Lust

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Pondering lust in Gondolin, it was suggested that the subject is more fitting for a Lore post. It then occurred to me that the discussion might benefit from the input of someone who knows about the Gawain story, as well as Tolkien's Catholicism, and hence his sense of sin. So I specifically invite a friend of mine and our newest member, @Ephtariat, to shed some light on lust in Middle-earth.

What is lust? Why is it a sin? And what role does it play in Tolkien's stories?

I have a sense that lust for power and jewels replaces sexual lust in Tolkien's stories and has something to do with the lack of women. One of the old stories that Tolkien studied is 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' and he deemed the heart of the poem the temptation of Gawain by the Lady of the castle in which he is staying. He wrote one of his few published papers on this sexual temptation, but in his stories he seems to transpose that sexual temptation into something else.

Here are some lust quotes from the famous 1951 letter to Milton Waldman (composed as Tolkien was finishing the appendices to LOTR).

(a) "The oath of the sons of Fëanor becomes operative, and lust for the Silmarils brings all the kingdoms of the Elves to ruin."

(b) On the Rings of Power: "But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor – thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."

(c) On Sauron: "Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-earth, 'neglected by the gods', he becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power – and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of gods and Elves)."

(d) On the One Ring: "Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it..."

(e) On political reformers today: "But at the beginning of the Second Age he was still beautiful to look at, or could still assume a beautiful visible shape – and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up."

(f) The Númenóreans attempted to take the Undying Land by force of a great armada in their lust for corporal immortality.

[Ephtariat]

Thanks for the invitation, @Chrysophylax Dives
Lust is a sin in the Catholic view because it constitutes a disordered use of the body, one's own and the other. However, Catholic theologians deem that sex is sinful outside marriage and even in marriage if it is disordered BUT only because of the original sin, meaning that in Eden Adam and Eve might have done what for us are sinful and for them it wouldn't have been such.
Now, Tolkien clearly states that LotR is not about power, but about the fact that divine honor belongs only to God. This means that he saw idolatry as the thing that LotR warns us about, but where do we find this? I think that we find this in the greed inspired by the Ring, and, if we read The Silmarillion along the same lines, also for the Silmarilli. With an important disclaimer: the Ring is evil, while the Silmarilli aren't. Now, in the Bible idolatry is usually thematized as adultery, meaning that we find characters (Solomon) who worship idols because they take foreign wives, and also we have idolatry directly addressed through the symbol of forsaking one's partner for another, as in some prophets. Tolkien never treats adultery, and it is in this omission that we find his warning against idolatry, even though it is indirectly portrayed as greed for material objects or for power. This is because Tolkien wants to indicate that idols are always material goods or abstract ideas, never people. He wants to indicate that love for other people is always good, but he can't do so if there is betrayal, so he removes adultery altogether.

[Silky Gooseness]

This is interesting! So how would we define the difference between lust and greed? I suggest lust is directed at something, or someone, specific: a Silmaril, the Ring - whereas greed is the desire for more, and it could even be something quite fungible like gold.

Tolkien does sometimes tell stories of disturbing desire for people, though: Melkor for Luthien, Maeglin for Idril - even the Children of Húrin?

[Ephtariat]

We should distinguish between the specific meaning of lust and greed as sins and the more generic sense of both as "desire, craving" that may even be not a sin, like when St Augustine talks of lust or greed for God (of course not sinful).

Melkor's desire for Luthien is probably not sexual, as instead it was for Arien, because Tolkien said that in Morgoth at seeing Luthien conceived a desire worst than anything that he had ever conceived, and he had already had the desire to rape Arien, so it cannot be "simply" that. Maeglin and Idril and the incest between Turin and Nienor are exceptions, yes, as much as others can be found in the wider legendarium (Celebrian being possibly raped by Orcs, the dwarves asking Tinwelint for an elven maiden for each of them in compensation for the Nauglafring, and a few others).

[Ephtariat]

I should specify that these exceptions can take place in Tolkien's discourse because idolatry is entirely out of question in them. Neither Morgoth nor Turin nor Maeglin nor Orcs and Dwarves might ever be accused of being putting Arien/Luthien, Nienor, Idril, Celebrian, or the elven maidens on a pedestal as though they were making them their gods instead of the only One. What Tolkien wants to exclude is the possibility of a love that is sinful not because it is violent, or because it is unconsensual, or because it happens between siblings: he wants to exclude the possibility of a love that is sinful because it loves too much a person. What he wants to say is that you cannot ever love too much anyone, you can only love too much objects and abstract ideas.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Thank you so much @Ephtariat! You have already put out so much to think on that it will take a while to digest it. The adultery-idolatory parallel is supremely interesting, obvious now you point it out, and relates to other recent conversations on this site. But just for now, two initial questions.

1. "Now, Tolkien clearly states that LotR is not about power, but about the fact that divine honor belongs only to God." I am not doubting this, but can you supply a quote or reference so I can get Tolkien's precise words? This is a really foundational point and I want to get clear on it.

2. What do you say to the distinction between greed and lust suggested above by Silky Gooseness? It strikes me as neat and correct, but I wonder if more can be added. Specifically, I wonder if lust is somehow a higher or even (if one can say this) a more spiritual sin than greed, and this because it has a closer connection to love. I've no real idea what I am talking about here so don't worry about knocking it down.

[Ephtariat]

1. "In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about ‘freedom’, though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. [. . .] Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world" (Letters, page 243)

2. Lust is generally considered to be the least sinful of all capital sins, in fact Dante places the lustful (who are all adulterers, such as Paolo and Francesca, Paris, etc.) near the top of the pits of Hell. By lust in this sense what is meant is the disordered love, and its object is intended to be the body of the beloved, so it is a sin almost entirely of the flesh, whereas all the most grievous sins, such as pride or, in Dante's formulation, treason, are sins that are chiefly spiritual. So, you are right, but your explanation should be the other way around.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

So, you are right, but your explanation should be the other way around.

Story of my life. But seriously, I am still not clear on the basics of lust. You say it is of the body, which in normal usage of the term I quite understand. But with the quotes from the 1951 letter in the OP (original post), the lust is surely not of the body. Or let's take Saruman as described by Gandalf, what to make of the lust in his eyes?

For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?’’ As he said this a lust which he could not conceal shone suddenly in his eyes.

Thanks for the quotation from the Letters!

[Ephtariat]

Lust that is not sexual is usually considered to be either greed (in case it is directed to objects) or pride (in case it takes the form of a vindication of one's power as though one deserves more than he gets). But there is also another aspect to take into account as far as 2. goes. St. Paul writes that "cupiditas radix malorum", i.e. "the root of all evil is cupidity". This is motivated by the fact that Eve ate the fruit because "she saw it was beautiful". But there is also the view, elsewhere in Scripture, that pride is the root of all sins. God says that pride leads the way to destruction (Proverbs 11:2; 17:19; 18:12), which is interpreted as meaning that pride is the root of all sins. Besides, cupidity may be either lust or greed, and the distinction between the two is usually that lust may be shared, whereas greed is self-focused. Again, Adam and Eve's case may be either, but of course it is a symbolical case and in practice we usually simply take lust to be disordered sex and greed to be disordered desire for material things or money. Obviously it's still problematic even this way, because nobody today would agree with medieval theologians claiming that rape was less sinful than usury. But I'm digressing from Tolkien. Returning to him, I argue that what he was interested about and therefore systematically removed from his narratives was the idolation of other people, something that he was concerned about since it was the chief misgiving of courtly love, as he specifies in Letter 43, which finally brings us to why Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was so important. In it Tolkien could find (as in the rest of the works of the Gawain-Poet a form of courtly love that was devoid of adultery and only accepted sex in marriage, also sharing his devotion to Mary Mother of God.

[Silky Gooseness]

I had in fact forgotten about Melkor’s lust for Arien; but I did indeed assume Melkor’s desire for Lúthien to be sexual. The unspoken but worst thought: what might that be? Corruption of a child of an Elf and a Maia?

Celebrían cannot have been raped by orcs, as Tolkien also states in LaCE that Elves cannot be taken by force: they choose to surrender their spirits instead. She would have died first.

The Gawain point is a good one to bring up. But the desire in Gawain is still present. It’s just not acted upon, for fear of honour and the sword, if I recall correctly.

[Arnyn]

I always thought lust referred to the flesh as well. But Tolkien seems to use it as a synonym for greed at times. Perhaps we should differentiate between Tolkien's more creative usage of the word and the original biblical usage behind the word.

Given your quotes from the 1951 letter, curiosity claimed me! I did a search for 'lust' and 'greed' on my RotK e-book and this came up:

"It was therefore perhaps partly by the malice of the Ring that Thráin after some years became restless and discontented. The lust for gold was ever in his mind." (RoTK, Appendices, Durin's Folk)
"The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things." (RoTK, Appendices, Durin's Folk)

Here, Tolkien is obviously talking about the very same: the desire for gold. He seems to use lust and greed as synonyms, to be creative with the language and not succumb to repetition all too frequently. In this case, even if 'lust' was perhaps considered the lesser sin compared to the others, a lust for gold seems more... personal. More intimate. It is not just about wanting the gold locked away somewhere. It is almost as if it is about needing to physically touch it, be close to it, roll around in it, revel in it. (I could go on, but decency says I shouldn't.)

Tolkien uses others sins as well, and it seems to me that he thinks they make for a good hyperbole:.

cfr: ‘One moment!’ said Pippin blushing. ‘Greed, or hunger by your courtesy, put it out of my mind. (Return of The King)
It seems to me that here, Tolkien uses the sin 'greed' to make Pippin's 'hunger' seem like a worse offense than it otherwise would be.

[Silky Gooseness]

How’s this for a theory: greed is the disordered desire to consume; lust is the disordered desire to possess?

[Ephtariat]

I had in fact forgotten about Melkor’s lust for Arien; but I did indeed assume Melkor’s desire for Lúthien to be sexual. The unspoken but worst thought: what might that be? Corruption of a child of an Elf and a Maia?

Since he had conceived spoiling a Maia, I doubt the child would be worse. I think that it is what he would have done to her that was worst, not the fact that it was done to her specifically. Like, some tremendous torture that he had never thought before.

Celebrían cannot have been raped by orcs, as Tolkien also states in LaCE that Elves cannot be taken by force: they choose to surrender their spirits instead. She would have died first.

That's certainly correct in the context of LaCE, but since that text is later than LotR, are we sure it can be applied retrospectively?

The Gawain point is a good one to bring up. But the desire in Gawain is still present. It’s just not acted upon, for fear of honour and the sword, if I recall correctly.

Desire that is not acted upon in Tolkien's view is not sinful. It is a problematic point, since not all theologians would agree with him, but he makes quite a clear case for this being his interpretation in his Sir Gawain lecture of 1953 (it is found in The Monsters and the Critics).

[Ephtariat]

I always thought lust referred to the flesh as well. But Tolkien seems to use it as a synonym for greed at times. Perhaps we should differentiate between Tolkien's more creative usage of the word and the original biblical usage behind the word.

It is problematic when you say "the original biblical usage" because what you mean is just the prevailing biblical usage, the most frequent. But we also have other accounts:

James 1:13-15
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

Here lust is meant not even as a sin, but as the gateway to all sins, meaning that by itself (if one resists the temptation) lust is not even sin. This means that lust is generically intended as any kind of desire, not just sexual. And it is consistent with Tolkien's idea that Gawain was innocent (though tempted).

[Ephtariat]

How’s this for a theory: greed is the disordered desire to consume; lust is the disordered desire to possess?

You might argue for that, and it has its merits, but see my comments above.

[Arnyn]

You're right, prevailing biblical usage is the better term to use!

[Ephtariat]

@Arnyn and you're right that Tolkien says at times 'lust' meaning 'greed'. I'm just doubtful that he meant greed not to be physical, but perhaps that's because I picture Uncle Scrooge diving into his pool of money! :-)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

This is so good! Thank you everyone. Given the centrality of the Fall to Tolkien's conception of the world and of story, it might be worth considering the sins of Adam and Eve. There is lust for the forbidden fruit, yes? Can one say that the serpent inflames Eve's lust? But is this a case of what @Ephtariat puts as lust being not a sin but the gateway to all sins?

Two minor points. Firstly,

The Gawain point is a good one to bring up. But the desire in Gawain is still present. It’s just not acted upon, for fear of honour and the sword, if I recall correctly.

I think with Gawain it is purely about honour. He struggles to remain chaste, and just about manages. Tolkien introduces the sword for those less pure of heart. Compare:

"Both wrong," cried Bilbo very much relieved; and he jumped at once to his feet, put his back to the nearest wall, and held out his little sword. But funnily enough he need not have been alarmed. For one thing Gollum had learned long long ago was never, never, to cheat at the riddle game, which is a sacred one and of immense antiquity. Also there was the sword. (The Hobbit, first edition)

In his bad heart of hearts the dragon felt as kindly disposed towards Giles as a dragon can feel towards anyone. After all there was Tailbiter... (Farmer Giles of Ham)

Secondly,

"It was therefore perhaps partly by the malice of the Ring that Thráin after some years became restless and discontented. The lust for gold was ever in his mind." (RoTK, Appendices, Durin's Folk)
"The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things." (RoTK, Appendices, Durin's Folk)

Here, Tolkien is obviously talking about the very same: the desire for gold. He seems to use lust and greed as synonyms, to be creative with the language and not succumb to repetition all too frequently. In this case, even if 'lust' was perhaps considered the lesser sin compared to the others, a lust for gold seems more... personal. More intimate. It is not just about wanting the gold locked away somewhere. It is almost as if it is about needing to physically touch it, be close to it, roll around in it, revel in it. (I could go on, but decency says I shouldn't.)

I think this captures why I find this whole sin business a bit hard to get my head round. I like the distinction between consumption and possession made by the Goose in reply. @Ephtariat, would you mind clarifying your response to that (you say "see my comments above", but I was not sure which ones you meant)?

Also, "I could go on, but decency says I shouldn't" - yes, I do find in this thread, as also the earlier in Gondolin, that imagination frequently goes much further than anything that can be put down in polite words.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

How’s this for a theory: greed is the disordered desire to consume; lust is the disordered desire to possess?

You might argue for that, and it has its merits, but see my comments above.

So I am still with this, which is not only a nice analytical distinction but has the virtue of connecting the theological language of the sin of lust with the secular language of (most of) 'On Fairy-stories'.

Recovery (which includes return and renewal of health) is a re-gaining—regaining of a clear view. I do not say “seeing things as they are” and involve myself with the philosophers, though I might venture to say “seeing things as we are (or were) meant to see them”—as things apart from ourselves. We need, in any case, to clean our windows; so that the things seen clearly may be freed from the drab blur of triteness or familiarity—from possessiveness. Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention, perceiving their likeness and unlikeness: that they are faces, and yet unique faces. This triteness is really the penalty of “appropriation”: the things that are trite, or (in a bad sense) familiar, are the things that we have appropriated, legally or mentally. We say we know them. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.

Compare two passages of LOTR. First, the Hobbits listening to the talk of Bombadil:

As they listened, they began to understand the lives of the Forest, apart from themselves, indeed to feel themselves as the strangers where all other things were at home.

And now Frodo at Cerin Amroth:

Haldir had gone on and was now climbing to the high flet. As Frodo prepared to follow him, he laid his hand upon the tree beside the ladder: never before had he been so suddenly and so keenly aware of the feel and texture of a tree’s skin and of the life within it. He felt a delight in wood and the touch of it, neither as forester nor as carpenter; it was the delight of the living tree itself.

For what it is worth, I feel that I have learned much about what it is to be in the world from these passages. But I had never before considered that possessiveness as here conceived has a root in lust, and still find the notion a tad odd. However, the Goose's distinction between greed and lust does shine some illumination - hoarding is the opposite of consumption. It is the difference between me wanting 10 cream cakes so I can eat them all and wanting 10 cream cakes so I can arrange them on my shelves with the idea of gazing at them on occasion.

Basically, for Tolkien dragons are the archetypal hoarders. Does that mean that the nature of a dragon is dominated by lust?

[Ephtariat]

@Chrysophylax Dives The point in Tolkien is whether a thing is shared or not. He is pretty clear in OFS on that. Now, since both consumption and hoarding prevent a thing from being shared, they are seen as equivalent by him.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Chrysophylax Dives The point in Tolkien is whether a thing is shared or not. He is pretty clear in OFS on that. Now, since both consumption and hoarding prevent a thing from being shared, they are seen as equivalent by him.

Not sure I agree with that. Can you give me some OFS quotes to explain and illustrate what you mean? Consumption = use, but hoarding does not even involve use.

Dragons may not have much real use for all their wealth, but they know it to an ounce as a rule, especially after long possession; and Smaug was no exception. ... Thieves! Fire! Murder! Such a thing had not happened since first he came to the Mountain! His rage passes description-the sort of rage that is only seen when rich folk that have more than they can enjoy suddenly lose something that they have long had but have never before used or wanted.

[Ephtariat]

That creative desire is only cheated by counterfeits, whether the innocent but clumsy devices of human dramatists, or the malevolent frauds of magicians. In this world it is for men unsatisfiable, and so imperishable. Uncorrupted, it does not seek delusion, nor bewitchment and domination; it seeks
shared enrichment, partners in making and delight, not slaves. (OFS 64)

The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. (Letters, page 145)

Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention, perceiving their likeness and unlikeness: that they are faces, and yet unique faces. This triteness is really the penalty of 'appropriation': the things that are trite, or (in a bad sense) familiar, are the things that we have appropriated, legally or mentally. We say we know them. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them. (OFS 67)

There is an old hoard in a dark rock,
forgotten behind doors none can unlock;
that grim gate no man can pass.
On the mound grows the green grass;
there sheep feed and the larks soar,
and the wind blows from the sea-shore.
The old hoard the Night shall keep,
while earth waits and the Elves sleep.
(The Hoard, in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil)

If you contrast the former two quotes with the latter two, you get a picture of sharing being contrasted with appropriation. But appropriation may be either consumption or hoarding. In both cases, the object is denied the possibility of its being shared, is not looked at anymore, and as such ends up for the Night to keep.

[Ephtariat]

Think of Shelob:

How Shelob came there, flying from ruin, no tale tells, for out of the Dark Years few tales have
come. But still she was there, who was there before Sauron, and before the first stone of Barad-duˆ r; and she served none but herself, drinking the blood of Elves and Men, bloated and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness. Far and wide her lesser broods, bastards of the miserable mates, her own offspring, that she slew, spread from glen to glen, from the Ephel Du´ ath to the eastern hills, to Dol Guldur and the fastnesses of Mirkwood. But none could rival her, Shelob the Great, last child of Ungoliant to trouble the unhappy world. (TTT)

Now, it's clear she consumes, and yet we read that hers was lust, as repeatedly stated:

Already, years before, Gollum had beheld her, Sme´agol who pried into all dark holes, and in past days he had bowed and worshipped her, and the darkness of her evil will walked through all the ways of his weariness beside him, cutting him off from light and from regret. And he had promised to bring her food. But her lust was not his lust. Little she knew of or cared for towers, or rings, or anything devised by mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the mountains could no longer hold her up and the darkness could not contain her.
But that desire was yet far away, and long now had she been hungry, lurking in her den, while the power of Sauron grew, and light and living things forsook his borders; and the city in the valley was dead, and no Elf or Man came near, only the unhappy Orcs. Poor food and wary. But she must eat, and however busily they delved new winding passages from the pass and from their tower, ever she found some way
to snare them. But she lusted for sweeter meat. And Gollum had brought it to her. (TTT)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

If you contrast the former two quotes with the latter two, you get a picture of sharing being contrasted with appropriation. But appropriation may be either consumption or hoarding. In both cases, the object is denied the possibility of its being shared, is not looked at anymore, and as such ends up for the Night to keep.

I'd forgotten what it was like when Lore was active - you are taking me back a decade! And one thing I recall is the ease of distraction - what I actually want to think about is the parallel that you drew right at the start between adultery and idolatory. And yet I cannot resist a disagreement!

What you did in the first of your last two posts is provide two quotes about sharing and two about hoarding and then simply declared what you were supposed to show, namely that for Tolkien hoarding is the same as consumption.

The second post on Shelob certainly does give us a lust for consumption. But I feel this proves my point - the nature of Shelob is quite different from a dragon, who might like to eat a Dwarf or two, even a Hobbit given the chance, but not their treasure!

There is an old cliche in English that goes 'If you love someone set them free.' As I understand this, the point is not that it is good for the other person to be set free but rather that it is bad for you to feel possessively, that love bound up with possessiveness is not really love, or at least is love mingled with a self-regard that is the very opposite of love. And what I read in your third quote is a generalization of that to all elements of one's life.

This triteness is really the penalty of 'appropriation': the things that are trite, or (in a bad sense) familiar, are the things that we have appropriated, legally or mentally. We say we know them. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.

For me, this applies especially to ideas. Part of my disgust with Tolkien scholarship as I find it today is that it seems to be marred by such possessiveness. In the journals and related discussions I very rarely have the feeling - as I did on the old plaza and do also on the nu - that people genuinely wish to communicate their excitement at some discovery. Rather, I have a sense of people attempting to stake down their opinion as the right one, claiming it, possessing it, and in doing so losing sight of any actual insight into that which once they did truly love.

Scroll back to my quotation of Frodo putting his hand on a tree and feeling a delight in the living tree itself. Now you and me could together buy a tree, and share its use, but our sharing of the tree has no relationship to whether either of us perceive the tree as something independent and alive in itself.

[Ephtariat]

But you see that you get it yourself, when you say that discovery gets you into excitement and that is felt by others: this is sharing, even if the discovery was yours!

[Ephtariat]

Look, if we return to love, then a true lover certainly does not want to possess the beloved in the sense of suppressing their otherness, but the true lover neither wants to consume the other. To give you Tolkien examples, the true lover neither wishes to make the beloved captive (possessiveness), as Thingol or the sons of Feanor did with Luthien, nor wishes to rape the beloved (consumption), as Morgoth did with Arien (in one version, in others he just wanted to). The opposite of both possessiveness and consumption is sharing, in marriage, as Beren and Luthien, who both consent to give each other themselves in all senses.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

We need someone else's take here: @Arnyn, @Silky Gooseness, @Anyone

It seems to me you are conflating consent and consumption.

[Arnyn]

How’s this for a theory: greed is the disordered desire to consume; lust is the disordered desire to possess?

I'm into this. And for this post I'm just going to focus on this.

But for me, instinct would tell me that lust is more about consumption / action and greed more about hoarding / possessing. When you're greedy, you just want more and more of the same but wouldn't necessarily want to do anything with/to it/them. When you're lustful, you want to do things with it/someone.

Melkor had a lust for Arien: he didn't just want to lock Arien away and do nothing to her. Whether you read the lust as sexual or otherwise (torture), this still involves action and doing something to her.

And referring to Ephtariat's point about "When lust is meant not even as a sin, but as the gateway to all sins, meaning that by itself (if one resists the temptation) lust is not even sin. This means that lust is generically intended as any kind of desire, not just sexual. And it is consistent with Tolkien's idea that Gawain was innocent (though tempted)." It would also fit. Lust is the desire to do something with/to someone or with something. Not acting on that desire means you avoid committing a sin. Once you act on your lust for something, you commit the sin itself:

pride: you could have a lust for pride: the desire to feel great pleasure from your own achievements, the desire to be widely admired and have a good reputation and be respected. The desire for these things would then not be a sin in and by itself. But if this desire for pride paves the way to actually being too proud, there is your sin.
greed: You could have the desire to hoard or possess things (=greed). You can want to accumulate great treasure. Every dragon wants this. Then according to the bible this wouldn't be a sin in and by itself. Only once the dragon acts on their lust and the lust for treasure becomes actual greed (actually going out and stealing treasure and hoarding it), the dragon commits a sin.
And so on and so forth.

Coming to the lust quotes in the OP, they could also be interpreted with this idea in mind:

(a) "The oath of the sons of Fëanor becomes operative, and lust for the Silmarils brings all the kingdoms of the Elves to ruin."
--> They have a lust for the Silmarils - this would mean they wanted to get their hands on the Silmarils. This want/desire turned into action of course, but here Tolkien would then be referring to the desire to take them, rather than the actions they took to take them. Or, in the other meaning, Tolkien might have been focusing in this sentence on lust rather than greed because the sons of Fëanor did not simply want to lock them into a treasure chest somewhere. They would have worn the Silmarils on their brows - showed them off, etc, they wanted to do something with them and not simply possess them and lock them away.

(b) On the Rings of Power: "But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor – thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."
With the interpretation of lust vs greed that I am going with now, it would make sense to use lust rather than greed when it comes to 'domination', which is in and by itself an active idea. Dominating others implies doing things, such as actively suppressing their own free will. The wielder of the One Ring doesn't just want to lock the people of ME away into endless dungeons. The wielder wishes to do things to the people so they will listen to them, so they will act as the wielder wishes/requires.

(c) On Sauron: "Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-earth, 'neglected by the gods', he becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power – and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of gods and Elves)."
Sauron is lusting for complete power because he wants to wield this power actively over others. He does not simply want the power to be able to use it if it might one day be necessary. He wants the power to control others - from the get go, continuously.

(d) On the One Ring: "Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it..."
The Ring wants its master to use it. To do things to others. Lust. The ring has no power of greed: the ring does not want its master to hoard treasure or people in some kind of display window.

((I limited myself to the first four quotes))

That would also open up the possibility of using both lust and greed intermittently, too.
"It was therefore perhaps partly by the malice of the Ring that Thráin after some years became restless and discontented. The lust for gold was ever in his mind." (RoTK, Appendices, Durin's Folk) --> the lust for gold would here refer to the desire to obtain more and more. So lust as a gateway to greed as a sin.
"The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things." (RoTK, Appendices, Durin's Folk) --> the greed of gold and precious things focuses on the sin of hoarding the gold and precious things in treasure chambers, to go look at and admire, but not to actively do things to the gold or treasure or with them (as in spend it superfluously or use it to increase their power by bribing people etc)

Then lust for the forbidden fruit also makes perfect sense. Eve lusted for the apple because she wanted to do something to it: bite into it, eat it. Not just tuck it under her arm and carry it around.

[Arnyn]

Look, if we return to love, then a true lover certainly does not want to possess the beloved in the sense of suppressing their otherness, but the true lover neither wants to consume the other. To give you Tolkien examples, the true lover neither wishes to make the beloved captive (possessiveness), as Thingol or the sons of Feanor did with Luthien, nor wishes to rape the beloved (consumption), as Morgoth did with Arien (in one version, in others he just wanted to). The opposite of both possessiveness and consumption is sharing, in marriage, as Beren and Luthien, who both consent to give each other themselves in all senses.

We need someone else's take here: @Arnyn, @Silky Gooseness, @Anyone

It seems to me you are conflating consent and consumption.

Hmm. I agree with Chrys in the sense that the use of 'consumption' just feels off.

Part seems valid to me: A true lover should not get greedy (possessive): they should not wish to lock the other away so they are the only one who can enjoy the other's love.

But you seem to be drawing a parallel between lust and consumption (are you?). If you are, that feels off. For lust is not as a definition faulty, as you yourself have argued. A true lover can lust after the other: the desire to do something to them physically (sexually or attentively), the desire to do activities with them, the desire to speak to them for hours, and so on. And if the other consents, then the lust is fine.

Or perhaps... did you mean "sharing" in the sense of two parties giving consent? Sharing as in two parties sharing the same desire (lust)?
Because it is true, the problem lies in the situations where the other does not consent. Then there is not only a problem with physical lust being acted on by one party but also the lust to be in their company in other ways, such as the endless bothering of the other person by insisting on talking to them all the time for all long as you want, sending endless letters to them and so on.

[Ephtariat]

Thanks @Arnyn for your comments, I feel like we're getting closer. But there's also to take into account 1 John 2:16, where it the author distinguishes lust of the eyes and lust of the flesh.

"For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world."

This seems to point to an idea that is contrary to James, i.e. that mere lust, or just to desire something without acting upon it (lust of the eyes) is already sin. There's been a lot of disputes over the centuries as to where the boundary between mere desire to sin and actual sin was, also because Jesus famously stated that “You have heard that it was said of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery [Exodus 20:14]. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). So, as I was saying from the start, it's problematic, and there's no easy solution as far as we would like to find an answer that satisfies everyone. As far as Tolkien is concerned, I think, as I already said, that he thought mere desire to sin not to be sin. Indeed, Jesus was talking to observant Jews whose Law prescribed against adultery forbade a wife to betray her husband with other people and a man to have sex with a married woman. When Jesus says that “whosoever shall look on woman to lust after her already committed adultery with her in his heart”, what he means is that a married woman who takes an interest in other people or a man who contrives in his thoughts to have sex with a married woman are already adulterers even before actually putting their intents into effect, because their very purpose is sinful even when it is not enacted. Augustine’s reading, nonetheless, is very different. In Durant Waite Robertson's words, from his "Preface to Chaucer", which Tolkien read and annotated:

"St. Augustine, contrary to prevailing modern opinion, finds the justice of the second command, which warns against sin in the heart, to be greater than the first, which is concerned only with overt action. At the same time, the second confirms and fulfills the first. To lust after a woman and to ‘look on a woman to lust after her’ are different, since the second implies not only that the observer is tickled by fleshly delight, but also that he has passed through three stages which are involved in the commission of any sin: suggestion, delight (or pleasurable thought), and consent. Only after consent takes place in the mind does the sinner prepare for overt action, a sin ‘in deed.' If sins ‘in deed’ are repeated, the sinner may come to sin ‘in habit.' The suggestion takes place when the attractive object is perceived, the delight in the contemplation of the object, or of its image, with a view to fleshly satisfaction; and if this delight is not repressed by the reason, the reason consents to it. This process, St. Augustine explains, is analogous with the process of the Fall. Suggestion enters the senses subtly, like the serpent. There the carnal appetite, or Eve, may take pleasure in what is suggested and cause the reason, or the man, to consent, whereupon he is expelled from Paradise, or, that is, from the light of justice into death. (…) St. Augustine generalized the adultery in the scriptural text to mean the action of any evil cupidity, pointing out that the Scripture frequently uses fornicatio to mean any kind of turning away from God" (Robertson 1969: 72-73)

[Ephtariat]

e.c. Tolkien read Robertson's "Preface to Chaucer" but annotated its review by Przemyslaw Mroczkowski, not the original volume.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

On the above - tis very helpful. The account of Augustine on sin is very clear and I will make an effort to follow it out carefully. What was Tolkien's annotation? I have a sense of me and Arnyn basically coming from the same place - which is not so much a definite agreement on how to use these terms but more a vague sense of how this part of life seems to work and the English words to use.

(By the way, it blows my mind that of the three of us I am - I think - the only native English speaker. I could never in a million years carry on a conversation like this in any other language!)

My penny in the hat for today. I get uncomfortable with discussions of rape here. The subject makes me uncomfortable, period. But with Tolkien's stories I usually have a sense of the mark being missed. That was certainly so back last time I was here and appeared to encounter a consensus among plaza members that between the lines of the 1934 courtship of Goldberry and Bombadil was a sort of ancient Greek myth of mad struggle to escape and rape of the River-woman's daughter. I can see why people might say that, and I mean from the poem itself as well as the culture in which we live today, but as a reading of the story of how Goldberry moves from River to House, and back again, I have no time for it at all.

Consent is a crucial term here, and this because what Tolkien gives us a roadmap to is doing wrong to others with their consent. And a primary reason for this is because our basic role as readers is wanderers in the perilous realm of Fairie, the realm in which things are not always as they seem, and we are supposed to learn that here, just as on the green grass outside our own house, our part is to distinguish right and wrong. So if we are taking a stroll in a valley and out of the blue some monster jumps up from behind a rock and eats some of us and does unspeakable acts of lust to others, then the survivors might later discuss the subtle differences between the fates of our friends, but we have not learned much more than the need to have a fast pair of legs and not to walk at the front of the party.

A story proper begins on the next walk when up from behind a rock pops an old man with bushy eyebrows and a pointy hat who wishes to sell one of us a golden egg, and after that transaction is completed gifts to a couple of others each their own magic bean, on the house, like.

Think about the Nine. Each once were mortals, like you and I. Then they were consumed from within, utterly. Well, I suppose one could debate if they were eaten or something worse. Whatever it was, it don't look good and the result is not very nice at all. But each one of them willingly received the gift, put out their hand and took the precious golden thing.

It just seems to me that the world Tolkien explores is about trickery with consent.

[Ephtariat]

I've asked a person who is in touch with Mrozckowski's relatives to see the annotations, but it always takes a while before he replies. Concerning the rest, you take the Nazgul as examples of consent but of course their corruption took place in the remote past, whereas in Frodo, Bilbo, Sam, Boromir, Galadriel, and Gandalf we have different reactions to the temptation actually taking place, and they show you different stages, don't they?

[Ephtariat]

And Faramir, too.

[Ephtariat]

And there's more. The same account as in Augustine is found in the Middle English Ancrene Riwle, where one reads, in Mary B. Salu’s translation (which had a preface by Tolkien): “Of Eve, our first mother, it is recorded that at the very beginning of her sin its entry was through her eyes” (Salu 1955: 23). Even in a manual for female anchorites such as the Ancrene Riwle, the sinful object of sight was, again, primarily conceived as a woman: “Bethsabee also, by unclothing herself before David’s eyes, caused him to sin with her even though he was so holy a king and a prophet of God” (24). Returning to Eve, then she “began to take delight in looking at it [the forbidden fruit], and to desire it, and she plucked some of it and ate it (…). This apple, my dear sister, symbolizes all those things towards which desire and sinful delight turn” (24). The author of the Ancrene Riwle explicitly cites Augustine, for example when it is stated: “An unchaste eye is the messenger of an unchaste heart, says Augustine” (25). The three steps of sin are the same as in Augustine, even in wording: sight (21), delight/desire (23), and deed (23).

In the 11th-13th centuries Courtly Love was being developed, a code of love that prescribed loving outside marriage. An apology of adultery could not work especially in the context of the eleventh century, nor in the immediately following centuries, unless it was clothed under the appearance of its opposite, as a condemnation of adultery. In this respect we may assume but correct Robertson’s account as he pointed out that, if we saw how the term passio could be used in a technical sense to signify sin, in Andreas Capellanus’s De Amore “Love is a certain inborn suffering (passio) derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex, which causes each one to wish above all things the embraces of the other and by common desire to carry out all of love’s precepts in the other’s embrace” (Robertson 1969: 84). Robertson then adds:

This definition may be seen as nothing but a re-statement in terms of love of the traditional process of the abuse of beauty. The love, that is, is not simple desire, but passionate and unreasoning cupidity. The three steps are clearly marked: sight, excessive meditation, and passion. To emphasize the necessity for “immoderate thought”, which, as we have seen, is an important and necessary prelude to any real passion, Andreas continues, “That this suffering is inborn I shall show you clearly, because if you will look at the truth ad distinguish carefully you will see that it does not arise out of any action; only from the reflection of the mind upon what is sees does this suffering [passio] come”. He continues his explanation by paraphrasing the scriptural Law: “For when a man sees some woman fit for love and shaped accordingly to his taste, he begins at once to lust after her in his heart; then the more he thinks about her the more he burns with love, until he comes to a fuller meditation”. The process of committing “adultery” in the heart is next developed: “Presently, he begins to think about the fashioning of the woman and to differentiate her limbs, to think about what she does, and pry into the secrets of her body, and he desires to put each part of it to its fullest use”. In terms of St. Augustine’s account in the De sermone Domini in monte, the “lover” is now ready for sin “in deed”, since the sin has already been committed in the heart. Andreas describes the transition from thought to action: “Then after he has come to this complete meditation, love cannot hold the reins, but he proceeds at once to action; straightway he strives to get a helper and to find an intermediary”. Andreas insists, finally, that only an excessive meditation, immoderata cogitatio, will suffice to create the passion he describes. The reasons for this stipulation should be sufficiently obvious. (Robertson 1969: 84-85)

Tolkien’s tale of Beren and Lúthien is precisely narrated according to the medieval convention of the three stages of love: “sight, excessive meditation, and passion” (Robertson 1969: 84), which head back to Augustine’s three stages of sin in “suggestion, delight, and consent” (72). We may see sight or suggestion in Beren’s fortuitous stumbling upon the Elf-maiden’s dance:

It is told in the Lay of Leithian that Beren came stumbling into Doriath grey and bowed as with many years of woe, so great had been the torment of the road. But wandering in the summer in the woods of Neldoreth he came upon Lúthien, daughter of Thingol and Melian, at a time of evening under moonrise, as she danced upon the unfading grass in the glades beside Esgalduin. Then all memory of his pain departed from him, and he fell into an enchantment; for Lúthien was the most beautiful of all the Children of Ilúvatar. Blue was her raiment as the unclouded heaven, but her eyes were grey as the starlit evening; her mantle was sewn with golden flowers, but her hair was dark as the shadows of twilight. As the light upon the leaves of trees, as the voice of clear waters, as the stars above the mists of the world, such was her glory and her loveliness; and in her face was a shining light. (S xix)

It is not just that Tolkien is romanticizing the medieval account, but he is portraying woman as entirely devoid of the association with sin brought about by the Augustinian notion of phantasia. In her one finds beauty that is conceived as the representation of art, the sub-creative faculty of producing fantasies of which she is both an example and the maker, but still she is an embodied being whose flesh is not denied, even when her carnality is not stressed.

Then there is suggestion as “she vanished from his sight; and he became dumb, as one that is bound under a spell, and he strayed long in the woods, wild and wary as a beast, seeking for her. In his heart he called her Tinúviel, that signifies Nightingale, daughter of twilight, in the Grey-elven tongue, for he knew no other name for her” (S xix). Tolkien describes delight or “excessive meditation” in terms that remind one of the Wild Man of the Wood tradition, and yet his account is not negative, since Beren is said to be “under a spell”, involving not her own magical powers, but a spell of Fate. If indulging in the delight of thinking about one’s beloved is a fault, Tolkien implies, Beren is innocent, because he had no choice but to do so.

Eventually there is consent and passion, as the two lovers kiss:

His voice such love and longing filled
one moment stood she, fear was stilled;
one moment only; like a flame
he leaped towards her as she stayed
and caught and kissed that elfin maid
(Lays 180)

Here it should be noted that Tolkien stresses the fact that it was Fate binding her to reciprocate Beren’s attention, as “one moment” only “stood she”, and in The Silmarillion we read how “in his fate Lúthien was caught” (S xix). In other words, again, if reciprocating feelings of love is culpable, Lúthien is excused, because it was Fate that so willed. This is the same exculpation made for himself by Gower in his Confessio Amantis, when he confesses that he has fallen in love as though it was a sin: “Now of this matter that befell, / Concerning love, and me as well, / I mean to make the details clear; / Read on, then, if you wish to hear / How fate would have it that I fared” (Tiller 1963: 46). This way, Tolkien is reworking more than one strand from Celtic and Romance literature and theology into his construction.

The same can be said of the tale of Aragorn and Arwen1, as we have the stage of sight2 when Aragorn is enchanted upon seeing Arwen:

The next day at the hour of sunset Aragorn walked alone in the woods, and his heart was high within him; and he sang, for he was full of hope and the world was fair. And suddenly even as he sang he saw a maiden walking on a greensward among the white stems of the birches; and he halted amazed, thinking that he had strayed into a dream, or else that he had received the gift of the Elf-minstrels, who can make the things of which they sing appear before the eyes of those that listen. (LotR Appendix A)

Excessive meditation can be seen immediately thereafter: “In the days that followed Aragorn fell silent, and his mother perceived that some strange thing had befallen him” (LotR Appendix A). Indeed, we already cited Elrond’s remark according to which Aragorn’s own eyes betrayed him3. Then there is passion, however implicit, when they finally become lovers:

And thus it was that Arwen first beheld him again after their long parting; and as he came walking towards her under the trees of Caras Galadhon laden with flowers of gold, her choice was made and her doom appointed. Then for a season they wandered together in the glades of Lothlórien, until it was time for him to depart. (LotR, Appendix A)

This way, Tolkien is both reworking medieval literature and theology, and referencing his own earlier tale, in an intricate intratextual and intertextual web. But we may see how the strategy he utilized to exculpate his lovers, himself as an author, and the text, is again the same, although at one remove. Since The Silmarillion was unpublished when The Lord of the Rings first was published, he was referencing a non-existing text to exculpate his characters from a fault that surely not many people would have seen as such, an idea that might seem risible, but Tolkien is not only autobiographical in this respect. His real reason is much subtler and indicates the sheer quality of his fantasy, not escaping, but confronting reality to the fullest extent: the idea of defending lovers through a reference to a missing text suggests what the West lost through the association of fantasy with “moral adultery” in the Augustinian sense, and at the same time with “moral adultery” in the Arthurian fashion: the acknowledgment of fantasy as depending on reality, either created or divine, and as a consequence what may be termed the marriage of fantasy and reality, the relation of the two worlds as Primary and Secondary, both legitimate in their own standing.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hi @Ephtariat, I feel bad because I asked you to comment and you have given lots of interesting stuff to ponder but the conversation has got bogged down. From my end, it seems like I really would like to read and think on the wider stuff you are giving above but am stuck on the basics out of which this thread began - and here I see that I have been amiss, because I should have spelled this out more clearly to you at the top.

A thread about the 7 deadly sins in Gondolin arrived at my stating that the basic sin driving Tolkien's stories is lust, and @Arnyn pausing, and replying that she had always taken the basic sin to be greed. Arnyn, please correct if I am confused; but the way I see it two things happened: (a) I pasted lots of lust from the famous 1951 letter, and (b) Arnyn pointed out how often greed is either explicitly referenced or lurks (I discovered since, btw, Thorin introducing Smaug as an especially greedy dragon). So this current thread began with the two of us a tad confused as to even the basic definitions of these sins.

Since then @Silky Gooseness proposed a 'theoretical' distinction between greed and lust that Arnyn and myself gave a provisional nod to, as did you but also with a note about 'see caveats above'. I have asked above that you spell out your response to this theory, but am not sure if you have done so. If your response is that from the point of view of Tolkien greed and lust are the same because they both take the desired thing out of social circulation, it seems that neither me nor Arnyn are quite happy with this. That does not mean it is wrong, merely that the conversation seems to have got bogged down on the basic definitions of two of the sins - and until we get a bit clearer on lust and greed as the same and not the same we are going to have difficulty getting to the good stuff you wish to tell us.

[Ephtariat]

@Chrysophylax Dives I do not mean to say that greed and lust are the same for Tolkien in their being opposed to sharing. What I mean to say is that there is a technical theological meaning of both lust and greed, and then there is a more general, broader meaning.

In the technical, theological sense:
a) lust and greed are both sins;
b) lust is defined as the disordered sexual desire;
c) greed is defined as the disordered desire for wealth.

In the general, broader sense:
1) lust and greed are desires that may be disordered (or sinful) but not necessarily;
2) lust is defined as a desire that may be sexual but not necessarily;
3) greed is defined as a desire that may be of money/wealth but not necessarily.

So, coming to Tolkien, we have to distinguish what he thought about lust and greed as sins, on one hand, and lust and greed as desires, on the other. I think that he thought that lust and greed as sins were both forms of possessiveness and as such opposed to sharing (and to enchantment, as you rightly pointed out. I think that enchantment is essentially related to sharing, but that's another discussion for another time). Then there are lust and greed as desires, and about those he thought that, as long as these desires do not verge on possessiveness, they may be good and even praised. Take the desire for Faerie, for example, or Tolkien's love of dragons, or his love for books. Those examples could be expressed by saying that Tolkien had a lust/greed for Faerie, a lust/greed for dragons, or a lust/greed for books, equally well. After all, as I reminded you, St Augustine talks about lust and greed for God, so it is not inappropriate to apply the terms to things other than bodies, money, and gold. There's Iggy Pop singing about his lust for life. Nicholas of Cusa, a 15th-century German theologian, invites his readers to be greedy for knowledge. I hope I have made my points clear.

[Ephtariat]

To be even clearer, the relation between the theological meaning and the general is twofold. On one hand, both lust and greed are terms that, in their original etymology (meaning the Hebrew words for them in the Jewish Bible), are closer to the general meaning than to the theological. So, it appears that historically the general meaning is the original. Nonetheless, once the theological meaning is developed (especially in Christianity), the general meaning becomes a derivation of the theological, as though one desires something with such intense feeling that it reminds one of the lustful's desire for the partner's body or the greedy's desire for gold. What one has then is that intensity of desire (even when it is not sinful) is compared to sin.

[Ephtariat]

By the way, also the etymology of the English words 'lust' and 'greed' is not necessarily related to sex, money, or wealth. They both originate as generic terms for desire, even though lust was already prominently associated with sex and greed (hear, hear!) with food.

[Arnyn]

Hmmm. It's so interesting, cause this is a language thing more than anything else. And language evolves.

That both lust and greed originate from desire is indeed beyond question. Reading that line, I just felt like adding that I personally also always saw a difference between the two (in certain uses), that I'll try to explain in the example below:

Let's say we're taking sexual desire. Where usually one would use lust. I think we're all pretty clear on that.
Yet one could also be greedy with sexual desire. If two people engage in physically intimate play, there is a huge difference between one of the two saying: "Don't be so lustful" (which would mean, 'stop with this desire altogether', or 'you really need to stop being so hypersexual') and "Don't be so greedy" (which would mean 'we're doing x and y, which is great, but you're pushing for z'). If that makes sense? That's why for me lust seems to center around acting on your desire by doing something with something or someone, and greed seems to be more about adding 'more' to a certain 'collection' - whether that is adding more trophies to a cabinet, or adding in more experiences to the experiences you already have.

Does this make sense?

[Ephtariat]

@Arnyn Indeed, it makes sense, and you make valid points for what today we may mean by using the two terms. The problem is, should we attribute to Tolkien our own views, or should we try to understand his own views? If we are doing the latter, his understanding of the words would be philological, as a philologist (which brings us to the general meaning) and theological, as a Catholic believer (which brings us to the theological meaning). I may have bias as a philosopher trained to take a philological approach to knowledge and a Catholic believer myself, but that's how I see it.

[Arnyn]

Tolkien would of course have been influenced by the state of the language in his own time, as well as his own religious beliefs, but in the end it seems to me like a very difficult undertaking to find out what his own views on lust vs greed were. Unless he wrote it down somewhere. A person's understanding of language goes beyond philology and their chosen religion - their understanding of language is created and built by the whole of their knowledge, personality and experiences, not to mention the existence OR lack of a personal connection to the terms under discussion.

[Arnyn]

Though my comment above doesn't mean that trying to find out (or come close, or even simply exploring it) wouldn't be an interesting exercise. So, carry on.

[Ephtariat]

Well, we do have his writings, so we have elements on which to build our suppositions. For one, Shelob is the quintessential example of craving always more, and yet hers is termed lust. That's a possible indicator that he didn't see it as you say. See? ;-)

[Ephtariat]

Which doesn't mean of course that everybody needs to see things as Tolkien, or I, did. I was asked to propose my views, therefore I am arguing for them. They don't need to be laws of physics, it's good to discuss them. :-)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Tolkien would of course have been influenced by the state of the language in his own time, as well as his own religious beliefs, but in the end it seems to me like a very difficult undertaking to find out what his own views on lust vs greed were. Unless he wrote it down somewhere. A person's understanding of language goes beyond philology and their chosen religion - their understanding of language is created and built by the whole of their knowledge, personality and experiences, not to mention the existence OR lack of a personal connection to the terms under discussion.

Yes, yes. This is why every now and again I underline being a 'historian' - which is a way of saying: indeed, it takes some professional care to work out the meaning of a word as used by a man who died in 1973. But I'll say this too: given how much published writing this man bequeathed to us, I would wager that we could, with good will, open mind, research and time, work out to our own satisfaction what Tolkien was doing when he used the term 'greed' over 'lust', say, and that we could do so to more satisfaction than if we attempted that on most people alive today. All I mean is, Tolkien had deper ideas on these things than most, so to me at any rate it is often worth exploring them, and if we do then, while we can never mind read anyone, living or dead, and all we can do is think on the words that they give us and their other actions, Tolkien gave us much more to fix a reading or interpretation than do most people.

I have a sense of vast cultural difference looming into view through this and related conversations, and not at all where I had expected it. While I talk about a present reality of living in the Middle-east, what is opening up before me is the great divide of Europe - a divide that was around 1900 much more present to the minds of Europeans, or at least of English people.

@Ephtariat, my friend, you are talking with good people, or at least I say so of the others. But we are mainly northern barbarians, and we do not know Dante as we should. We are missing an entire discourse on allegory, and do not even know it.

[Ephtariat]

@Chrysophylax Dives Ah, yes, the Dante lecture. I read it in its entirety at the Bodleian. :-)

[Silky Gooseness]

Sorry - had to be off for a couple of days and have missed a lot of good discussion, not least raising in me a desire (not unholy, I promise) for cream cakes…

This is an interesting dive into the theology of Tolkien with @Ephtariat’s argument that Tolkien considers that if things remain in the mind and are not translated into action, they are guiltless. This is a bit at odds with the “whoever stares at a woman with lust has already sinned” statement by Jesus as has already been pointed out. But it does track with the writing of James in the Bible (I think. I’m paraphrasing here) that suggests that virtues without action are meaningless; if your love isn’t translated into helping someone in need, it isn’t very substantial at all.

Similarly the Enemy doesn’t physically force you to do anything. It acts on the mind: the Ring may exert its influence upon you, but you are the one who makes the choice and the action (to commit murder for it, as in Sméagol’s case).

I think it’s an interesting parallel to draw between the Ring and the Silmarils though. The Ring has a malicious external influence on the mind: desiring the Ring, and succumbing to it, is not seen as a failure by Tolkien (his praise of Frodo in going as far as he could under a mental onslaught). The Silmarilli are objects of desire, by all who see it, but it seems to be an internal desire for everyone, except in the rare externally motivated case where its required as a dowry. Therefore the sins committed to claim them are borne by the sinners and no responsibility attaches to the object.

Once more I’ve no idea where I’m going with this and this is a brain dump, but I’m enjoying reading along!

[Ephtariat]

@Silky Gooseness Thanks for your comment. I think you are right and in fact I would like to recall Jonathan McIntosh’ explanation of the One Ring in his 2017 study The Flame Imperishable: Tolkien, St. Thomas, and the Metaphysics of Faërie:

Even considered as a material object, however, Sauron’s Ring might be compared to what Thomas describes in his Summa, in an article on “Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin,” as a case of “art directed to the production of good which men cannot use without sin” (ST 2-2.169.2 ad 4), a passage Jacques Maritain refers to in his Art and Scholasticism and thus one that Tolkien may have been at least indirectly familiar with. In such cases, Thomas argues, “it follows that the workmen sin in making such things, as directly affording others an occasion of sin; for instance, if a man were to make idols or anything pertaining to idolatrous worship.” In addition to it being the mythical embodiment of Sauron’s corrupted will, therefore, the Ring in and of itself is evil in the sense that it is was made for one purpose alone, namely the tyrannous domination of others, and therefore has this evil as its only “proper” use (for which it is indeed useful, and therefore in that sense “good”). (McIntosh 2017: 356)

It is essential to be straightforward on this point: neither does it mean adornment in all forms should be banished, nor is it a blaming of women. Rather, it should be taken as implying precisely a condemnation of idolatry. This is the meaning of Sauron’s One Ring: an item so imbued with evil intentions as to be unattainable to any good will, which, of course, by itself implies the unavoidable consequence to be concealing the highest good on earth. In other words, the Ring is any form of a pretense to be speaking and acting the Almighty’s will in the finite world. The ultimate power, to rule the kingdoms of the world from West to East, to dominate all lands, to subdue all peoples, to master all women and men, to be crowned by stars, and hold the scepter of mountains.

The Silmarilli instead are conceived as essentially good, which means that the discourse treating them should underline the fact that what is good should be shared, as Feanor refuses to do when he is asked by the Valar. If the One Ring stands for idolatry, the Silmarilli stand for possessiveness. They are three, like the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love, but if one becomes possessive of his faith, hope, and love, they become disbelief, despair, and jealousy, and indeed the only ones worthy of retrieving one of them are Beren and Luthien, who do not wish to keep it, but to give it away for love. Theirs is the Silmaril of love, the virtue of which St Paul said: "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:2). Faith may be buried under the earth, hope can drown under the sea, but love conquers all, it illuminates everything as the brightest of stars (Earendil-Venus) and eventually it will bring back even the faith and hope lost, as it is stated in the Second Prophecy of Mandos when it is said that at the end of times the lost Silmarilli will be retrieved.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Ephtariat, that is very clear. Need to think on it, and hoping someone else will comment. But thank you very much!

Btw, when I mention Dante I mean it quite literally. Previously I've talked about the cultural divide that you face in your Tolkien studies in terms of religion, but I begin to wonder if it may be more about culture, or rather the lack of it in Anglo-academic circles. One just has to read W.P. Ker to glimpse the central place of Dante on the map of modern European letters drawn by the English students of English in those days. But while we should have no doubt that Tolkien inherited this perspective, Dante is not a name that comes up frequently in the plaza, and I myself have no feel for his work at all.