melkor would neither have evil motivations (such as pride) nor would he make make evil choices (such as introducing discords) unless his nature was already evil.
For Melkor to become evil; Melkor would have to contain evil in the first place...
And yet we are told that Melkor comes only and entirely from Eru.
The only way I can make a sort-of sense from this is to assume that when Eru's perfectly-good nature is sub-divided to make the Ainur, then this process creates an imbalance or lop-sidenness due to the incompletion of each of the Ainur.
It is this incompletions and imbalance of nature which results in the evil of Melkor.
If this is true; it would mean that evil is a matter of imbalance - and that anything less complete that the everything-fullness of Eru is therefore evil - to some extent.
However, I don't think that this does much more than kick the can, if Eru's nature is said to be omnipotent and omniscient; because that would imply that the evil nature due to the particular incomplete imbalance of Melkor was foreknown to Eru.
Yet Eru chose to make Melkor the most powerful of the Ainur...
So that all the evil of the world, past present and future, was implicit from the start, in the way that Eru chose to create.
The consequence is that the perfect goodness of Eru somehow contains all the actual evil of creation - past, present and future. Yet Eru (if compatible with the Roman Catholic understanding of God) must be one and indivisible - Eru must have no internal structure.
(...Except in the mystical word spell of Trinitarianism, whereby the indivisible unity of God simultaneously and without contradiction is stated to contain the three persons of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But that paradoxical mystery is not an explanation.)
An "imbalance" theory of evil is quite common, indeed it is almost mainstream.
One ancient manifestation of this theory was the Ancient Greek proverb of "moderation in all things" - a more recent manifestation is Jung's idea that individual's need to know and embrace their shadow self and its impulses, in order to attain the highest individuation.
Another version of the idea is that the ideal situation is a balance between Law and Chaos: too much of either is evil, and the best is some kind of middle path that includes a bit of both.
However, such ideas are not Christian; which faith is based on conceptualization of positive goodness - the more the better; and that (while God can make the best of the inevitable evils of this mortal life) - the ideal situation (Heaven) is one where there is only good, and no evil.
Indeed, while there is always some good in any overall-evil being, even Melkor; since to exist as a being is to be part of divine creation.
Good is therefore mixed-into evil in all actual beings - even when a being is eternally committed to opposing God and divine creation...
But Christianity insists that there can and should be pure good, not some balanced mixture of good with evil; and good is what Christians aspire to.
Therefore, I do not think the imbalance theory of evil can be used to explain the nature of Melkor; nor would it (I suspect) have been acceptable to JRRT.
Given Tolkien's assumptions; the situation regarding the creation of Melkor is incoherent: it does not make sense.
"Something has to give" among the assumptions that lead to this incoherence.
Given that Christians cannot (or perhaps should not) give-up on the pure-goodness of God; what must therefore give way is the idea that God created everything (including Melkor) from nothing - which means from-Himself-only.
If instead we assumed that Melkor was eternally existent as a being; that existence preceding Eru's creation; then the evil of Melkor's nature need not have been created by Eru.
We can assume that the roots of Melkor's evil nature and choices were always there - they were not aspects of Eru.
Then the perfect goodness of Eru can be asserted and explained simply and coherently.
No comments:
Post a Comment