# Melkor's Treatment after the War of Wrath



## thewitchqueen

from Tolkiens writings:




> There Morgoth stood at last at bay, and yet unvaliant. He fled into the deepest of his mines, and sued for peace and pardon; but his feet were hewn from under him, and he was hurled upon his face. Then he was bound with the chain Angainor which he had worn aforetime, and his iron crown they beat into a collar for his neck, and his head was bowed upon his knees.




THIS is a disturbing idea- at least to me- if he surrendered and begged for mercy- how could the good Valar treat him this way?

I think this is extremely perplexing, from an ethical / merciful standpoint.

You have an enemy, beaten, humbled, pleading, and yet you "hew their feet from under them"?

Was that really needed?? and how can the "good" side do such a thing, especially in victory?

Also- how did they execute him??

I have heard they beheaded him.



would love to hear opinions!!!




I am working on a treatise for an ethics class...and got caught up in the Sil...

this will be a long paper I am working on... ^_^

Melissa


----------



## Ithrynluin

Welcome aboard, Melissa.

Melkor fooled the Valar one too many times. And after he wreaked all the havoc during the First Age, would it have been prudent for the Valar simply to say 'Oh, okay, since you sound so sincere, we'll treat you all nice and well'.

Melkor had it coming. He was pushing the envelope big time already in Aman when he was spreding lies among the Noldor.


----------



## Hammersmith

Welcome to the forums!
I would imagine the good Valar were simply in a state of rage - just rage - after Melkor had utterly ruined Middle Earth, even after all of the chances that he had been offered. If you want to go down the path of analogy, there will be no salvation for ultimate evil in the end of things. You must question how sincere Melkor was in his surrender, and how well the Valar knew him.

With regards to his execution, there are some good points made in *this thread*, although I'm not sure how clear his final fate actually was in the books.


----------



## thewitchqueen

Thanks for the welcome!! ^_^


I guess what I meant was- he *was* beaten- so why was it needed to cut his feet off, or out from under him, or whatever? Isnt maiming him a little cruel?

I expect such a thing of Melkor ^_^ but not of the others.


and why did he *have* to be executed? 


I am sure there were "reasons", of course- in the name of justice- I just marvel at the Valar actually going that far.



On the other hand, a lot of times they were *not* merciful.

Nienna and Olorin seem to be the ones who most often strived to show compassion.

Melissa


----------



## Hammersmith

About the feet...I dunno. Maybe he tried to run away? It is often the prerogative of deities to take their justice in whatever way seems best to them, whether or not mortals understand it. And if you think how many deaths Melkor was responsible for, and the evil he wrought on the world, I think he certainly deserved it.

Also remember that the Valar were considerably more lenient on Maedhros and Maglor than they deserved. _I _would certainly have hacked those two to death


----------



## Greenwood

Welcome to the Forum witchqueen!

Just the other day I finished rereading The Silmarillion for the first time in years and I too was struck strongly by this passage. I have been thinking about it and so far have come up with no conclusions. It seems so out of keeping with JRRT in the rest of his writings. Not believing Morgoth's sincerity in suing for peace and pardon is certainly reasonable given his track record. Chaining him is also a quite reasonable precaution given that track record. But the "his feet were hewn from under him" does seem quite excessive and unjustifiable. 

As for Morgoth/Melkor being executed, he was not. Go to the last paragraph of The Silmarillion: "But for Morgoth himself the Valar thrust him through the Door of Night beyond the Walls of the World, into the Timeless Void; and a guard is set for ever on those walls, and Earendil keeps watchupon the ramparts of the sky."


----------



## Annaheru

I think it ties to the fact that Morgoth wasn't taken captive by the Valar, but by the Maia: even after having weakened himself Morgoth probably could have done some real damage to them (out of desparation) when they went to chain him if they hadn't crippled him.

@Greenwood, in HoMe we are told that Mandos 'executes' Morgoth's body, and that his spirit is dissipated in the Void. His spirit survives though, because we have the tale of Morgoth's invasion of Valinor and final defeat after he gathers himself back together.


----------



## Eledhwen

I don't think 'cutting his feet out from under him' is literal, as the body worn by a Valar is exactly that - worn, not integral. For the same reason, I don't believe he was executed, but chained forever. But I am surprised that you find his treatment offensive, considering the evil ruinous things he did in and to Middle-earth. If Melkor had been given even the tiniest quarter, he would have escaped through it to wring further havoc.


----------



## Ithrynluin

It is an interesting point that thewitchqueen raises, that the Valar would resort to an act of violence and cruelty, which is otherwise the province of Melkor, their chief enemy. But perhaps the hewing of Melkor's feet was not a direct order of the Valar, but was made on account of Melkor possibly trying to squirm away and hide till things settled down? 

Melkor was given numerous opportunities to repent and he rejected every one of them, and destroyed thousands upon thousands of lives in the process. How many times must Good be trampled, for it to finally take a different course of action? One's free will goes only so far, if one decides to withold it from others.

There is indeed a comment in _Morgoth's Ring_ where it is plainly stated that Morgoth was executed. That, however, may not be wholly in sync with what _The Silmarillion_ states (as Greenwood quoted). But Morgoth's Ring is a later writing, so I would suppose that it it is more authoritative.

But then again - if Melkor was indeed executed, why the need to cast him into the Void and shut him off? His spirit would need thousands of years to recuperate well enough to begin to take shape again and cause trouble as a result. Or perhaps his spirit was still strong enough to do small evil in the form of whispering lies and such?


----------



## Gothmog

Ithrynluin said:


> But then again - if Melkor was indeed executed, why the need to cast him into the Void and shut him off? His spirit would need thousands of years to recuperate well enough to begin to take shape again and cause trouble as a result. Or perhaps his spirit was still strong enough to do small evil in the form of whispering lies and such?



I believe that the reason for Melkor to be executed was in fact to free his spirit from his physical body thereby allowing his spirit to be cast into the void. I seem to recall something to this effect in _Morgoth's Ring_. I will have to check on this.


----------



## Alcuin

Welcome to the forum, Melissa!


thewitchqueen said:


> I guess what I meant was- he *was* beaten- so why was it needed to cut his feet off, or out from under him, or whatever? Isnt maiming him a little cruel?
> ...
> I am sure there were "reasons", of course- in the name of justice- I just marvel at the Valar actually going that far.


Morgoth wasn’t executed in _The Silmarillion_. He was chained and cast into the Void. No one can provide you a quote on Morgoth’s execution from _The Silmarillion_ because there aren’t any. 

Morgoth had been chained and prisoner of Mandos for three ages of the world because he had _already_ tried to destroy Arda. No sooner did the Valar release him but he murdered the Two Trees, ending the Bliss of Valinor. He murdered Finwë, first of all the Incarnates to die of violence as far as the Valar knew. (There were questions about the origins of the orcs, too, but I won’t delve into those now.) He marred Fëanor, greatest of all the Children of Ilúvatar, leading him down a path of wickedness and ruin when he might otherwise have done yet greater things in Arda. His actions led directly to the Kin-Slaying, the Flight of the Noldor, and the ruin of Beleriand. 

Morgoth misled men, diverting their allegiance from Eru to himself. In this, and in this alone, he deserved his punishment, for he marred all the Second Kindred in defiance of his Creator. He sowed dissention between the Two Kindreds of the Children of Ilúvatar. His ruin of the children of Húrin was heinous. And this is only a _very_ short list of his vile acts.

No, Morgoth wasn’t killed. He was exiled. And if the Valar had left him in Arda, that would have been black mark against them: Morgoth had to be removed from Arda and expelled into the Void. He could not be trusted, and he was entirely committed to the destruction of Arda and the Children of Ilúvatar. He begged for mercy? No, he begged for another shot at killing everyone in Arda. “Mercy!” is what he said; “Suckers!” is what he meant. 

There is one last item that you might have failed to notice, thewitchqueen. In order to open the Doors of Night and evict Morgoth, the Valar would first have consulted Eru and received Eru’s approval.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> No, Morgoth wasn’t killed. He was exiled.



I think it's a bit misleading to say that, in light of the quote that was referred to. Or are you speaking in a strictly Silmarillion sense, as you state in the first paragraph of your post? If so, I'd still have to say that the mythology ought to be considered as a whole.


----------



## thewitchqueen

> There is one last item that you might have failed to notice, thewitchqueen. In order to open the Doors of Night and evict Morgoth, the Valar would first have consulted Eru and received Eru’s approval.


 
hmm..that makes it even worse to me...


I *do* understand the need to remove him from Arda, and some punishment for his terrible actions. 

but I *still* do not see the reason to maim him, when he was beaten.

just think: if _he did that_- and yes, I am aware of his many heinous crimes- but if he did that, we would consider it proof of his wicked cruelty.

imagine the scene:

*he is beaten and pleading, and instead of simply subduing him, they cut off his feet, and hurl him to the ground.*

_*so then, bleeding profusely from the injuries, perhaps screaming in agony, he is dragged ( ? ) off with a collar around his neck.*_



_the noble victors??_

I just find it really sick and sad.

Yes, he was a very VERY bad Vala.

But if the above scene does not smack of needless cruelty, then..well.. I dont know...

 

Melissa


----------



## Ithrynluin

thewitchqueen said:


> imagine the scene:
> 
> he is beaten and pleading, and instead of simply subduing him, they cut off his feet, and hurl him to the ground.
> 
> so then, bleeding profusely from the injuries, he is dragged ( ? ) off with a collar around his neck.



But we don't know it happened like this. What if the scenario was something like I hypothesized in my earlier posting:



> But perhaps the hewing of Melkor's feet was not a direct order of the Valar, but was made on account of Melkor possibly trying to squirm away and hide till things settled down?



His plea for pardon refused, he may have made a run for it, and ultimately had his feet hewn off. I rather prefer this scenario to the one you propose.


----------



## Annaheru

Gothmog quoted the source I was refering to (couldn't remember the name: can't have all my Tolkien bks at college!), and I think he's right in his assertion that the execution was required in order to seperate Morgoth from Arda- even aside from _Morgoth's Ring_, the Sil says that the Valar are tied to Arda: its life and their life are intertwined. In order to remove Morgoth from Arda against his will, they would have to destroy his body.


@thewitchqueen, I think your confusing being beaten by fear, and being truly submissive. Like a said before, he was chained by the Maia. Before they could do that they would have to physically subdue him. If they had tried that while he was still able to resist he could have destroyed many of them (even in his weakened state) once his hate overcame his fear. They disabled him out of a sense of self-preservation, not cruelty.


----------



## thewitchqueen

> His plea for pardon refused, he may have made a run for it, and ultimately had his feet hewn off. I rather prefer this scenario to the one you propose.


 

hmm...yes, that is very possible.

I just wish I did not have the image of it in my head. Any way you look at it, it's a gruesome event...


----------



## thewitchqueen

> thewitchqueen, I think your confusing being beaten by fear, and being truly submissive.


 


Oh, I understand he was terrified. I guess thats why it is so pitiful to me.




> Like a said before, he was chained by the Maia. Before they could do that they would have to physically subdue him. If they had tried that while he was still able to resist he could have destroyed many of them (even in his weakened state) once his hate overcame his fear. They disabled him out of a sense of self-preservation, not cruelty


 

*sigh* I would hope to believe that, I guess it could be the answer to it. I once saw some photos of someone who had their feet cut off by a train, and believe me, it would be a horrible thing to suffer- or do to someone- even an enemy.

perhaps they felt they could not safely even chain him w/o doing it.



Melissa


----------



## Greenwood

Annaheru said:


> I think it ties to the fact that Morgoth wasn't taken captive by the Valar, but by the Maia: ...


The sentence immediately before the passage thewitchqueen quoted is:


> Then the sun rose, and the host of the Valar prevailed, and well-nigh all the dragons were destroyed; and all the pits of Morgoth were broken and unroofed, and the might of the Valar descended into the deeps of the earth.


This would pretty clearly seem to be the Valar taking Morgoth captive, not Maia.

Now as to various comments about what is found in HoME, it is important to recognize some important facts about The Silmarillion and the HoME series. First, all of these books were published after JRRT's death by his son Christopher working from his fathers notes. Notes that Christopher often describes as disordered and at times conflicting. Christopher took it upon himself to put them together into publishable form. The first to be published was The Silmarillion. In the Foreward, Christopher says:


> On my father's death it fell to me to try to bring the work into publishable form. It became clear to me that to attempt to present, within the covers of a single book, the diversity of the materials -- to show _The Silmarillion_ as in truth a continuing and evolving creation extending over more than a half century -- would in fct lead only to confusion and the submerging of what is essential. I set myself therefore to work out a single text, selecting and arranging in such a way as seemed to me to produce the most coherent and internally selfconsistent narrative. In this work the concluding chapters (from the death of Turin Turambar) [These chapters include the War of Wrath and the taking of Morgoth by the Valar - Greenwood] introduced peculiar diifculties, in that they had remained unchanged for many years, and were in some respects in serious diharmony with more developed conceptions in other parts of the book.


The HoME series is Christopher Tolkien's attempt to show the complexity of his father's writing and the "continuing and evolving" nature of the writings. Thus there cane be no definitive version of The Silmarillion since JRRT did not live to see it through to publication. One hopes that if he had, he would have removed the inconsistencies and settled on a final version. Since he did not, if we are going to discuss The Silmarillion we have to settle on what it is we are discussing. It seems to me the simplest is to settle on the book published by Christopher Tolkien in 1977 under the title The Silmarillion and to use the HoME series for what they are, primarily a record of the literary evolution of LOTR, The Silmarillion and the background material behind these works. In this sense, the comment in Morgoth's Ring is somewhat irrelevant since it is not in The Silmarillion (if we take the published volume, The Silmarillion, as definitive). I am aware that Christopher Tolkien indicates in his Foreward to Morgoth's Ring that much of what he presents in that volume was written by his father after LOTR and so can be called "later writings", but the fact remains that they are primarily fragmentary pieces of writing and short essays and were never incorporated by either JRRT or Christopher into the published version of The Silmarillion.



Eledhwen said:


> But I am surprised that you find his treatment offensive, considering the evil ruinous things he did in and to Middle-earth.


But this would lead toward a philosophy of fighting evil by being as evil as what you are fighting. How do you distinguish between the two sides then?

[I see that while I have been off-line preparing my post (and having dinner  ) there are been a number of new posts to the thread. I will have to take time to read them before posting further.]


----------



## thewitchqueen

> This would pretty clearly seem to be the Valar taking Morgoth captive, not Maia.


 
so it WAS the powerful Valar that did this to him- the hewing of feet and hurling to the ground on his face.

why?? Cosmic machismo? 

I know its not popular to have any pity for Morgoth..but imagine your own brother cutting off your feet and condemning you to death...

and yes, I know Melkor was a TERRIBLE brother!!  

but Manwe and Co. are SUPPOSED to be above this..arent they..??


Melissa


----------



## Greenwood

I see there have been suggestions that Morgoth needed to be executed, in other words his incarnate body destroyed, before he could be expelled into the outer void. There is perhaps some validity to that argument, but that does not seem to be what is troubling thewitchqueen. After all it is not in The Silmarillion. Even the chaining of him, alone, is not troubling, but an obviously reasonable precaution. What troubles her, and me, is the passage "his feet were hewn from under him". One can make up scenarios about it being done as he tried to escape, but there is no evidence in any of Tolkien's writings to support those scenarios.



Annaheru said:


> Like _ said before, he was chained by the Maia._


_See my previous post. It was pretty clearly the Valar, not some Maia taking Morgoth prisoner. Besides, there are a number of passages in The Silmarillion where it says that Melkor's power has been lessened by his various evil deeds. He started out as equal to Manwe and superior in power to the rest of the Valar, but this had ceased to be true long ago._


----------



## thewitchqueen

> What troubles her, and me, is the passage "his feet were hewn from under him". One can make up scenarios about it being done as he tried to escape, but there is no evidence in any of Tolkien's writings to support those scenarios.


 
EXACTLY right!!

it seems that it was done purely to torture and cripple him.

and no matter how many things he did that were evil and all, this was a brutal thing to do to a prisoner who is begging mercy ( sincere or not, he WAS beaten and caught )

having the feet "hewn off" would cause great pain and bleeding, as well as being crippling.

what was the point?

why did he need to be "hurled upon his face" after pleading for pardon?


ALSO: if they had already decided- and I do not know if they did at that point- to kill and exile him, why mutilate him into a bloody cripple?



Melissa


----------



## Annaheru

@Greenwood, the idea that HoMe cannot add to our understanding of Sil is silly. In those notes (compiled by the same person as Sil) we learn that Eonwe led the "Host of the Valar", the Valar themselves did not participate (of course Eonwe acted under their orders). It _was_ Maia who took Morgoth captive: check the Sil index: "Eonwe- One of the mightiest of the Maiar; called the Herald of Manwe; _*leader of the host of the Valar in the attack on Morgoth at the end of the First Age*_ [emphasis added]." Clearly the Valar weren't there. So the Host is Maia, commanded by Maia.


----------



## Ithrynluin

I really don't think we can say with any certainty who was involved in the War of Wrath. Nowhere is it stated (to my knowledge) that the Valar themselves participated, nor is there something to deny that; though I would find it a wee bit strange that none of them would get a mention...Of the Maiar, only Eönwë is mentioned. That he was leader of the forces of Valinor does not mean he personally captured Morgoth, nor that there were no Valar present.


----------



## Greenwood

Annaheru said:


> the idea that HoMe cannot add to our understanding of Sil is silly


The _HoME_ series can tell us much about the writing of _The Lord of the Rings_ and _The Silmarillion_ and about Tolkien's thinking and the evolution of his thinking. What I am talking about is the difference between a final, or definitive version, and a draft. In the case of _LOTR_, the definitive versions are the editions published by Tolkien himself during his lifetime. The posthumously published materials and notes are all various versions of drafts and cannot be used to contradict the definitive version. Thus we cannot use the four volumes of _The History of the Lord of the Rings_ within the _HoME_ series to decide that Strider was really a hobbit and that Frodo's real name was Bingo Baggins. Now the case of _The Silmarillion_ is more complicated since Tolkien did not live to see it through to publication. The published _Silmarillion_ is really Christopher Tolkien's version of his father's _Silmarillion_, pulled togther from Tolkien's notes and drafts. The _HoME_ series are many of those drafts and notes. The closest volume to what could be considered the defintive _Silmarillion_ would seem to be the book of that name published by Christopher Tolkien four years after his father's death. The _HoME_ series stands in relation to that volume as _The History of the Lord of the Rings_ volumes stand in relation to _The Lord of the Rings_. They are of interest, but they do not override _The Silmarillion_, unless one takes the position that there is no definitive version of _The Silmarillion_ (a completely viable argument). In the Foreward to _The Silmarillion_, Christopher Tolkien writes: "A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost." If Christopher Tolkien says this about _The Silmarillion_, how much more true does it have to be about the _HoME_ series.



Annaheru said:


> ... we learn that Eonwe led the "Host of the Valar", the Valar themselves did not participate ...


What is your justification for that statement? I admit no Valar is mentioned by name as taking part in the War of Wrath, but certainly Valar took part in the first attack on Melkor in Middle Earth when Utumno was destroyed and Melkor was taken away in chains. Why would they not take part in the War of Wrath when Melkor/Morgoth is again being assailed in Middle Earth? Why would they only send secondary beings, Maia, to confront one of their own; in fact, one who was originally the equal of Manwe and superior to all other Valar. 



Annaheru said:


> It was Maia who took Morgoth captive: check the Sil index: "Eonwe- One of the mightiest of the Maiar; called the Herald of Manwe; leader of the host of the Valar in the attack on Morgoth at the end of the First Age" Clearly the Valar weren't there. So the Host is Maia, commanded by Maia.


The index of _The Silmarillion_ is just that, an index. It was compiled by Christopher Tolkien and is completely secondary to the text of _The Silmarillion_. It cannot be used to override the actual text. No where in the text does it say that Eonwe commanded the host of the Valar. It does say that after Morgoth was overthrown and chained, the remaining Silmarils were removed from Morgoth's crown and taken by Eonwe, but this is reasonable since Eonwe is the Herald of Manwe. The text also says Eonwe summoned the elves of Beleriand to depart Middle Earth, but it specifically says he did this as the Herald of Manwe. It does not say he did it as the leader of the host of Valar. Looking at real medieval histories, I can not think of an instance when a herald of a king was in the commander of the king's forces. King's either commanded themselves or the forces were commanded by a general appointed by the king, usually from the nobility, often a relative of the king. Herald was a lesser, though still very high position.


----------



## Greenwood

Ithrynluin said:


> I really don't think we can say with any certainty who was involved in the War of Wrath. Nowhere is it stated (to my knowledge) that the Valar themselves participated, nor is there something to deny that; though I would find it a wee bit strange that none of them would get a mention...Of the Maiar, only Eönwë is mentioned. That he was leader of the forces of Valinor does not mean he personally captured Morgoth, nor that there were no Valar present.


You are right, that we cannot say definitively who among the Valar and the Maia did or did not take part in the War of Wrath, except for Eonwe since he is the only one mentioned by name. We can only make suppositions and as I pointed out in my post above, the Valar demonstrably took part in the first assault on Melkor/Morgoth in Middle Earth, so why would they not this time? Why only send Maia against one of the Valar. As for it being "a wee bit strange that none of them would get a mention", look at how abbreviated the whole account of the War of Wrath is compared to the earlier stories in _The Silmarillion_. Clearly Tolkien had not worked out a fully fleshed out account. As for Eonwe being the leader of the host of the Valar, there is nothing in the text to support that contention. It is based on an index entry, not the text.


----------



## thewitchqueen

> He fled into the deepest of his mines, and sued for peace and pardon; but his feet were hewn from under him, and he was hurled upon his face.


 
Instead of this meaning his feet were cut OFF- could this possibly mean they were cut- but not cut _off _all the way??

HEW means cut- right? 

did this mean that they perhaps slashed at his feet to hobble him- and to make him _fall-_ ( notice the next line is: _he was hurled upon his face )_- and did not actually amputate limbs?

I have been wondering about this tonight... it may have been simply to make him come crashing down.

Hacking off his feet is so bizarrely cruel, it is hard to fathom.


Melissa


----------



## Greenwood

From the Random House Webster's Dictionary: hew -- 1. to strike forcibly with an ax, sword, or other cutting instrument; chop. 2. to make, shape, or smooth with or as if with cutting blows: to hew a statue from marble. 3. to sever (a part) from a whole by means of cutting blows: to hew branches from the tree. 4. to cut down; fell: trees hewed down by the storm.

Maybe there is some archaic usage of the word that would just imply knocking his feet out from under him. Tolkien was afterall an expert on Old English and language. But as long as hew means cutting/chopping, I don't see how we get around the "good" guys being apparently needlessly cruel to someone who was surrendering and "sueing for peace and pardon". As I said, chaining him, even throwing him down so you can chain him, seem reasonable precautions; the hewing seems like unnecessary cruelty.


----------



## Alcuin

Ithrynluin said:


> I think it's a bit misleading to say that, in light of the quote that was referred to. Or are you speaking in a strictly Silmarillion sense, as you state in the first paragraph of your post? If so, I'd still have to say that the mythology ought to be considered as a whole.


Ithrynluin, please give me a citation from _Silmarillion_ or one of the other texts that Morgoth was executed at the end of the War of Wrath. If I’ve misunderstood what you’ve said, let me know, but there is no question that Morgoth was not killed at the end of Quenta Silmarillion. There is an active thread on this subject elsewhere in the forum now: http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=17169. 



thewitchqueen said:


> hmm..that makes it even worse to me...
> ...
> but I *still* do not see the reason to maim him, when he was beaten.
> ...
> I just find it really sick and sad.


“Hi, Mr. Morgoth. We know you just tried to kill us all – for the THIRD TIME in the history of Arda – but would you please be a nice evil Vala and co-operate while we haul you off to judgment?”

Not likely!

I dealt with this kind of issue recently in another forum. One of the participants argued – and apparently still holds – that in Tolkien’s works, orcs are simply misunderstood creatures mistreated by elves and men. 

This is sympathy for the Devil, and in a more than figurative sense: Morgoth is the Diabolus in Tolkien’s mythology. This questioning of what has to be done to achieve victory so that one can overcome sociopathic tyrants goes on in the real world, and seems to me a reflection of a society divorced from the harsh realities of the world by more than a century of domestic peace and seemingly endless prosperity. Tolkien had no such illusions: by the time he was 18, all but one of his close friends were dead in the First World War. 

Tolkien’s War of Wrath was a combat to the last critter standing. To say Morgoth is pleading for mercy is a failure to understand what’s happening. He’s not pleading for mercy, he’s pleading to avoid punishment, and for an opportunity to kill more men, more elves, more dwarves, and to wreck and ruin more of Arda. His words are for mercy, but that’s not what he’s after. He doesn’t want mercy: it’s a ruse – and worse, it’s a ruse in a fantasy story, not even real life.

There isn’t a happy ending at the end of _Silmarillion_. Most of the Noldor, most of the Sindar, and most of the men and dwarves of Beleriand are dead. Of the elves left in what was once Beleriand, most of those sail over the Sea to Tol Eressëa. Beleriand itself is destroyed. 

There are no happy endings in Tolkien. It sounds like the real world, and for good reason. Tolkien was a philologist, a person who studies languages and history, and how languages change over time. The source materials for his research are the original records of Dark Age and Medieval Europe. Those are not pretty. You should Google up _The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles_ and read a century or two: it’s depressing stuff. Tolkien is not writing about "My Little Ponies": he’s creating an artificial language, Quenya, both for fun and to try out his theories on language development. He needed a history to go with it, and he was inspired by the real histories he read. Those real-world histories, the source material for his work, are not the charming daydreams of children, but the nightmare reality of the treacherous and dangerous world in which we still live today.

Compassion is a recurring and important theme in Tolkien’s work. Consider the compassion of Bilbo toward Gollum, and again of Frodo towards Gollum. There is the compassion of the Rohirrim toward the Dunlendings at the end of the Battle of the Hornburg, and the compassion of Aragorn as King of Gondor at the end of the War of the Ring, even toward the Southrons and the Easterlings. That Tolkien has the host of the Valar withhold what you would call “compassion” to Morgoth is important: he merited no compassion, and to extend it to him was both foolish and dangerous. They did not torture him, torment him, or even display him: they disabled him, they bound him, and they took him to judgment. They did precisely what was necessary to deal with the situation; to have done less would have been both unwise and unsafe; to have done more might indeed have been condemnable, but I believe you are reaching quite far to assert it.

I’m sure some of you find this post very harsh and most unpleasant, but I believe that Tolkien was creating a world for his languages that accurately reflected not only the world that he himself knew personally, but the real world he knew from the history and languages he studied all his life. Tolkien created a myth, and that myth is and is meant to be a partial mirror of reality and of the often harsh and unpleasant truths that underlie the reality in which we live.



> But Morgoth himself the Valar thrust through the Door of Night beyond the Walls of the World, into the Timeless Void; and a guard is set for ever on those walls, and Eärendil keeps watch upon the ramparts of the sky. Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accused, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Alcuin said:


> Ithrynluin, please give me a citation from Silmarillion or one of the other texts that Morgoth was executed at the end of the War of Wrath. If I’ve misunderstood what you’ve said, let me know, but there is no question that Morgoth was not killed at the end of Quenta Silmarillion. There is an active thread on this subject elsewhere in the forum now: http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=17169.



Alcuin, I was referring to the quotation from _Morgoth's Ring; Myths Transformed_. Since that has already been cited in this thread, I assume you've dismissed it for some reason? No, Morgoth certainly was not slain at the end of the _Quenta_, since that ends in Beleriand, and does not follow on to Aman, where Melkor was brought, judged, and executed (as per _HoME X_).

Also, I thoroughly agree with your evaluation of the actions of the Valar towards Melkor in the WoW. It certainly seems so endlessly cruel and unbecoming of the forces of good, but we need to concentrate on more than meets the eye.


----------



## Greenwood

This is off the main topic of this thread, but is an important side issue and that is the use of the HoME series in looking at The Silmarillion. I just wanted to give a further example of the limitations and difficulties that can arise in treating all volumes equally. In The Lost Road (HoME vol V) we have another, apparently earlier version of The Silmarillion. In it when we get to the War of Wrath, there is no Eonwe, Herald of Manwe. In his place we find Fionwe, the Son of Manwe, and Fionwe does not lead the "host of the Valar" in the War of Wrath, but the "Sons of the Valar". Christopher Tolkien notes that in his later versions the children of the Valar would be changed by his father in concept to the Maiar. Now this can be taken as evidence that the "host of the Valar" in the War of Wrath are Maiar and include no Valar, but it is reasonable to assume that actual children of the Valar would be more powerful than lesser spirits, the Maiar. Thus, arguing from the HoME series, since they are differing versions of the text can give rise to all sorts of conflicts and additional problems as Christopher Tolkien basically says in his Forewards. Who knows what Tolkien might have decided in the end about all of these matters if he had lived to see them through to publication. Even then, Tolkien might have reconsidered things after publication as we know happened with LOTR, based on his letters and later writings. An example: in LOTR and The Silmarillion, orcs are made from corrupted elves by Morgoth. When a reader asked if orcs were therefore immortal as are elves, Tolkien started wrestling with the whole problem of the origin and nature of elves since he did not like the idea of them being immortal, but his cosmology also forbid the idea of Morgoth being capable of independent creation of a new creature. I believe Tolkien was still struggling with this problem when he died.


----------



## Greenwood

Alcuin,

The question here is not about pardoning Morgoth or asking him to please be a good boy and go along quietly. There is no objection to chaining him and putting an iron collar on him or restraining him in any way necessary. The question is, was it necessary to chop off his feet first. Of course Morgoth hopes to avoid punishment and any pleading for mercy on his part is a ruse. And it is not a question of doing what is necessary to defeat him. At this point in time he has been defeated. The issue that thewitchqueen raises is over the apparently unnecessary and seemingly very cruel step of chopping his feet off before binding him and taking him away. I am well aware that in the heat of combat many aspects of civilized behavior get forgotten and even the "rules of war" can be overlooked, but Morgoth was not being confronted and captured by mere men or even elves. Be they Valar or Maia he is facing they are supposed to be beyond men and elves. They are supposed to be angelic beings. Chopping someone's feet off as they surrender, with no overt evidence that the person is still fighting seems strange, no matter how evil the person was. In most civilized armies it would get you a court martial and prison time.

The whole thing reminds me of all the reasons given by Gandalf, Elrond and the other "good guys" in LOTR as to why they cannot use The Ring to defeat Sauron. If they use it, they will be using the same tactics as Sauron and though they can defeat in that way, they will end up as Sauron. There will be no difference in the end between them. It is the old, dangerous argument of the ends justifying the means.


----------



## Alcuin

Greenwood said:


> The question is, was it necessary to chop off his feet first. ... The issue that thewitchqueen raises is over the apparently unnecessary and seemingly very cruel step of chopping his feet off before binding him and taking him away. ... Chopping someone's feet off as they surrender, with no overt evidence that the person is still fighting seems strange, no matter how evil the person was.


Greenwood, with respect, let me repeat what I wrote before with some emphasis added.



Alcuin said:


> Morgoth ... *merited no compassion, and to extend it to him was both foolish and dangerous*. [The host of the Valar] ... *disabled him, they bound him, and they took him to judgment. They did precisely what was necessary to deal with the situation; to have done less would have been both unwise and unsafe* ...


This was not a man, this was not an elf, this was not a dwarf. It was the mightiest of the Valar in Arda, and if he were not first disabled, it was nor safe nor sensible nor reasonable for any of the host of the Valar to presume to seize him. This is not some prisoner in an LA County jail being subdued by police officers. It is one of the Powers of Arda. Disabling him was part of disarming him – which they did not literally do, but would have been justified in doing. To have done otherwise would have been little different from carrying a man shackled but still bearing his weapons before a magistrate.


----------



## Arvegil

Perhaps the Valar were aware of the prophesy that Morgoth would return for the Dagor Dagorath (which might have still been the most recent "end of Arda" version at the time of the Silmarillion passage's writing). In that case, the Valar wouyld have a good reason to cripple him then, rather than face Morgoth at full strength at a time when the Valar themselves had been severely weakened by the passage of time.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Greenwood, I can understand and agree with the points you raise concerning HoME to an extent. I do think that, for example, HoME 6-9 cannot be used to disregard something stated in TLOTR, since those four tomes provide an inside look into the process of creating what was to be handed to us as TLOTR. But on the other hand, the Silmarillion was not finished by the professor himself. The way I see it in this case, is that what was written later chronologically, should be taken as authoritative, or at least _more_ authoritative than what came before, all the while keeping in mind that the whole Silmarillion mythology may have taken on quite a different shape had the professor lived for, say, another decade. This may be an overly simplistic way of looking at things, but one that I find a lot more logical and a lot less complicated, than simply equally disregarding every piece of writing published posthumously.


----------



## Greenwood

Alcuin,

A simple sentence or two stating that Morgoth was still fleeing, still resisting, trying to kick people, even a history of Morgoth's evil powers residing in his feet (  ), anything, would have done away with the problem. Without that justification, the action seems unnecessary and smacks more of crulety or vengeance, than necessity or precaution.

(Added in edit: The chain Angainor was sufficient to hold and control Melkor when Utumno was destroyed and when Melkor was far more powerful than he now was as Morgoth. Why was it not sufficient now?)

Ithrynluin,

I am not arguing for disregarding any of the posthumously published works. I am arguing that one has to always be aware of what they are and that there are limitations in how they can be used. As I said earlier a viable argument can be made that there is no definitive version of _The Silmarillion_. But if one wishes to have discussions about _The Silmarillion_, than everyone has to agree on what it is. Is it the volume published under that name or are we free to pick and choose pieces of it from the various HoME volumes? If we are going to be using pieces from the HoME volumes than we are going to have to specify which section in which volume we are considering definitive since often there is more than one version in different volumes or even within the same volume. I prefer to use the HoME volumes for what they are, a record of an author's evolving work.


----------



## thewitchqueen

> A simple sentence or two stating that Morgoth was still fleeing, still resisting, trying to kick people, even a history of Morgoth's evil powers residing in his feet (  ), anything, would have done away with the problem. Without that justification, the action seems unnecessary and smacks more of crulety or vengeance, than necessity or precaution.
> 
> (Added in edit: The chain Angainor was sufficient to hold and control Melkor when Utumno was destroyed and when Melkor was far more powerful than he now was as Morgoth. Why was it not sufficient now?)


 



Very well put. 

I do not think his feet were lethal weapons, either. We are not talking about talons, or a stinger, or something like that.

The upshot is, it really IS unexplainable if you apply logic to it, in my opinion.

And yes, it is true, hacking off the feet of _someone trying to surrender is a major and heinous offence in any army of any civilized people._

_ **Just think of it not being Melkor. Would it be "justified" for anyone else, in any circumstances?_

_ It was a gruesome act of cold vengeance on him._

I do not understand how it can be seen in any other way, other than savage desire to cause him pain.

They simply wanted to humble, hurt, and humiliate him.

If that's okay, then what kind of morals do the Valar really hold dear? "Good" is only different from "Evil" by wearing the white hat, then.

It's not alright for high, angelic beings to wish agony and crippling on a beaten foe. How can it possibly be??


Melissa


----------



## Hammersmith

Greenwood said:


> Alcuin,
> 
> A simple sentence or two stating that Morgoth was still fleeing, still resisting, trying to kick people, even a history of Morgoth's evil powers residing in his feet (  ), anything, would have done away with the problem. Without that justification, the action seems unnecessary and smacks more of crulety or vengeance, than necessity or precaution.


 
Any good writer knows that a sentence thrown in where it isn't wanted - even if it is offering valuable information - can ruin a whole paragraph. Tolkien was writing a conclusion, he was describing swift vengeance and justice, and I personally can see very easily how a sudden tangent describing the various desicion making processes with regards to why they hewed his feet could easily break up a flow that was built on a sudden chain of events flowing through each other. Personally I feel also that there is enough innuendo given to suggest that Melkor was still a threat up to his capture. Surely a cruel Vala would hack off his hands, or further mar his face, perhaps strip him? Feet aren't the most humiliating of amputations, but they are some of the most disabling. There was never any question in my mind as to whether the Vala acted in cruelty or in slightly hasty utilitarianism.


----------



## Greenwood

Hammersmith said:


> Any good writer knows that a sentence thrown in where it isn't wanted - even if it is offering valuable information - can ruin a whole paragraph.


We are talking about 3-4 sentences in a not very long paragraph a couple of pages from the end of a 250+ page account. It is also a prose narrative, not an epic poem where you are going to destroy the rhyme or meter.



Hammersmith said:


> Feet aren't the most humiliating of amputations,


Please, _please_, *PLEASE*, tell me you are not serious with that statement.

Personally, I chalk it up to the fact that this is essentially a draft. I like to think that if Tolkien had lived to see the manuscript through to publication, the passage would have been modified in some way to either explain it or do away with it. As a sometime writer (though not of fiction) I know that I have at times gone over drafts and said to myself: "What *were* you thinking when you wrote that?!" I like to think this was one of those occasions for Tolkien.

thewitchqueen,

Yes, good is supposed to be different from evil in more than just name. The reason I have to think this was something that Tolkien would have changed is that it is so opposed to everything else he wrote, as I see it.


----------



## Greenwood

Annaheru,

In the final section of book, _The Silmarillion_, the section on the War of the Ring, it says in the beginning of it that when Morgoth was overthrown Sauron asked for pardon from Eonwe. It says that Eonwe could not pardon someone of his own order (a Maia) so he told Sauron he would have to return to the West to seek pardon from the Valar. This would certainly seem to indicate that Eonwe was the senior person with the host of the Valar and that no Valar were present. I have already said that I take The Silmarillion as the definitive version so I humbly concede your point that the Valar were not present at the overthrow of Morgoth. It still makes little sense to me that the Valar would only send lesser beings to take on one of their own, but that is the way Tolkien apparently wrote it and it is his story.   



thewitchqueen,

You know that I have also been troubled, as you are, by the idea of the "good guys" apparently cutting off the feet of someone surrendering to them. Earlier I wondered if there might be an older, archaic usage of the word hewn that would not necessarily mean cutting off. Well I checked the Oxford English Dictionary and found some evidence for that. One of the definitions for hew is "To cut down or bring to the ground, etc. (a man or beast) with blows of the sword or battleaxe." The OED also gives some examples (some from the Middle Ages): "1400 Song Roland 274, I shall bet hys men and hew hym to ground. Ibid. 748 He hewethe doun hethyn men full many." and from Pope: "Iliad VI. 10 And hewd the enormous giant to the ground. 1724". Now if we take the passage "his feet were hewn from under him, and he was hurled upon his face" to mean that Morgoth was brought down by knocking his feet out from under him (with swords of axes, yes, but you can use the flat side), then the passage becomes less troubling. Maybe I am just reaching here, but the idea of the "good guys" chopping off the feet of a surrendering enemy (even Morgoth) seems so out of character to the rest of Tolkien's writings, I would think I would tend to think that Tolkien was using "hewn" in that sense of bringing Morgoth to the ground and not specifically cutting his feet off.


----------



## Hammersmith

Greenwood said:


> We are talking about 3-4 sentences in a not very long paragraph a couple of pages from the end of a 250+ page account. It is also a prose narrative, not an epic poem where you are going to destroy the rhyme or meter.


My point stands. The flow can be lost very easily.



Greenwood said:


> Please, _please_, *PLEASE*, tell me you are not serious with that statement.


I was, though reading it out of context I can see that it seems a bit callous. I was simply assuming that somebody out to specifically humiliate another would not think first of cutting off their feet. The whole 'feet' thing suggested rather that humiliation was not the primary goal, but rather a necessity. I didn't mean to suggest that foot amputees should in any way be slighted or their plight lessened.


----------



## Annaheru

Greenwood, to tell you the truth, I spent years thinking the Valar were there- until one time when I was answering a related question about this passage, and the person (who had only read it once) stood me up on it. I checked it out, and changed my position. As to why the Valar did it this way: my guess is that it was to humble Morgoth, to show him that he had weakened himself to the point that he could be bound by Maia.

As to the actual hewing you may be right, I had always assumed that it was just a crippling injury (not actual loss of his feet), and that definition is a closer match to my views. Actually, I had always thought of it sorta like hobbling a stallion: in the 1800s (before PETA) western ranchers used to let their horses run almost wild. To keep their stallions on their own land (before fences) they would cut the tendon in the stallion's back leg, preventing him from running. The horse could still stud, but he couldn't take his herd back into the wild. I dunno, that impression always underlined my reading of those lines.


----------



## Eledhwen

I find it difficult to take "and his feet were hewn from under him" as a literal amputation. The picture I got in my head was of Morgoth being thrown to the ground and chained. Also, it's a lot harder to chain someone up who hasn't got any feet.

Also, if the Valar were not there, what's this about?


> Of the march of the host of the Valar to the north of Middle-earth little is said in any tale; *for among them went none of those Elves who had dwelt and suffered in the Hitherlands, and who made the histories of those days that still are known*; and tidings of these things they only learned long afterwards from their kinsfolk in Aman. But ast the last the might of Valinor came u pout of the West, and the challenge of the trumpets of Eonwe filled the sky; and Beleriand was ablaze with the glory of their arms, for the host of the Valar were arrayed in forms young and fair and terrible, and the mountains rang beneath their feet.



As to what amputation would have been most disabling, it depends on how power is wielded. For instance, Saruman would be most disabled in _power_ if he lost his tongue. A smith like Sauron would never have come to any great power if his hands had been severed during one of his defeats, because he could not wring the One Ring in secret. But I say again, I don't read amputation into the story of Morgoth's defeat.


----------



## Hammersmith

As usual, Eledhwen, a very astute and subtle observation, overlooked by everyone else. Some very good points there ^^^


----------



## Annaheru

how does that tell you the Valar were there? I see no mention of the Valar. As to how those in ME found out about these things your text provides the clues: the Noldor learned it from their kin in Aman, from there the story could have gone to Numenor. Besides, all that is included in that march is their journey from Aman to Beleriand, what happened _in_ Beleriand is well documented, and even there we see no mention of the Valar.


----------



## Ithrynluin

I'd say that the last part of Eledhwen's quote could be indicative of the presence of the Valar:


> _"...the host of the Valar were arrayed in forms young and fair and terrible, and the mountains rang beneath their feet"_



If we understand 'arrayed in forms young and fair and terrible' in a very narrow sense, then the host may indeed have consisted of many of the Maiar and Valar as well.


----------



## Annaheru

but given the points made by Greenwood and myself earlier the term 'host of the Valar' refers to the Maia, led by Eonwe. The Maia had an equal ability to clothe themselves in visible form (or walk invisible) in the manner of the Valar. It all hinges in the definition of the 'host': the quoted passage is simply descriptive, it doesn't give any new information on who comprised the 'host'.


----------



## Greenwood

Eledhwen,

As can be seen from the direction my posts have taken on this thread, I have also come to the conclusion that we should not take the passage "and his feet were hewn from under him" literally. As I posted above their are examples in the OED that would not seem to require it to be a literal amputation of Morgoth's feet. I have also thought of expressions such as "That argument really cut the legs out from under me."

As for at least some of the Valar being there, I certainly thought they were and it makes sense to me that they should have been, however, the published version of The Silmarillion does not seem to be written that way. In an earlier post I gave all the reasons why I thought they should be there and why I did not think it meant anything that only Eonwe was mentioned, however when we get to "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" it says "When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwe, the herald of Manwe, and abjurred all his eveil deeds. ..... But it was not within the power of Eonwe to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwe." This would seem to pretty clearly make Eonwe the senior personage present, which he certainly would not be if any of the Valar were present.


----------



## Alcuin

As an aside, in “Of the Voyage of the Eärendil”, Tolkien writes, “such few as were left of the three houses of the Elf-fiends … fought upon the part of the Valar…” Now, assuming that some of these Edain survived to emigrate to Númenor, there seems to be no reason the remaining Elves in Middle-Earth could not have learned directly from their mortal allies some of the details of the War of Wrath. 

I’ve always considered the statement in _The Silmarillion_ that none of the Elves in Middle-Earth fought with the host of the Valar rather curious, particularly since he says that Men did fight in the war a couple of paragraphs later. (I understand that this is an edited version of Tolkien’s materials. Still, the two passages are quite close to one another: on the same page of the 1979 Ballantine paperback edition.) Why is this the case? And is there some moral implication about the Elves in Middle-Earth, particularly the surviving Noldor, that they did not go to war beside the Vanyar and the Noldor under Finarfin against Angband?

That must also be reconciled with the assertion that the Elves knew nothing about what happened until after the fact: as Annaheru points out, the Elves in Middle Earth claimed to learn second-hand from their kinsfolk in Aman what had transpired. But unless all the Edain were slaughtered in the war, which does not seem to be the implication of the tale since the survivors lived to travel to a new land, there was no reason that the Edain should not have told the Elves in Middle Earth the entire business, or that the Elves should not have spoken with Eldar combatants themselves, with whom they surely had contact and converse once the fighting had ended.

Has anyone else noticed these discrepancies? Perhaps all this is merely the result of editing several versions of the same tale into one story. The only solutions I can devise as I write are that (1) those who intended to leave Middle-Earth were segregated from those who intended to stay behind, and that does not sound like something that Tolkien would have left out of his telling of the tale. Or (2) the statement that the Elves of Middle-Earth "only learned long afterwards from their kinsfolk in Aman” what had happened is misleading, and that the Middle-Earth Elves learned what had taken place at the end of the war from the host of the Valar before it left Middle-Earth to return to Aman.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Annaheru said:


> but given the points made by Greenwood and myself earlier the term 'host of the Valar' refers to the Maia, led by Eonwe.



Sorry, but no. You cannot say 'it refers to the Maiar' with any more certainty than you can say 'it refers to the Valar' or 'it refers to the Valar and Maiar' or any other similar statement really. We know Eonwe was there, as well as Earendil and some of the Vanyar. But we are given no specifics about the Ainur involved in the battle (aside from Eonwe).



Greenwood said:


> This would seem to pretty clearly make Eonwe the senior personage present, which he certainly would not be if any of the Valar were present.



It's an interesting deduction. However, does the fact that Eonwe is a Maia and not a Vala instantly make him second to any of the Valar in this case? After all, he is the herald of Manwe, and I suppose that grants him a certain level of authority, aside from his personal authority.

How capable would Tulkas, for example, have been in judging Sauron? How much jurisdiction would he possess? Perhaps Eonwe simply means that none of the _present_ Valar (assuming there were some) were 'fit' to judge a Maia, that making judgements was a province of only a few Valar, like Manwe and Mandos?

It's a little out there, but based on what information we have, I think it can be just as plausible as any other supposition.


----------



## Greenwood

Ithrynluin said:


> It's an interesting deduction. However, does the fact that Eonwe is a Maia and not a Vala instantly make him second to any of the Valar in this case? After all, he is the herald of Manwe, and I suppose that grants him a certain level of authority, aside from his personal authority.
> 
> How capable would Tulkas, for example, have been in judging Sauron? How much jurisdiction would he possess? Perhaps Eonwe simply means that none of the _present_ Valar (assuming there were some) were 'fit' to judge a Maia, that making judgements was a province of only a few Valar, like Manwe and Mandos?
> 
> It's a little out there, but based on what information we have, I think it can be just as plausible as any other supposition.


Actually, I was thinking that Sauron's actions are what indicate Eonwe was the senior personage present. Wouldn't Sauron do "obeisance" to any member of the Valar present and sue for forgiveness to one of them rather than Eonwe, a Maia like himself. Certainly it is possible that only Manwe or Mandos could grant judgement, but it seems illogical that Sauron would not plead his case to the most powerful being present.


----------



## Annaheru

Alcuin, Where does it say that the elves of Beleriand didn't fight? I'd like a reference for that; I've never read it . I've never seen anything in the formerly quoted passage beyond simply saying that those in ME had no record of the mustering of the host of the Valar or of their march _to_ ME. In the actual fight I have seen no evidence that the elves from Beleriand who still survived didn't participate. If you can provide additional information I'd be more than happy to change my mind, but from this quote alone I don't see it.

Ithrynluin, in addition to Sauron, Maglor and Maedhros were bidden to return to Valinor to petition the Valar for the return of the Silmarils. This is indirect evidence, sure, but when Morgoth destroyed the trees Tulkas and Orome are mentioned by name as leading the pursuit (why there and not in this greater event if they participated?) , and consider the difference in wording between this battle and the Battle of the Powers when Utumno was overthrown. In that battle the text always reads 'the Valar' when speaking of the army. In the War of Wrath it's always 'the host of the Valar'. Add to that the quote from the index, Greenwood's quote, and the sudden appearance of Eonwe everywhere, and you have a good argument for the Valar being absent.


----------



## Alcuin

Eönwë was the commander of what was basically an expeditionary force. The host of the Valar contained a great many Quendi: Noldor under Finarfin who had returned to Tirion in the flight of the Noldor; and many of the Vanyar. Eönwë was responsible for these folk, as well as the Maiar who had traveled to Middle-Earth to make war upon Angband. If there were Valar present – Tulkas, for instance – they might well have departed upon the capture of Morgoth, who would probably have been hustled away to Valinor rather quickly. 

As for the obeisance of Sauron, Greenwood elided what might answer his question:


> When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eönwë, the herald of Manwë, and adjured all his evil deeds. *And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the wrath of the Lords of the West.* But it was not within the power … [_&c; emphasis mine_.]


This is no different from any other defeated commander presenting himself as a prisoner of war. "Obeisance" in this case is best read in its meaning as "deference or homage", not in the older sense of "bowing down": in other words, he came and presented himself as someone who would obey the victors. (_obeisance_ comes from the present participle of the French verb _obéir_, to obey.) What was key comes later in the passage: “…Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and receive from the Valar a long sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith;” so he escaped and hid, taking up his nefarious ways again when the soldiers were good and gone.


----------



## Alcuin

Annaheru said:


> Alcuin, Where does it say that the elves of Beleriand didn't fight? I'd like a reference for that; I've never read it .


Sure, Annaheru. Glad to oblige.

Look to the middle “Of the Voyage of Eärendil” in _Silmarillion_. I don’t have my hardcopy handy, but in the paperback copy, it’s on page 311 in my book. There is a skipped line, and a new paragraph begins


> Of the march of the host of the Valar to the north of Middle-earth little is said in any tale; for among them went none of the Elves who had dwelt and suffered in the Hither Lands, and who made the histories of those days that still are known; and the tidings of these things they only learned long afterwards from their kinsfolk in Aman.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Regarding the presence of Maiar/Valar, we're not getting far, since we can only make assumptions. 

Therefore, to bring a fresh question to the thread, isn't it odd how Melkor was chained up and his feet hewn from under him , and he was hauled off to Aman, but Sauron was free to do as he would, when he himself had had a part in all of his master's works, and has done some pretty evil stuff, such as hunting out Barahir & co, killing Finrod, and who knows what other atrocities unspoken of.

Was this one of the bigger mistakes the Valar had committed in all the years of their reign in Arda?

What are the Valar's motives for being so lenient on Sauron?


----------



## Alcuin

Ithrynluin said:


> ...Sauron was free to do as he would, when he himself had had a part in all of his master's works, and has done some pretty evil stuff, such as hunting out Barahir & co, killing Finrod, and who knows what other atrocities unspoken of.
> 
> Was this one of the bigger mistakes the Valar had committed in all the years of their reign in Arda?
> 
> What are the Valar's motives for being so lenient on Sauron?


Yes, Ithrynluin, I think mt was one of their bigger boo-boos. But they also let Morgoth go free after keeping him chained for three ages of the world. Both of those acts of mercy and clemency reaped a harvest of death of ruin; but nowhere does Tolkien indicate that he condemns them for what was obviously a bad decision. In “Of Fëanor”, Tolkien writes that


> …it seemed to Manwë that the evil of Melkor was cured. For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Ilúvatar, Melkor had been even as he; and he saw not to the depths of Melkor’s heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever.


This is echoed in Letter 156 Tolkien wrote to Robert Murray, S.J. The context here is a discussion of the Istari, but it seems most applicable:


> But in this ‘mythology’ all the ‘angelic’ powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers of ‘gods’.


 (NB: _faineance _means idleness, a reluctance to work. Tolkien seems basically to be saying that part of the problem was that the Valar were a bit lazy.)

As for leniency, I am not certain that the Eönwë (or Fionwë, as he is called in the earlier versions) and the host of the Valar were necessarily lenient. They did not bind Sauron as they had bound Morgoth; clearly they did not see him as dangerous as his master. Sauron had apparently agreed to cooperate but then escaped: that might not have been all that difficult if he were not in some way constrained, and since he had willingly presented himself (“did obeisance”), they may not have felt they had any need to constrain him. Finally, security in that camp was none too good, so it might have been easy to escape: Maedhros and Maglor sneaked into the camp in disguise (and they were a couple of pretty well-known guys), killed the guards of the Silmarils and were able to seize the Silmarils, although they roused the whole camp against them.


----------



## Greenwood

Alcuin said:


> Eönwë was the commander of what was basically an expeditionary force. .... If there were Valar present – Tulkas, for instance – they might well have departed upon the capture of Morgoth, who would probably have been hustled away to Valinor rather quickly.


If Tulkas, or any of the other Valar were present, why would Eonwe be the commander? You don't normally have a colonel command an expeditionary force that includes one or more high ranking general officers.



Alcuin said:


> As for the obeisance of Sauron, Greenwood elided what might answer his question


I elided the sentence to save typing a sentence that I did not consider relevant. I still don't see the relevance, unless you are contending that "the wrath of the Lords of the West" is a definitive statement that a member of the Valar was present. If one was, I repeat my earlier question of why was Eonwe commanding? And I don't see what difference it makes whether we take it that Sauron paid "deference and homage" or was "bowing down". The rest of the passage you cite just reinforces the idea that Sauron had to return to the West to face the Valar.


Ithrynluin,

I would say the Valar made a much bigger mistake when they released Melkor before he killed the Two Trees.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Greenwood said:


> If Tulkas, or any of the other Valar were present, why would Eonwe be the commander? You don't normally have a colonel command and expeditionary force that includes one or more high ranking general officers.



If we take a closer peek, Tulkas is probably not that much greater than Eonwe - he is likely the least of the Valar (together with Nessa, I suppose), while Eonwe is lauded as one of the greatest of the Maiar. Surely, when all is added up, these two aren't that far apart, power-wise?

It is said of Eonwe in the Valaquenta:



> Chief among the Maiar of Valinor whose names are remembered in the histories of the Elder Days are Ilmarë, the handmaid of Varda, and Eönwë, the banner-bearer and herald of Manwë, whose might in arms is surpassed by none in Arda.



So in this field, at least, Eonwe is mightier than Tulkas (or anybody else for that matter).

And of Tulkas it is said:



> Greatest in strength and deeds of prowess is Tulkas, who is surnamed Astaldo, the Valiant. He came last to Arda, to aid the Valar in the first battles with Melkor. He delights in wrestling and in contests of strength; and he rides no steed, for he can outrun all things that go on feet, and he is tireless. His hair and beard are golden, and his flesh ruddy; his weapons are his hands. He has little heed for either the past or the future, and is of no avail as a counsellor, but is a hardy friend.



Now is the above the best of qualifications for leading one of the largest armies to one of the greatest and most perilous wars there was? Clearly, Eonwe has Tulkas beat by a bit in this respect also (wisdom, tactics,..etc.).

To wrap up, I still stand by my belief that if someone is a greater being than another, this doesn't necessarily always mean that the greater will always get to be the leader.


----------



## Annaheru

Alcuin, if you bothered to finish reading things you would see that I asked for an additional quote. Finish that paragraph from Sil and you find that the host later traveled to the East, and _ended up in Beleriand_, which means that what the elves of Beleriand didn't participate in was the trip from the host's landing place north into Beleriand.

Ithrynluin, Tulkas didn't need weapons "his weapons were his hands", therefore Eonwe being better in arms (weapons) is misleading. Tulkas defeated Melkor in single combat before he had been humbled. Also, if Tulkas claimed the right to overcome Melkor the first time, and he was present the second time, why don't we have him wrestling Morgoth again? I think the quote from letter156 is key: the Valar were too 'lazy' to come themselves, and left this war to the Maia.


----------



## Alcuin

Greenwood, I respectfully disagree with you on both points, but I am only in direct disagreement with you in your first position.


Greenwood said:


> If Tulkas, or any of the other Valar were present, why would Eonwe be the commander? You don't normally have a colonel command and expeditionary force that includes one or more high ranking general officers.


Eönwë was the commander of the “host of the Valar.” That was his appointed task. As it was, Beleriand was destroyed; had the Valar themselves gone to war against Morgoth as they had after Oromë discovered the Elves, perhaps Eregion might have been destroyed as well. In addition, Tulkas was the enemy of Morgoth. That was why he descended into Arda. I don’t believe he should be thought of as a commander; you are free to disagree.

By the way, I want to clarify something: I made no claim that Tulkas was present: I addressed a hypothetical that I believed was already in play. I don’t have a pick either way in the argument about the presence of Valar in the “host of the Valar” and War of Wrath. All I’m saying that the text clearly says Eönwë was the commander, but it seems to be silent about whether any of the Valar were present or not. If there were none, I would think Tolkien would say something along the lines of Eönwë led the Maiar and the Eldalië to war, but none of the Valar went (Tolkien didn’t say it in any of the writings I found, in _Silmarillion_, _Lost Road_, or _Shaping of Middle Earth_), nor does he say, this or that Vala went with Eönwë, which we would also assume that he would say. Instead, he says, “of the host of the Valar to the north of Middle-earth little is said in any tale”. 

You are assuming that if there were a Vala present, that creature and not Eönwë would have been in command of the host of the Valar, and with respect, I disagree: specifically, if were Tulkas – and again, I’m not arguing he was there, and I don’t care either way – his only interest might well have been to seize Morgoth, not to command an army. (If Tulkas were there, I would think he would be mentioned, and I don’t believe he is mentioned.) I don’t see this as a conflict, particularly if the Valar had some concerns about reducing the damage done to Arda. I will point out that if Tulkas or any other Valar were present, then it makes sense to me that Morgoth was whisked away, but maybe that is my early 21st century bias.

Greenwood, I am concerned to think that you took my statement about eliding the quotation as a criticism. It was not intended that way! I was addressing the issue of why Sauron “did obeisance”, since there seemed to me to be some question about that phrase and whether its use meant there must have been a Vala present. What I said was intended to indicate that there was no need for the presence of a Vala: Sauron surrendered because continuing the o fight was useless: he’d lost, and he figured he could expect some leniency. When told he would have to go back Valinor to stand in judgment, he went on the lam. 

Since I started, Ithrynluin posted, and I am in agreement with her statement:


Ithrynluin said:


> ...if someone is a greater being than another, this doesn't necessarily always mean that the greater will always get to be the leader.


 To which I might add that authority is typically delegated. Eönwë is specifically stated to be the delegated authority in charge of the military force, regardless of who else might have attended but conveniently left his name off the guest list.

And finally, if someone else did attend – Tulkas, for instance – we the readers are in no position to know it.


----------



## Alcuin

Annaheru said:


> Alcuin, if you bothered to finish reading things you would see that I asked for an additional quote. Finish that paragraph from Sil and you find that the host later traveled to the East, and _ended up in Beleriand_, which means that what the elves of Beleriand didn't participate in was the trip from the host's landing place north into Beleriand.


Thank you, Annaheru. Your grace and subtle courtesy abound! I concede the point.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Guys, guys, there's no reason to get cantankerous at one another. The four of us are obviously having a marvellous time nit picking to death.  

Alcuin, I agree with the whole of your last post. Likewise, I don't lean to one side more than the other - I simply think the evidence for either is much too scarce and that one premise is not more feasible than the other. 

Oh, one other thing: Ithrynluin's a _he_!


----------



## Greenwood

Alcuin,

I am not disputing Eonwe being the commander of the "host of the Valar". The Silmarillion certainly seems to indicate that (though I did start out on the opposite side of this question a few days ago). Given the difference between the Valar and the Maiar, I just don't see it making much sense for a Maia (Eonwe) to be in command if a member of the Valar where present (which ever one it might be). Since Eonwe is in command I take that as evidence that there was no Valar present (even though I think some should have been and stated such the other day). 

BTW, I do not accept the Index as evidence since that is by Christopher Tolkien, not JRRT.


----------



## Annaheru

Sorry Alcuin, slightly out of sorts when I wrote that, didn't mean to bite your head off (I have a limited amount of patience and between my roommate and Arabic homework the well runs dry. . .).


----------



## Alcuin

Ithrynluin said:


> Oh, one other thing: Ithrynluin's a he!


Oops! Sor-ry... (embarrassed shuffling...) I guess “Ithrynluin” means “Blue Wizard” … um …



Greenwood said:


> BTW, I do not accept the Index as evidence since that is by Christopher Tolkien, not JRRT.


What index? Annaheru’s already bopped me once in this thread… did I miss something else?



Annaheru said:


> (I have a limited amount of patience and between my roommate and Arabic homework the well runs dry. . .).


Is alright! No harm done. As long as I am among friends, I am happy!



Greenwood said:


> Since Eonwe is in command I take that as evidence that there was no Valar present (even though I think some should have been and stated such the other day).


OK. I’ll buy that up to a point, but there are exceptions.

As a matter of protocol, when Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, he feigned illness and sent General Charles O’Hara to do the deed. O’Hara attempted to surrender to the Comte de Rochambeau, the French commander, as an indication that the French had defeated Cornwallis. Rochambeau refused the surrender and indicated that O’Hara should surrender to Washington because he wanted it to be seen as a victory by the Americans. Washington in turn refused the surrender since it was not Cornwallis surrendering but a lesser officer, and he indicated that O’Hara should surrender to his second-in-command, Major-General Benjamin Lincoln. O’Hara finally surrendered to Lincoln. O’Hara, to his credit, conducted himself with the utmost decorum throughout this affair, and even corrected his troops when some surrendered in a fashion one American officer described as “surly.” It was a different age.

During the Normandy Invasion, Gen. Bradley got stuck in the hedgerows. The Americans brought in Patton to lead an armored thrust to get them out. Bradley didn’t tell Patton how to run his operation. (Even if he had, Patton had a pattern of ignoring or evading minute direction anyway.) Bradley in turn answered to Montgomery (Monty was in charge of ground forces!), and Monty didn’t give Patton day-to-day instructions, either. 

Independent action by military commanders operating within their assigned duties is quite valuable. Patton ran rampant until SHAEF cut off his fuel. The unfortunate Marshal Ney, on the other hand, was not independent of Napoleon, much to the grief of both men: Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena, but Ney – an outstanding soldier, courageous, without political ambition, a national hero, and beloved by his men – was shot for treason by Louis XVIII.


----------



## Greenwood

Alcuin,

I am also a fan/student of history. The reason the English wanted to surrender to the French commander at Yorktown was because they did not consider the Americans (of any designated military rank) as their equals. They knew that surrendering to the Americans, who they just saw as rebels would convey a status on them that the British did not want to give them, even though they had just lost to them. That is my point about Sauron performing "obeisance" to Eonwe and seeking pardon from Eonwe. Sauron would of course want to do it to the highest personage (highest rank) available on the other side. Since he was doing it to Eonwe, I take that as evidence Eonwe was the highest ranking personage with the "host of the Valar". If there were one of the Valar present, that is who Sauron would have surrendered to. It would have increased Sauron's status, even in defeat, to surrender to one of the Valar. Sauron has already seen his master Morgoth lose; he is not going to further humble himself by surrendering and seeking pardon from anyone but the highest available representative of the Lords of the West.


----------



## Alcuin

Greenwood said:


> If there were one of the Valar present, that is who Sauron would have surrendered to. It would have increased Sauron's status, even in defeat, to surrender to one of the Valar. Sauron has already seen his master Morgoth lose; he is not going to further humble himself by surrendering and seeking pardon from anyone but the highest available representative of the Lords of the West.


Exactly. And precisely why any Vala in the host of the Valar would have to rebuff any approach by Sauron and direct him to surrender himself to Eönwë. However, we still have not a scintilla of evidence there were any Valar in the War of Wrath, although we still have nothing that says there were none, either. 

Shall we drop this pursuit? It seems we have excavated the material pretty thoroughly.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Greenwood said:


> ...he is not going to further humble himself by surrendering and seeking pardon from anyone but the highest available representative of the Lords of the West.



1. If Eonwe could be considered to have more authority than the present Valar, Sauron would surely come to him then. If it's a choice between Eonwe and Tulkas, I'd say Sauron would have gone to the former, based on the personalities and status of these two Ainur.

2. If the sole purpose of the Valar who marched to the WoW was to arrest Sauron and deliver him back to Aman, it might well have chanced that none of them were left when Sauron decided to come forth.



Alcuin said:


> Exactly. And precisely why any Vala in the host of the Valar would have to rebuff any approach by Sauron and direct him to surrender himself to Eönwë. However, we still have not a scintilla of evidence there were any Valar in the War of Wrath, although we still have nothing that says there were none, either.
> 
> Shall we drop this pursuit? It seems we have excavated the material pretty thoroughly.



Amen.


----------



## Greenwood

Alcuin said:


> However, we still have not a scintilla of evidence there were any Valar in the War of Wrath, although we still have nothing that says there were none, either.


If that is the case then we also have no direct evidence that Eonwe was commander of the forces. The only thing the text says is that Eonwe was the herald of Manwe. One could say there is not a scintilla of evidence that anyone other than Eonwe was commander of the host of the Valar, altough we still have nothing that directly says he was, either.  All the evidence is circumstantial.


----------



## Morgul Agent

WOW this thread has only been around for a few days, and it's sprouted into a huge debate!

I only want to say this: *SYMPATHY FOR MORGOTH'S FEET IS RIDICULOUS*, one of the silliest and most absurd debates I've ever run across. I can NEVER understand this sympathy for the evil guys (e.g. the other thread where everyone cried and moaned for the poor Mouth of Sauron, when he loses his head in the film).

I'm sorry but Morgoth is about as purely evil as you can get, and the whole book of the Silmarillion is him committing atrocity after atrocity. And now we're going to crucify Tolkien for finally giving the Valar a bit of violent revenge? I'm sorry, but why aren't we talking about the upsetting things that Morgoth did? Or that any other character did? Morgoth losing his feet was awesome, maybe that makes me an evil and cruel person, but I cheered when I read that part. It's the only section of the Silmarillion where the bad guys lose! 

End of rant.'


----------



## Voronwë

Justification for the Valar's actions? Think of it this way: how would you feel if someone tormented your children and mutated them? 

(BTW, i know that elves were children of Eru and not the Valar but the point still applies anyway, the Valar are like their guardians)


----------



## Greenwood

Ithrynluin said:


> 1. If Eonwe could be considered to have more authority than the present Valar, Sauron would surely come to him then. If it's a choice between Eonwe and Tulkas, I'd say Sauron would have gone to the former, based on the personalities and status of these two Ainur.
> 
> 2. If the sole purpose of the Valar who marched to the WoW was to arrest Sauron and deliver him back to Aman, it might well have chanced that none of them were left when Sauron decided to come forth.


1. I am unaware of anything in The Silmarillion that would place a Maia on a higher standing than one of the Valar. My impression is that we are talking at least an order or more of magnitude difference between these different beings. I am not talking about accomplishments in different fields, but intrinsic levels of power and authority. Can you cite something from The Silmarillion that justifies placing any Maia higher than any of the Valar?

2. The purpose of the War of Wrath was to overthrow Morgoth, not Sauron. The recent discussion has been about whether there were any of the Valar present.


Morgul Agent and Voronwë,

It is has never been a question of sympathy for Morgoth. It is a question of the behavior of the "good guys". thewitchqueen questioned the ethics of chopping off the feet of someone who has surrendered. Who the person is who is surrendering is irrelevant to the ethical and moral question of amputating a surrendering foe's feet. After reviewing defintions and examples of usage of "hew" and "hewn" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in light of Tolkien's other writings, I have come to the conclusion that the passage in question does not mean a literal chopping off of Morgoth's feet, but rather just means knocking him to the ground so that he can be chained.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Greenwood said:


> 1. I am unaware of anything in The Silmarillion that would place a Maia on a higher standing than one of the Valar.



Is there a passage that says that a Vala is irrevocably greater and more authoritative than a Maia? Sorry, but the quotes describing Eonwe and Tulkas are in my mind at least partial evidence why Eonwe should be considered to have more authority than, say, Tulkas.



> 2. The purpose of the War of Wrath was to overthrow Morgoth, not Sauron. The recent discussion has been about whether there were any of the Valar present.



I'm sorry. That part of my post should read 'Morgoth', not 'Sauron'. It was a mere slip of the tongue....or keyboard.


----------



## Greenwood

Ithrynluin said:


> Is there a passage that says that a Vala is irrevocably greater and more authoritative than a Maia? Sorry, but the quotes describing Eonwe and Tulkas are in my mind at least partial evidence why Eonwe should be considered to have more authority than, say, Tulkas.


In The Silmarillion we have the Valaquenta describing the beginnings of Tolkien's Middle Earth:


> In the beginning Eru, the One, who in the Elvish tongue is named Iluvatar, made the Ainur of his thought; and they made a great Music before him. In this Music the World was begun; ....
> 
> Then those of the Ainur who desired it arose and entered into the World at the beginning of Time; and it was their task to achieve it, and by their labours to fufil the vision which they had seen. ...
> 
> *The Great among these spirits the Elves name the Valar, the Powers of Arda, and Men have often called them gods.* ....
> 
> With the Valar came other spirits whose being also began before the World, of the same order as the Valar *but of less degree. These are the Maiar, the people of the Valar, and their servants and helpers.*
> [emphasis added]


The above seems to me to pretty clearly make the Maiar "of less degree" than the Valar and clearly calls the Maiar the "servants and helpers" of the Valar. It would seem odd to place a "servant and helper" and one "of less degree" in command over any of the "Powers of Arda".




Ithrynluin said:


> That part of my post should read 'Morgoth', not 'Sauron'. It was a mere slip of the tongue....or keyboard.


That's OK. My apologies for not recognizing it as a typo.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Greenwood said:


> In The Silmarillion we have the Valaquenta describing the beginnings of Tolkien's Middle Earth: The above seems to me to pretty clearly make the Maiar "of less degree" than the Valar and clearly calls the Maiar the "servants and helpers" of the Valar. It would seem odd to place a "servant and helper" and one "of less degree" in command over any of the "Powers of Arda".



So it's all black and white then, no exceptions? A weak Maia is just as inferior to (any) Vala as a great and powerful Maia is? 

I'd say the thing that 'makes a Vala' a Vala is that these excel in some field or craft above any one else (Tulkas= raw strength). That does not mean in any way that they have to be equally skilled in other fields, what's more their other abilities can even be (below) average, but they will be no less of a Vala for it. So, on a scale of 10, Tulkas would get 10/10 as regards strength and prowess in battle. Eonwe would maybe get 7/10, in comparison to Tulkas. What about other areas then? Knowledge, wisdom, patience, ability to hand out sound advice? I'd say that on the above scale of 1-10, Eonwe would have Tulkas beat in most of these things (for example, I'd give none of the Maiar a greater rating for wisdom than Olorin, since he is said to be the wisest, so 10/10 for him, perhaps 9 for Melian, 7 for Eonwe, 5 for Tulkas). That's really all I'm saying.


----------



## Greenwood

Ithrynluin said:


> So it's all black and white then, no exceptions? A weak Maia is just as inferior to (any) Vala as a great and powerful Maia is?


I would say the passage from The Silmarillion does make it pretty black and white in regards to Valar versus Maiar. There are clearly levels of power within each group, some Vala are above other Vala and some Maia are above other Maia, but all Maiar are of "lesser degree" and are the "servants and helpers" of the Valar in overall standing.


----------



## Gothmog

> _from The Silmarillion: *Of The Valar*_ Greatest in strength and deeds of prowess is Tulkas, who is surnamed Astaldo, the Valiant. He came last to Arda, to aid the Valar in the first battles with Melkor. He delights in wrestling and in contests of strength; and he rides no steed, for he can outrun all things that go on feet, and he is tireless. His hair and beard are golden, and his flesh ruddy; his weapons are his hands. *He has little heed for either the past or the future, and is of no avail as a counsellor*, but is a hardy friend.



Well judging from this description, if Tulkas was the only Vala to be involved then Eonwe representing Manwe would probably still be put in charge of the host (even if he could not give orders to a Vala).


----------



## Ithrynluin

Greenwood said:


> I would say the passage from The Silmarillion does make it pretty black and white in regards to Valar versus Maiar. There are clearly levels of power within each group, some Vala are above other Vala and some Maia are above other Maia, but all Maiar are of "lesser degree" and are the "servants and helpers" of the Valar in overall standing.



Sorry, Greenwood, but this is where we part ways. I simply don't think that reading the texts too rigidly is the best way. There are several shades of grey inbetween the black and white. If we can demonstrate that some possibilities are logical and consistent within Tolkien's world, then we should definitely _allow for_ these certain possibilities to be true, or truer, than others, even if this is nowhere confirmed. 

For example, it is said of Tulkas:



> _The Silmarillion; Valaquenta_
> He delights in wrestling and in contests of strength; and he rides no steed, for he can outrun all things that go on feet, and he is tireless.



So Tulkas is a tireless warrior. No exceptions, right?

Then we have:



> _The Silmarillion; Of the Beginning of Days_
> Now it came to pass that while the Valar rested from their labours, and watched the growth and unfolding of the things that they had devised and begun, Manwë ordained a great feast; and the Valar and an their host came at his bidding. But Aulë and Tulkas were weary; for the craft of Aulë and the strength of Tulkas had been at the service of an without ceasing fax the days of their labour.





> Then Tulkas slept, being weary and content, and Melkor deemed that his hour had come.



My, my, would you look at that? Tulkas the tireless getting tired indeed.  

Certainly we can say that Tulkas does not tire easy, and that it would take an exceptional situation for him to get tired. Battling Melkor in the beginning of days is one such exception, which can be squeezed through the rule of 'Tulkas the tireless'.

Likewise, we can certainly say that Tulkas the Vala is a greater being than the majority of the Maiar (and greater in sheer strength than *any* of the Maiar and Valar). Yet, a Maia who excels in leadership, possesses a substantial knowledge of the world, and is a wise tactician, could most definitely be considered greater in these respects than Tulkas, and would therefore be the more fitting of the two when leading a battle is concerned. I'm sure there aren't many such exceptions - Tulkas is still a Vala and there's a reason for that - but the fact is that exceptions do exist, and I don't feel it's unreasonable, by any stretch of the imagination, to make such a claim.


----------



## Greenwood

Ithrynluin said:


> Sorry, Greenwood, but this is where we part ways.


Yes, this is where we part ways. Tolkien's description of Valar versus Maiar clearly place Maiar in the subservient position. I do not see how any hypotheticals can get around that. Tolkien gives each of the Valar a specific characteristic and area of strength. Using your argument you could place Eonwe above nearly any of them, in which case why is he only a Maia? 

You keep making it a choice between Tulkas and Eonwe, but there is no mention of Tulkas in this part of The Silmarillion. For that matter there is no statement that Eonwe was the leader of the host of the Valar. The text merely says Eonwe is the Herald of Manwe. In medieval armies (and Tolkien's world is modeled on medieval times), heralds were not the commanding generals of armies.


----------



## Confusticated

Reply to opening post:

Like ithrynluin, I think we just can't know the details of how this came to happen. A lot of this book is so condensed that we just don't know.

I do not think there is any more reason to assume it was justified than that it was not though. Either way you are in fact filing in a hole with your imagination.

If this maiming was done without need just to get back at Morgoth, as a punishment, then I do find it disturbing. I am not sure that this is the case though.

As long as this was not done as a punishment under the aproval of Manwe, it does not surprise me. Not too thrilled with the Valar generally.

The Valar are not perfect. But Manwe is the holiest of them all, and it is acknowledged by Tolkien in narative and in essay, that the good guys should not do things that are evil in _any_ case. Needless torture is Morgoth's way. There isn't suppose to be any excuse for being just a little evil to the bad guy, and I don't think Manwe would do this. I think any harm that Manwe does comes from inaction, not an act of evil.


----------



## Alatar

I think that there are two pionts in this thread
1)Were his feet actally _cut_ of or were they hewd from under him meaning knocked from under him (as shown earlier in the thread)
2)If they were cut then who did it as we all know that elves can get enraged and do idiotic things (oath of feanor...)and maybe some vanyar of noldo got mad and hacked his feet of.If it was an maia (personly i think that no valar were present)then it can be expailened as an act as rage(balrogs are maia and osse "never lost his love of violence" and saruman was evil aswell)aswell.
if it was rage then it is justified melkor did much more evil things.


----------



## Greenwood

Alatar said:


> I think that there are two pionts in this thread
> 1)Were his feet actally _cut_ of or were they hewd from under him meaning knocked from under him (as shown earlier in the thread)
> 2)If they were cut then who did it as we all know that elves can get enraged and do idiotic things (oath of feanor...)and maybe some vanyar of noldo got mad and hacked his feet of.If it was an maia (personly i think that no valar were present)then it can be expailened as an act as rage(balrogs are maia and osse "never lost his love of violence" and saruman was evil aswell)aswell.
> if it was rage then it is justified melkor did much more evil things.


I agree with most of what you say until you get to your last sentence. Rage does not justify doing evil and the existence of greater evil certainly cannot justify evil deeds.

Added in Edit: Alatar, I just noticed your post count and join date. Welcome to the Forum!


----------



## Alatar

Thankyou greenwood!
About my last sentence, i agree on what you say and i might edit it out later.


----------



## Ellatur

Greenwood said:


> Welcome to the Forum witchqueen!
> 
> Just the other day I finished rereading The Silmarillion for the first time in years and I too was struck strongly by this passage. I have been thinking about it and so far have come up with no conclusions. It seems so out of keeping with JRRT in the rest of his writings. Not believing Morgoth's sincerity in suing for peace and pardon is certainly reasonable given his track record. Chaining him is also a quite reasonable precaution given that track record. But the "his feet were hewn from under him" does seem quite excessive and unjustifiable.
> 
> As for Morgoth/Melkor being executed, he was not. Go to the last paragraph of The Silmarillion: "But for Morgoth himself the Valar thrust him through the Door of Night beyond the Walls of the World, into the Timeless Void; and a guard is set for ever on those walls, and Earendil keeps watchupon the ramparts of the sky."


^ wait.. so does it mean that he can escape the timeless void? since the guards are watching and guarding those walls?


----------



## Alcuin

Ellatur said:


> ^ wait.. so does it mean that he can escape the timeless void? since the guards are watching and guarding those walls?


Yes. Then commences the Final Battle and the Second Prophecy of Mandos.


----------



## Arvedui

From _HoME V, The Lost Road_:


> Thus spake Mandos in prophecy, when the Gods sat in judgement in Valinor, and the rumour of his words was whispered among all the Elves of the West. When the world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth, seeing that the guard sleepeth, shall come back through the Door of Night out of the Timeless Void; and he shall destroy the Sun and Moon. But Eärendel shall descend upon him as a white and searing flame and drive him from the airs. Then shall the Last Battle be gathered on the fields of Valinor. In that day Tulkas shall strive with Morgoth, and on his right hand shall be Fionwë, and on his left Túrin Turambar, son of Húrin, coming from the halls of Mandos; and the black sword of Túrin shall deal unto Morgoth his death and final end; and so shall the children of Húrin and all Men be avenged.


----------



## Ellatur

ewwwwwwww so it walks out of the void on its limbs!!! nasty!!!!


----------



## Alatar

Nah he will reincrnate him self as in thevoid he will have now body.


Wait " shall deal unto morgoth his death". It says in the book of lost tales none of the great gods can die. and vala don't die unless eru does it. so eru gets fed up with melko and melko dies, followed by a new world as it was ment to be.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Well, if we look at it that way, in Arda _nothing_ with a spirit _actually_ dies, or can truly die. Not even Men, who are mortal in the sense that they can abide in the physical world only for a very limited amount of time, and then leave its confines forever and supposedly rejoin Eru. Elves and Ainur are immortal within Arda, because their fates are bound with it, and though their bodies can be destroyed, they can be remade, which cannot be claimed for mortals.


----------

