Knowledge in Tolkien

In the previous post, we had put forth Tolkien's view that all of us tend toward domination of relationships on some level. That this is part of the fallen nature of humanity recalls the story of the first humans in the book of Genesis. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is a temptation to Adam and Eve only when it becomes enframed for them, a tool to some end that had not previously been a part of their reality (see "Enframing in Tolkien" post below for an introduction to this discussion). There is no suggestion in the biblical text that they are in need of the fruit for sustenance. Likewise, there is no mention of malicious intent on the part of the serpent: it is simply referred to as crafty (translated from the Greek word meaning “understanding associated w. insight and wisdom, sensible, thoughtful, prudent, wise”[1]). In fact, the serpent isn’t even lying; he creates desire in the first humans where it had not existed, and then quite simply presents the facts in a slightly twisted way so as to offer justification for the newly born human desire. The fruit of the tree was no longer a prohibited but un-needed part of their world with which their primary relationship was to enjoy its beauty in and of itself, but was rather a device for their becoming “like God, knowing good from evil.”[2] The tragedy born by this creation myth is twofold: the relationship between creature and Creator was changed, as well as that between humanity and nature.

To stop here, however, leaves us with the notion that it is knowledge, or perhaps even wisdom that began the downward spiral of humanity. If the serpent is wise and in fact does have new information for Adam and Eve, it needs also to be said that this information is only true in a particular sense; it remains incomplete. The serpent informs Eve that she and Adam will not die; and it is right in a literal sense, for God does not put them to death. But in another sense, death is indeed the product of the altered relationship between God and humanity, especially if we consider (as much of scripture alludes to) that life is properly defined as right relationship with the Creator. The tree of life, which was not said to have been prohibited before, was now inaccessible through expulsion from its presence. Since we are not told that the serpent tried to deceive the humans with his wisdom, which again was not incorrect as stated, it was the use made of the wisdom, its purpose, if you will, that soured the relationships at hand.

(Ken, the two paragraphs above could introduce the looks at both the Palantir and Galadriel's mirror. That's a lot of stuff - could be either a long post or a two-parter. I'd hate to leave either one hanging, though - unexpounded, so to speak.)

[1] Bauer, Danker. A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)
[2] Genesis 3:5, NRSV translation

Choices in Tolkien

The struggle against the most basic forms of domination, like Heidegger's enframing (see previous post for the enframing discussion), begins for Tolkien simply by our own understanding that all people tend towards it. We all have the potential to become the monster, regardless of the goodness of our original intentions. To be moved by Tolkien's work, it is essential to see in his characters the very real possibility that other life choices could produce another self. Only a superficial and cursory reading of Tolkien finds good and evil in definitive terms - black and white, without any shades of gray. Frodo finds it in himself to show mercy to Gollum, in part, because he sees in Gollum what he could yet become himself. Likewise, by association with the hobbits, Gollum at one point can see himself in them.

Who Tolkien's characters are in actuality is shown to be the result of choices made, many of which turn on how they understand the connection between the overarching choice one makes between good and evil on one hand, and the smaller, seemingly unimportant choice that lies before them in the present on the other. These choices are never disconnected from who we understand ourselves to be: the end can never justify the means used to reach that end. The Ring cannot be used against Sauron because domination and coercion are its tools, and that is inconsistent with who the fellowship is to be. In a letter to his son Christopher, who was at the time fighting in WWII, Tolkien lamented the use of planes as weapons against the enemy. He likened it to the Shirefolk, on stumbling upon a "Nazgul bird," proceeding to use it to fight against Sauron.

Gandalf can resist the temptation of the Ring precisely because he can see what Sauron is as a possibility for himself. Early in Book I, Gandalf refuses to bear the Ring for this reason. "Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good" (The Fellowship of the Ring). While he has altogether different purposes for the power that the Ring offers, the Ring as a means to that end is not justified. One who uses the Ring for anything is one like Sauron, or will become more like him by using his means.


The ability to see the possibility of evil in themselves is precisely what offers Tolkien's characters the choice of whom they will be. Characters such as Saruman who are blind to such possibilities in themselves never recognize that a choice was made and are thereby destined, suggests Tolkien, to "enframe" the relationships in their lives. Jane Chance wrote of Frodo's resistance of the Ring's power on Amon Hen and of his subsequent departure from the fellowship that "...Frodo can now function as a hero for he understands he may, at any time, become a 'monster'" (Chance, Jane. "The Lord of the Rings: Tolkien's Epic").

This concept generates for me a number of questions: Can I see in my own life not only my potential to enframe relationships, but also the existence of enframing within my current relationships with others, with nature, with...? Can I find myself in those that I tend to want to demonize? If not, what am I in the process of becoming? If so, how can I interact with them in a way that is consistent with who I understand myself to be, who I want to become?

Enframing in Tolkien

In the early 1950's, Martin Heidegger described a concept that he referred to as "enframing." In short, the idea is that a person (or a people), intentionally or otherwise, shrinks the boundaries that are the essence of something or someone else. The object of one's enframing is defined in terms of the use that it has for the enframer only. Its reality has changed for the enframer from something that is other and independent of all purpose (or at the least, in which that view remains a possibility), to a tool for the enframer's use, a means to their own private end. It is now defined according to the purposes of one who can dominate it for an end already in the mind of the enframer, independent of the thing itself.

In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien presents the idea of enframing as a reality that is part of the fallen nature of humanity, common to us all. While the ring itself is the book's most dramatic incarnation of this idea, Tolkien takes care throughout the story to demonstrate the temptation to define people and things in terms of one's own desired ends. It is evident in the fall of Saruman as he gradually sets aside his original purpose in being sent to Middle-Earth for purposes that he deems to be his own. All creatures and thngs in the world about Saruman become either a means or an obstacle to his desired ends. Treebeard most clearly articulates this process as he experiences Saruman's rejection of Treebeard himself and all that is important to him.

"I used to talk to him. There was a time when he was always walking about my woods. He was polite in those days, always asking my leave (at least when he met me); and always eager to listen. I told him many things that he would never have found out by himself; but he never repaid me in like kind. I cannot remember that he ever told me anything. And he got more and more like that; his face, as I remember it - I have not seen it for many a day - became like windows in a stone wall; windows with shudders inside. I think that I now understand what he is up to. He is plotting to become a Power; he has a mind of metal and wheels, and he does not care for growing things, except as far as they serve him for the moment" (The Two Towers).

The power of this observation becomes palpable when Treebeard and Saruman are understood in a broad sense to describe the historical relationship between nature and humanity.

We'll keep this thread alive for a while, so check back in a few days. In the mean time, what do think? It seems like enframing must have begun when the first hominid looked at a rock, and saw it merely as a tool with which to down his next meal. Sam surely used things, planted things in his garden, for example, for some purpose of his own. But how is that related to the vision he had while wearing the Ring that "at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit...," a garden "swollen to a realm" (The Return of the King)?