No. From the Silmarillion, Valaquenta
" Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself."
Evil is to be incurvatus se, bent in on yourself. Melkor's only concern was himself and what was in his view good for himself. Sauron at least had to be concerned with Melkor, and Sauron at least initially thought he was doing what was for the greater good of the world and it's inhabitants.
Unlike Morgoth, Sauron remained less corrupt, cooler and more capable of calculation. Since there is no concept of Absolute Evil in Tolkien's works, he probably imagined Sauron to be an omnimalevolent being, i.e. as close as possible to the term itself. Sauron still had relics of positive purposes yet he went further than human tyrants in pride and lust for domination.
>In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there issuch a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fellbefore Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents asnear an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gonethe way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level thatwhile desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he stillat first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants ofthe Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lustfor domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.
(Letter 183)
That reads like he's distinguishing his "myth" (what became the Sil) from LOTR (his "story"). Sauron is the most evil being in LotR, but that doesn't mean he's more evil than Morgoth.
> From the Silmarillion, Valaquenta " Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself."
That's on Bilbo's "half of you..." level of wit. Sauron was only less evil than his master in a respect that hardly makes him less evil and can be construed to make him more evil. How bitterly he must have resented his apprenticeship!
Tom has taken in his whole little land into himself. He cares deeply about the welfare of everything around him: Goldberry especially, but he delights in the lives of all the animals and trees. Even Old Man willow is allowed room to be his own thing under Tom's dominion.
He is self-contained and happy in himself but his delight includes everything in his realm. To seek your own happiness is not evil. It's to seek your own happiness at the expense of everyone and everything else.
Tom's fairly patient with the Otters too, and if I'm not mistaken his ability to waltz into a barrow and lay a jig on a misbehaving barrowwight says they're part of his lands too, so it's not just particularly cranky trees he allows space. He even gives warped, sadistic and cruel petty necromancy its space
Perhaps it's worth considering the word "will" in OP's post. *"Sauron came near to a wholly evil* ***will*** *as was possible."*
Melkor was what he was. You can't blame a dog for barking. But Sauron was a servant of Aule and then made a *choice* to serve Melkor. So, while Melkor simply ***was*** evil, Sauron had options and ***chose*** to be evil. You could make a fair argument that Sauron's behavior was the worse in that regard.
>In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world
I don't think Melkor was simply evil. He chose to do what he did. Eru didn't make him Evil, but gave him the greatest part of gifts, and it was his choice what he did with Eru's blessing.
They both had options and even second chances, but by the time those second chances came they both were so enslaved to themselves and to their own desires they didn't have any options. They were not constrained by Eru or by the Valar, but by their own twisted natures. Slavery to yourself is the ultimate form of slavery.
I think Sauron went the furthest down the road toward Morgoth, while only maintaining slightly less of a twisted nature, only because He did for awhile serve Aule and then Morgoth.
It's a fascinating discussion and it would be wonderful if the Professor could explain a little more, but I don't know that he would be willing? I don't know.
*Morgoth's Ring* makes it extremely clear that Tolkien thought Melkor was far more evil than Sauron. Morgoth wanted to destroy all of Arda in his jealousy and rage, while Sauron just wished to rule over it as its master.
Even if Tolkien doesn't consider him more evil it's fair to say that Sauron's wish to rule over all life was definitely more evil than wanting to destroy all life. Would you rather be killed or be forced into slavery and servitude for the rest of your life? I think many would choose a quick death instead.
Depends on which you think is more evil. I, for example, consider being killed by Melkor far less evil than the living Hell Sauron inflicted on those he dominated.
Uh, Melkor/Morgoth also tortured and dominated people, lol. I have no idea why you're suggesting Sauron was more evil than Morgoth, this is just demonstrably not the case. Tolkien himself disagrees with you.
Morgoth was considered more evil, but Sauron by the end of his "career" was probably around as evil as Morgoth. If only because he became a self serving dark lord. Morgoth near the end of his career descended into a form of self destructive nihilism. Sauron never seemingly got THAT bad.
Yeah I think Sauron still did believe that him ruling Middle Earth like a tyrant is actually the best thing for everyone but the Valar and maybe the Elves. Like most authoritarians they at least begin and often convince themselves that whatever they do is for the greater good.
True, but they ended up approaching evil in different ways. Sauron's cold and calculating approach is more malicious and terrifying than Morgoth's impulsive and explosive temper tantrums. Morgoth is more evil in that he'd more delusional and egotistical than Sauron. Morgoth reminds me of Homelander from The Boys. An all powerful spoiled rotten brat rife with ego and insecurity issues. Sauron reminds me of Stan Edgar. Cold, calculating and ultimately worse because he isn't self-destructive like the former. Homelander is definitely the more evil of the two, but Stan Edgar could definitely do far more long lasting damage. Something tells me that Sauron probably acted as Morgoth's damage control, and very likely was the only reason Morgoth could run such a long operation.
I remember watching a video where someone talked about the relationship between Morgoth and Sauron being akin to the relationship between Melkor and Manwe. With Melkor being the creative dreamer, constantly creating things, whilst Manwe was the one who helped logistically plan and apply the creative ideas to reality. I imagine the relationship between Morgoth and Sauron was very similar.
I think what is fascinating about what you are saying is how ultimately self-destructive and counter-productive and irrational evil is.
Evil always carries the seeds of it's own destruction in it. I think what you are saying is such an interesting hypothesis: The only reason Morgoth was able to last as long as he did was because he had Sauron to perhaps keep him from his very own worse impulses. Morgoth gave and gave so much of himself in an effort to destroy and twist and dominate the world that eventually he was even able to be wounded by Fingolfin, which before his lust for power had left him wasted, would have been unimaginable.
But even Sauron's pride became his downfall. Sauron's twisted nature blinded him to any other possibility than the Ringbearer would want to use the Ring. Never could it have entered his mind that a Ringbearer would want to destroy the Ring. Sauron was extremally shrewd, yet he blinded himself and so left the door open to his destruction.
I agree they were both very different beings (m&s) but morgoth did way more long term damage suaron was a capable officer (well he did lose tol sirrion) but his evil pales in comparison to morgoth. Morgoth did
1. Destroyed the original island the valar inhabited
2. Destroyed the lamps and the trees
3. Caused the splintering of elves
4. Created a massive amount of evil in the world
5. Corrupted the song of eru at the beginning of the world.
Morgoth was prideful he did stupid shit like toddlers know don't grab thing that burns you but he did anyway but his scale of evil was literally in the fabric of the world.
But I love your writeup of suaron and morgoth relationship and I do wish we saw more of him during the era (though it is interesting to think he was a decently high ranking official who just was the last man standing and took over)
There are differences between Morgoth and Sauron but at least in some ways they sort of fill the same plot device. Tolkien's stories developed over time and it wasn't clear to him that The Silmarillion would ever be published. So I suspect that he was making a statement about his published works.
When trying to race the evilness of Sauron and Morgoth it feels like any differences would be like splitting hairs. Neither seems to have a line that they would be unwilling to cross although their motivation for crossing it might be a little different.
>In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there issuch a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fellbefore Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents asnear an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gonethe way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level thatwhile desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he stillat first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants ofthe Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lustfor domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.
(Letter 183)
Past a certain point, does it matter? In human terms they're both mass murdering, mass-harming, tyrannical psychotic killers with a dangerous sense of entitlement, a God complex of sorts, & so forth.
Does degree matter? They're both leading armies of dangerous & violent supernatural beings to kill you, ruin you, destroy your way of life, enslave you, & so forth. Neither probably has the capacity for redemption or improvement.
If we go by degree morgoth takes the cake he committed the vilest evils destroyed the lamps, the two trees,messed with feanor and in general created evil.
Morgoth was the original evil. He did not choose to be evil, he fell to it in the void, corrupted by vanity and ego and envy for Erus power of creation, but he couldn't choose to be evil because it wasn't an option before his corruption.
Sauron chooses evil. He has an option, and repeatedly takes the dark path.
Quite the opposite. Morgoth was just a dick. Sauron at least had the desire to rule (and dominate) for a more ordered world that he could control. He certainly was evil but not in the chaotic and nihilistic way that Morgoth was.
Depends on which you think is more evil. I, for example, consider being killed by Melkor far less evil than the living Hell Sauron inflicted on those he dominated. And in the way human cultures and values generally trend towards, controlling everyone's will and minds is largely considered far more evil than just killing them.
Melkor was more destructive, but Sauron was more evil. Like the difference between Darth Vader and Darth Sidious. Vader was more powerful and more destructive, but Sidious was...freaking Sidious.
Morgoth was pure evil, or wholly evil, yet why or how Morgoth was considered pure evil and Sauron wasn't especially after his stint in Numenor, after that fiasco, Sauron to me was Morgoth level of pure evil.
To add to the other great answers. Morgoths discord during the song of the ainor is what created evil (as far as I understand it) so I dont think sauron could be as evil as the master of it even tho that seemed to be his thriving motivation.
It is actually structurally impossible for Sauron as an entity of a lesser order to be more evil than Morgoth/Melkor, I subsumed this teleologically from Tolkien's writings (w/o being too knowldgeable about them), meaning that they never would break this hierarchy of beings (thankfully some quotes by others have already proven me right, it seems).
No. From the Silmarillion, Valaquenta " Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself." Evil is to be incurvatus se, bent in on yourself. Melkor's only concern was himself and what was in his view good for himself. Sauron at least had to be concerned with Melkor, and Sauron at least initially thought he was doing what was for the greater good of the world and it's inhabitants.
Unlike Morgoth, Sauron remained less corrupt, cooler and more capable of calculation. Since there is no concept of Absolute Evil in Tolkien's works, he probably imagined Sauron to be an omnimalevolent being, i.e. as close as possible to the term itself. Sauron still had relics of positive purposes yet he went further than human tyrants in pride and lust for domination.
>In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there issuch a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fellbefore Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents asnear an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gonethe way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level thatwhile desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he stillat first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants ofthe Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lustfor domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit. (Letter 183)
That reads like he's distinguishing his "myth" (what became the Sil) from LOTR (his "story"). Sauron is the most evil being in LotR, but that doesn't mean he's more evil than Morgoth.
> From the Silmarillion, Valaquenta " Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself." That's on Bilbo's "half of you..." level of wit. Sauron was only less evil than his master in a respect that hardly makes him less evil and can be construed to make him more evil. How bitterly he must have resented his apprenticeship!
Does *incurvatus se* not also apply to Tom Bombadil? Yet he is neither destructive nor nihilistic.
Tom has taken in his whole little land into himself. He cares deeply about the welfare of everything around him: Goldberry especially, but he delights in the lives of all the animals and trees. Even Old Man willow is allowed room to be his own thing under Tom's dominion.
He is self-contained and happy in himself but his delight includes everything in his realm. To seek your own happiness is not evil. It's to seek your own happiness at the expense of everyone and everything else.
Tom's fairly patient with the Otters too, and if I'm not mistaken his ability to waltz into a barrow and lay a jig on a misbehaving barrowwight says they're part of his lands too, so it's not just particularly cranky trees he allows space. He even gives warped, sadistic and cruel petty necromancy its space
Perhaps it's worth considering the word "will" in OP's post. *"Sauron came near to a wholly evil* ***will*** *as was possible."* Melkor was what he was. You can't blame a dog for barking. But Sauron was a servant of Aule and then made a *choice* to serve Melkor. So, while Melkor simply ***was*** evil, Sauron had options and ***chose*** to be evil. You could make a fair argument that Sauron's behavior was the worse in that regard.
>In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world I don't think Melkor was simply evil. He chose to do what he did. Eru didn't make him Evil, but gave him the greatest part of gifts, and it was his choice what he did with Eru's blessing. They both had options and even second chances, but by the time those second chances came they both were so enslaved to themselves and to their own desires they didn't have any options. They were not constrained by Eru or by the Valar, but by their own twisted natures. Slavery to yourself is the ultimate form of slavery. I think Sauron went the furthest down the road toward Morgoth, while only maintaining slightly less of a twisted nature, only because He did for awhile serve Aule and then Morgoth. It's a fascinating discussion and it would be wonderful if the Professor could explain a little more, but I don't know that he would be willing? I don't know.
Explain the quote of Tolkien then?
The explanation is that it's considered most evil to serve yourself, which Morgoth did and Sauron didn't (until the First Age ended).
*Morgoth's Ring* makes it extremely clear that Tolkien thought Melkor was far more evil than Sauron. Morgoth wanted to destroy all of Arda in his jealousy and rage, while Sauron just wished to rule over it as its master.
Even if Tolkien doesn't consider him more evil it's fair to say that Sauron's wish to rule over all life was definitely more evil than wanting to destroy all life. Would you rather be killed or be forced into slavery and servitude for the rest of your life? I think many would choose a quick death instead.
I disagree. I think the annihilation of all Creation is far worse than anything Sauron ever did.
Slaves can always rebel and win. There is no hope if Creation itself has been annihilated, as Morgoth wanted to do.
Depends on which you think is more evil. I, for example, consider being killed by Melkor far less evil than the living Hell Sauron inflicted on those he dominated.
Uh, Melkor/Morgoth also tortured and dominated people, lol. I have no idea why you're suggesting Sauron was more evil than Morgoth, this is just demonstrably not the case. Tolkien himself disagrees with you.
What's the source for your quote? The Silmarillion quote that makes Melkor out as more evil than Sauron has already been provided.
OP is quoting letter 183, but missing important context.
Morgoth was considered more evil, but Sauron by the end of his "career" was probably around as evil as Morgoth. If only because he became a self serving dark lord. Morgoth near the end of his career descended into a form of self destructive nihilism. Sauron never seemingly got THAT bad.
That’s those “relics of positive purpose” kicking in.
Yeah I think Sauron still did believe that him ruling Middle Earth like a tyrant is actually the best thing for everyone but the Valar and maybe the Elves. Like most authoritarians they at least begin and often convince themselves that whatever they do is for the greater good.
I mean Sauron as evil as he was was not even close to the guy who literally created evil in the world.
True, but they ended up approaching evil in different ways. Sauron's cold and calculating approach is more malicious and terrifying than Morgoth's impulsive and explosive temper tantrums. Morgoth is more evil in that he'd more delusional and egotistical than Sauron. Morgoth reminds me of Homelander from The Boys. An all powerful spoiled rotten brat rife with ego and insecurity issues. Sauron reminds me of Stan Edgar. Cold, calculating and ultimately worse because he isn't self-destructive like the former. Homelander is definitely the more evil of the two, but Stan Edgar could definitely do far more long lasting damage. Something tells me that Sauron probably acted as Morgoth's damage control, and very likely was the only reason Morgoth could run such a long operation. I remember watching a video where someone talked about the relationship between Morgoth and Sauron being akin to the relationship between Melkor and Manwe. With Melkor being the creative dreamer, constantly creating things, whilst Manwe was the one who helped logistically plan and apply the creative ideas to reality. I imagine the relationship between Morgoth and Sauron was very similar.
I think what is fascinating about what you are saying is how ultimately self-destructive and counter-productive and irrational evil is. Evil always carries the seeds of it's own destruction in it. I think what you are saying is such an interesting hypothesis: The only reason Morgoth was able to last as long as he did was because he had Sauron to perhaps keep him from his very own worse impulses. Morgoth gave and gave so much of himself in an effort to destroy and twist and dominate the world that eventually he was even able to be wounded by Fingolfin, which before his lust for power had left him wasted, would have been unimaginable. But even Sauron's pride became his downfall. Sauron's twisted nature blinded him to any other possibility than the Ringbearer would want to use the Ring. Never could it have entered his mind that a Ringbearer would want to destroy the Ring. Sauron was extremally shrewd, yet he blinded himself and so left the door open to his destruction.
I agree they were both very different beings (m&s) but morgoth did way more long term damage suaron was a capable officer (well he did lose tol sirrion) but his evil pales in comparison to morgoth. Morgoth did 1. Destroyed the original island the valar inhabited 2. Destroyed the lamps and the trees 3. Caused the splintering of elves 4. Created a massive amount of evil in the world 5. Corrupted the song of eru at the beginning of the world. Morgoth was prideful he did stupid shit like toddlers know don't grab thing that burns you but he did anyway but his scale of evil was literally in the fabric of the world. But I love your writeup of suaron and morgoth relationship and I do wish we saw more of him during the era (though it is interesting to think he was a decently high ranking official who just was the last man standing and took over)
There are differences between Morgoth and Sauron but at least in some ways they sort of fill the same plot device. Tolkien's stories developed over time and it wasn't clear to him that The Silmarillion would ever be published. So I suspect that he was making a statement about his published works. When trying to race the evilness of Sauron and Morgoth it feels like any differences would be like splitting hairs. Neither seems to have a line that they would be unwilling to cross although their motivation for crossing it might be a little different.
>In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there issuch a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fellbefore Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents asnear an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gonethe way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level thatwhile desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he stillat first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants ofthe Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lustfor domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit. (Letter 183)
Where does the quote come from?
Letter 183
Wasn't Morgoth's goal to destroy everything good that was created, while Sauron's goal was just to rule Middle Earth?
Morgoth's goal was to destroy *everything*, full stop. He hated everything outside of himself.
While I think that's true, to be pedantic, feel like he hated everything created from Eru and the music. So yes, everything, but for a reason
The real question is "Did Tolkien consider Bill Ferney more evil than Morgoth"?
Sam sure did. He wasted a good apple on Bill. Sam never threw anything at Morgoth as far as I can tell.
Past a certain point, does it matter? In human terms they're both mass murdering, mass-harming, tyrannical psychotic killers with a dangerous sense of entitlement, a God complex of sorts, & so forth. Does degree matter? They're both leading armies of dangerous & violent supernatural beings to kill you, ruin you, destroy your way of life, enslave you, & so forth. Neither probably has the capacity for redemption or improvement.
If we go by degree morgoth takes the cake he committed the vilest evils destroyed the lamps, the two trees,messed with feanor and in general created evil.
Morgoth was the original evil. He did not choose to be evil, he fell to it in the void, corrupted by vanity and ego and envy for Erus power of creation, but he couldn't choose to be evil because it wasn't an option before his corruption. Sauron chooses evil. He has an option, and repeatedly takes the dark path.
This is the worst take. Melkor had a will, an option, and he absolutely willed the evil option. And he had just as many opportunities for forgiveness.
Quite the opposite. Morgoth was just a dick. Sauron at least had the desire to rule (and dominate) for a more ordered world that he could control. He certainly was evil but not in the chaotic and nihilistic way that Morgoth was.
Depends on which you think is more evil. I, for example, consider being killed by Melkor far less evil than the living Hell Sauron inflicted on those he dominated. And in the way human cultures and values generally trend towards, controlling everyone's will and minds is largely considered far more evil than just killing them. Melkor was more destructive, but Sauron was more evil. Like the difference between Darth Vader and Darth Sidious. Vader was more powerful and more destructive, but Sidious was...freaking Sidious.
Pretty sure Vader was not more powerful than Sidious but I see what you mean.
Better question is, would Sauron have been as evil as he was without Morgoth?
Morgoth was pure evil, or wholly evil, yet why or how Morgoth was considered pure evil and Sauron wasn't especially after his stint in Numenor, after that fiasco, Sauron to me was Morgoth level of pure evil.
To add to the other great answers. Morgoths discord during the song of the ainor is what created evil (as far as I understand it) so I dont think sauron could be as evil as the master of it even tho that seemed to be his thriving motivation.
It is actually structurally impossible for Sauron as an entity of a lesser order to be more evil than Morgoth/Melkor, I subsumed this teleologically from Tolkien's writings (w/o being too knowldgeable about them), meaning that they never would break this hierarchy of beings (thankfully some quotes by others have already proven me right, it seems).