Feanor's oath: I just don't get it ...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Exactly. Passions are a good slave but a terrible master.

True, but many, if not all, of the greatest movers and shakers throughout history had some major faults.

[Rían]

I agree!

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

True, but many, if not all, of the greatest movers and shakers throughout history had some major faults.

Well, if there is anything remarkable about Feanor's leadership, it is how royally he screws up almost everything he has. He is an anti-example of leadership.

[The Gaffer]

I think the point about Feanor is figurative. He is the archetypical impassioned visionary genius.

He learned a lot from Melkor, yet saw through him; in some ways, he saw him more clearly even than Manwe, who of course set him free.

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

He is the archetypical impassioned visionary genius.

I would replace impassioned with mad, with visionary I agree (he realised his quest is doomed, but didn't give a damn anyway), and genius I would prefix with "anti-" when it comes to military.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

He learned a lot from Melkor

I disagree

Originally Posted by Of Feanor and the Unchainning of Melkor, Silmarillion

Melkor indeed declared afterwards that Feanor had learned much art from him in secret, and had been instructed by him in the greatest of all his works; but he lied in his lust and his envy, for none of the Eldalie ever hated Melkor more than Feanor son of Finwe, who first named him Morgoth; and snared though he was in the webs of Melkor's malice against the Valar he held no converse with him and took no counsel from him. For Feanor was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone; and he asked the aid and sought the counsel of none that dwelt in Aman, great or small, save only and for a little while of Nerdanel the wise, his wife.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

he saw him more clearly even than Manwe, who of course set him free

Since he saw little if any difference between Melkor and the valar, I doubt that what he saw is valid.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

who of course set him free

Tolkien commented at large in Osanwe-kenta about Manwe setting Melkor, it was his duty to do so

Originally Posted by Enquiry into the Communication of Thought

If we speak last of the "folly" of Manwe and the weakness and unwariness of the Valar, let us beware how we judge.
...
Manwe was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom. He was ever open because he had nothing to conceal, no thought that it was harmful for any to know, if they could comprehend it. Indeed Melkor knew his will without questioning it; and he knew that Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose.
...
The weakest and most imprudent of all the actions of Manwe, as it seems to many, was the release of Melkor from captivity. From this came the greatest loss and harm: the death of the Trees, and the exile and the anguish of the Noldor. Yet through this suffering there came also, as maybe in no other way could it have come, the victory of the Elder Days: the downfall of Angband and the last overthrow of Melkor.

Who then can say with assurance that if Melkor had been held in bond less evil would have followed? Even in his diminishment the power of Melkor is beyond our calculation. Yet some ruinous outburst of his despair is not the worst that might have befallen. The release was according to the promise of Manwe. If Manwe had broken this promise for his own purposes, even though still intending "good", he would have taken a step upon the paths of Melkor.

[The Gaffer]

Fair point, I'd forgotten that Feanor actually rejected Melkor's advances.

However, surely your quote from Osanwe-kenta, whatever that is, works both ways.

Manwe frees Melkor, he's doing the will of Eru. Feanor pursues Melkor and swears undying vengeance, Feanor is mad.

How are we to know the difference? Is not Feanor doing the will of Eru?

[Landroval]

How are we to know the difference? Is not Feanor doing the will of Eru?

But the valar are the regents of Eru, and only Manwe has direct recourse to him. Feanor could not claim an equal status to them in contradicting their will. This is a personal vendetta, no matter how he packages it, esspecially since we know he was marred by Melkor's lies. Even if Eru stated (about the Men) that even those who go astray: "these too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work", that doesn't mean that all individual actions are in correspondence with Eru's axani (rules). In the end, all the actions are turned by Eru into gifts and blessings; Tolkien commented that Gollum's actions may work for good at a cosmological level (letter #181); but still, "we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge".

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

How are we to know the difference? Is not Feanor doing the will of Eru?

No - I don't think Feanor was doing the will of Eru. Way back when Melkor started messing with Eru's Music, Eru started right to work fixing things. Feanor had the free will to do what was right or what was wrong. He did what was wrong, as Eru knew he would (but Eru didn't decree that he do wrong) because what Feanor would do was expressed in the discord of Melkor's disruption to the Music - and the reintroduction of it into Eru's greater theme.

So - Eru was able to take the wrong that Feanor would do, and turn it to good - but Feanor doing that wrong was not part of His original scheme.

[brownjenkins]

I think it was all intended. The existence of the music itself points to a very deterministic world, at least as far as Eru is concerned. I can't remember "free will" ever being implied.

[Peter_20]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I can't remember "free will" ever being implied.

Humans were allowed to live their lives beyond the music of the Ainur, though; it's stated somewhere in the beginning of The Silmarillion.

[Landroval]

I was more than just humans who specifically had free will:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale, Silmarillion

Therefore when they beheld them [the children of Eru], the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Iluvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise had been hidden even from the Ainur.

what is specific to humans is that they escape the circles of Ea.

The existence of the music itself points to a very deterministic world, at least as far as Eru is concerned.

Eru himself guarantees free will, even that of Melkor

Originally Posted by Letter #153

Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences. So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation.

[NelyafinweMaitimo]

In my opinion, the breaking of the oath would have redeemed it. The very fact that they swore to Eru, that Feanor was arrogant enough to not trust the Valar and demand witness of Iluvatar, was the true sin the Feanorians commited. They literally and truly took the Lord's name in vain.

[Jon S.]

I can't believe this thread is still going!

I still can't help but feel that if a person - say an elf - takes the Lord's name in vain in a way that, to fulfill the oath, requires the person to do even worse things (like murder), wouldn't the reasonable and ethical response be to cut your losses for the oath-taking by accepting the consequences/punishment for not fulfilling as opposed to making things much worse for yourself in Eru's eyes by compounding the evil?

If there's a religion on the earth that answers this question "no" I'm not sure I know of it. If there's a religion on the earth that doesn't appoint representatives or intermediaries that can absolve the oath I don't know of it either. Certainly, in Tolkien's own religion, the Pope would be so authorized (i.e., to absolve or forgive an act of taking the Lord's name in vain/voiding a resulting oath, right?

Seems to me the responses might or should have been similar in ME.

[ecthelion]

I think they were still bound to their oath.
First, by the same feelings of lust, arrogance and mistrust which made them swear it in the first place. The elves did not cool down with the centuries (maybe after a few millenia they would). In my opinion they still had the same strong feelings.
And second, by the doom of Mandos which hardened their hearts to all the suffering they caused and made them pursue the oath to its fulfillment ["Their Oath shall drive them, and yet betray them, and ever snatch away the very treasures that they have sworn to pursue"].

[Jon S.]

Upon further consideration of everything posted to date, I think you nail it, ecthelion, thanks for your response.