The Nature of Evil

The Nature of Evil

“He unfastened it [the Ring] and handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.”–J.R.R. Tolkien, “The Shadow of the Past”

” Your heart became proud
    on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
    because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
    I made a spectacle of you before kings.”–Ezekiel 28:17

The discussion on the nature of evil has preoccupied the minds of brillant men and women for the past 3,000 years.  King David contemplated it. Prophet Isaiah.  Zoroaster. Confucius. Buddha.  Jesus. Philosophers like Mani and Boethius (3rd and 6th centuries C.E., respectively).  Muslim scholars.

Lewis and Tolkien, too, ruminated on the nature of evil–and it is to Tolkien’s second chapter of the Fellowship that we turn today (and I am indebted to Tom Shippey’s superb Tolkien biography as well). 

According to Shippey’s interpretation of Tolkien, there are two views on evil in the Lord of the Rings mythos. One: Mani’s interpretation of evil (he was a Persian philosopher strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism) was that evil corrupts from the outside–there has been, is, and always will be a cosmic struggle between inherently evil and good human-beings.  Two: Boethius’s interpretation of evil was that there is no evil; evil is only the absence of good (Saint Augustine, a near-contemporary who lived slightly before Boethius also believed this).  In today’s passage from the Fellowship, we see Frodo–or the One Ring?–reluctant to hand over–or itself [the Ring] be handed over–to Gandalf.  Here we see the two theories of good and evil come into play; is it the One Ring which is reluctant to be handed to Gandalf (Mani’s theory)?  Or is it Frodo, according to Shippey, who is unconscious of his developing addiction and “alientation from God” (Shippey)?–this would be Boethius’ view: evil=internal.  This is a theme worth developing along the narrative of the Lord of the Rings, and something which I will return to at a later time.

Then we have the book of Ezekiel 28:17 and the origin story of Satan–who was a 6th century B.C.E. “invention” by Jews who were living in exile in the city of Babylon, Iraq (moden day Baghdad).  Ezekiel was a prophet of the 6th century B.C.E. (also the Book of Job was written at this time, where we see the first grandiose story of Satan) who prophesied the destruction of the Temple of Solomon by Nebuchadnezzar and who later saw a vision of a “new” Temple.  Also, Ezekiel is famous for his “Valley of the Dry Bones” vision in which the concept of Resurrection is introduced.  It is clear that Satan, from today’s passage, is much like Sauron (or is it the other way around?): evil is the absence of good (Boethius again).  Satan and Sauron were once upon a time “good” beings–or they are still good and just don’t know it. In conclusion, here is what Gandalf says of evil: “Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again”  (Tolkien, “Shadow of the Past”). 

It’s clear that Tolkien and Lewis debated much on the nature of evil; Tolkien appears to side with Boethius more often than any other philsopher.  This passage makes it clear that evil is flexible and open-minded–it will occupy anything and anyone that it can–especially anyone who is “unaware” of its presence. More on this later, folks. Enjoy.