Post by ACOn 27 Jan 2004 19:25:55 -0800,
Post by Dogger the FilmgoblinPost by ACOn 26 Jan 2004 23:28:32 -0800,
Post by Dogger the FilmgoblinMorgoth is just name invented for Melkor by Feanor when his name was
outlawed from being spoken as a result of his having killed Feanor's
father Finwe. At least according to the Silm., there is no
relationship between the name 'Morgoth' and a specific physical
manifestation. They are one and the same.
It gets a little more complicated than that. Tolkien, in later writings,
used the two names to distinguish between Melkor, mightiest of the Ainur,
and Morgoth, who was but a shadow of Melkor's majesty and power (I like to
think of Morgoth as the shrivelled pit at the center of the peach).
However, Morgoth was the name the Noldor knew Melkor by, but within the
context of the mythology, I suspect the Eldar used the two names to
differentiate between the being that was created by Eru Illuvatar and the
pathetic being that ended up being chained by the Valar and put out into the
Void.
So the story of how the name 'Morgoth' came about just as a result of
Feanor's anger is now superseded by a later writing in HoME?
Not really. It was, I suspect, just a convenience to draw a distinction
between the two stages of Melkor's existence, before he had put the greater
part of his might into Arda, and after. The name Morgoth was still coined
by Feanor.
Maybe I'm confused about the point that Melkor 'put the greater part
of his might into Arda' -- this means the moment he first entered Arda
in a physical manifestation, no? If so and I haven't missed some other
might-transference-event, then it seems to me that what you are saying
is that although Melkor was Melkor before and after he was
'Ardalised', once Feanor coined the term, the Eldar adopted a new
convention of using 'Melkor' only to refer to the unembodied Ainu that
he once was. Presumably they did this out of earshot of Feanor, or
after he died, or perhaps it was a loophole through which they could
use the word 'Melkor' without violating the ban on uttering that name
to refer to the embodied form? It's starting to make more sense to me
thinking about it why usage would change in exactly this manner.
Post by ACPost by Dogger the FilmgoblinMan, it's
frustrating how much lore is being brought into question by these new
tomes.
Nothing was brought into question. The notion of Arda Marred is an old one,
though in later writings Tolkien better explained what that meant.
Yeah, in the Silm. it is obvious that Arda is marred, but it isn't
made very clear at exactly what moment this occured. In fact, I have
tended to assume that Melkor's participation in the original Music is
the original 'marring' and that everything flowed from that, but as I
have recently reread the Silm. I have realised than nothing in the
Music is ever causative it is simply descriptive. The marring must be
re-enacted by Melkor much as the building of the continents is
re-enacted by the Aule. It is kind of news to me that it is Melkor's
entrance into the world that is the source of the 'marring', rather
than the actions he took once he got there.
Post by ACPost by Dogger the Filmgoblin(Out of curiosity, what is meant by
the term 'Morgoth's Ring'? Is that just some kind of metaphor? Or did
Tolkien originally intend to have Morgoth create the Rings? No need
for an in-depth answer, just a slugline will do.)
Essentially Morgoth did to Arda what Sauron did when he created the Ruling
Ring. In both cases, the greater part of their native power was put into a
substance. IN Sauron's case, a ring. In Morgoth's case, Arda itself.
Thus, Arda is Morgoth's Ring.
Hopefully I have been correct in my interpretation that the very
entrance of Melkor into Arda is what accomplished this feat.
DB.