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

[Jon S.]

Assuming abandoning an oath to God (Illuvatar) is indeed a bad thing ("sin"), is it worse than serial murder?!

I just reread the Simarillion (as I do every year or two) and have to admit, I'm more perplexed at the behavior of Feanor and his sons than ever over their simarils oath.

At the end of the voyage of Earendil, Maglor finally actually comes close to at least postponing, if not abandoning the oath, claiming more or less, (1) Let's submit to the Valar, maybe afterwards they'll simply return the jewels to us and we'll come into our own in peace, and (2) If Manwe and Varda personally disown an oath we made naming them as witnesses, isn't it then void?

Only to have Maedrhos (I really don't like him!) reply, "But how shall our voices reach to Illuvatar beyond the Circles of the World? And to Illuvatar we swore in our madness, and called the Everlasting Darkness upon us, if we kept not our word."

Maglor then replies with a variant of my opening observation: "If none can release us, then indeed the Everlasting Darkness shall be our lot, whether we keep our oath or break it; but less evil shall we do in the breaking."

But then he submits to Maedrhos will and does the greater evil anyway, knowingly!

Tokien, of course, was a serious Catholic. I don't know much about how Catholics deal with this type of issue but in my own tradition, the problem - theologically and practically - of oaths to God that cannot or should not be kept was easily addressed hundreds if not thousands of years ago by empowering a religious court to grant the people's petition to forego their ill-advised oaths via a prayer called Kol Nidre. This prayer, which applies only to oaths between an individual and God (not to another person - look it up in Wikipedia if more info. on it would be helpful), was designed specifically to address the same basic problem as faced by Feanor and his sons as a result of their own rash, ill-advised oath.

This outcome seems so simple and practical that it leads me to ask: why no Middle Earth equivalent? The Valar are essentially Illuvatar's representatives on Earth, aren't they. In another thread of mine on this forum, I comment on how Manwe reported looking inward to learn the will of Illuvatar which he then shared and acted on.

Feanor's oath was so darn stupid and evil. Why couldn't Manwe have checked in with Illuvatar on that one, too?

[Peter_20]

Actually, the Oath of Fëanor was the very reason the Noldor journeyed back to Middle-earth, and this journey was in turn the reason the Noldor did great deeds in those parts of the world.

It's just like the Music of the Ainur states from the start:
evil deeds will result in heroic deeds later on.
So the Oath basically was a good thing in the end.

[Landroval]

Actually, the Oath of Fëanor was the very reason the Noldor journeyed back to Middle-earth, and this journey was in turn the reason the Noldor did great deeds in those parts of the world.
I disagree; most of the elves returned to Middle Earth due to the kinship between the houses. Some of them, like Galadriel, simply wanted lands of their own.
They swore an oath which none shall break, and none should take, by the name even of Iluvatar, calling the Everlasting Dark upon them if they kept it not; and Manwe they named in witness, and Varda, and the hallowed mountain of Taniquetil, vowing to pursue with vengeance and hatred to the ends of the World Vala, Demon, Elf or Man as yet unborn, or any creature, great or small, good or evil, that time should bring forth unto the end of days, whoso should hold or take or keep a Silmaril from their possession.
Calling the darkness? Pursuing the rulers of the world with vengeance? From the very start, this was not committed to Iluvatar, but to evil. Considering its nature, in Ea maybe only Melkor could have freed them from the oath ;).

[brownjenkins]

Actually, the Oath of Fëanor was the very reason the Noldor journeyed back to Middle-earth, and this journey was in turn the reason the Noldor did great deeds in those parts of the world.

It's just like the Music of the Ainur states from the start:
evil deeds will result in heroic deeds later on.
So the Oath basically was a good thing in the end.

I agree. Fëanor was the catalyst for all that followed. Without him Middle Earth would still be the realm of Melkor. And I think that it was the death of his father that was the true motivation behind his oath, more than it was the Silmarils.

[Olmer]

Without him Middle Earth would still be the realm of Melkor.
I don't think that it would be worse than living in a quiet stagnant pool, without any progress, where the only things you can do is to sing songs and tell the tales about how good Valar are. Where the time slowed down to non existence, and anything you want to do should be approved by the higher authorities.

It's fortunate for ME dwellers that, thanks to Melkor, the Grand Project of Valar to make a gilded cage out of ME, the same, as they did to Vanyar in Aman, did not materialise . :cool:

Actually, I understand Feanor's intentions to go against an overbearing will of demi-gods.

[The Gaffer]

* agrees with the above, even the ones that disagree * :confused:

In Tolkien's milieu, words, and oaths have far more power than they do in ours.
- think of Gollum being afraid to cheat at the riddling game
- Elrond's advice re: oaths
- The Dead (as in Paths of)
- The World itself was formed from music (presumably including lyrics of some sort :D )

Whether this power derives from Iluvatar or what, there is obviously something very literal about how their oaths translated into real life.

Think also of its power to "out" even those who tried to escape it; Galadrield, who did not even take the oath, was bound into its fate.

Dunno about this canonical court thing, but clearly it doesn't apply here.

[Jon S.]

In Tolkien's milieu, words, and oaths have far more power than they do in ours.

Dunno about this canonical court thing, but clearly it doesn't apply here.
In today's society where when you're in the government, are convicted of perjury, and look immediately for your pardon - yes. In the Biblical and other prior days - no, oaths were in many cultures taken as seriously as in ME.

On the latter point, obviously it doesn't apply in ME but my question is why (or why not)?

Here's the logic model that could, at least theoretically, apply to ME:

1. Oaths to Illuvatar (God) are binding.
2. God won't speak directly to His creations.
3. God will, however, let His will be known, at least occasionally, to his representatives.
4. The Valar are Illuvatar's ME reps.
5. Manwe, in particular, by going inward, can at least occasionally learn the will of Illuvatar.
6. Upon request, Manwe looks inward and ascertains that the Illuvatar is not particularly interested in Feanor and his sons keeping the particular oath.

But even if this is deemed not logical or ME-internally consistent, I would still repeat this alternative logic:

IF fulfilling an oath to God (Illuvatar)
has/is/will produce worse evil than abandoning it
THEN the ethical response is to abandon it
and by so doing
do the right thing overall.

Seems to me Maglor, in fact, "got" this. He was just too weak AKA insufficiently ethical to "act" on it.

[Peter_20]

By the way, Jon S., how can you NOT like Maedhros? :confused:
He's a very caring guy, the only one of the brothers who actually cares for other people and shows love for them.

*he felt sad for the burning of the ships at Losgar
*because of this, he waived his claim to kingship, and gave it to Fingolfin
*he formed the Union of Maedhros
*he sought for the sons of Dior, Eluréd and ElurÃ*n
*he and Maglor took care of Elrond and Elros

So, how could anyone dislike him?
He had a big heart, and he clearly was the most likeable of the brothers.

[The Gaffer]

In today's society where when you're in the government, are convicted of perjury, and look immediately for your pardon - yes. In the Biblical and other prior days - no, oaths were in many cultures taken as seriously as in ME.
I think you missed my point, which is about how the world works, not about human cultures and values.

Take the example of the Oathbreakers from the Paths of the Dead. How did they end up cursed for three millennia? How did Aragorn summon them to serve him?

Somehow I don't think that sort of thing went on in pre-Biblical times, or any other. :)

[Earniel]

So, how could anyone dislike him?
He had a big heart, and he clearly was the most likeable of the brothers.
And that's why, in his big-heartedness, having learned clearly his lessons from the destruction of Menegroth, he decided to attack the settlement at the Mouths of the Sirion, kill a good deal of the inhabitants there, destroy the town, and send Elwing fleeing over the cliff end.

In equal spirits, a while later he goes off in the night, slays some guards and escapes with a stolen silmaril.

Yeah, I'm sure he's a big softie, really. :p

[Jon S.]

I think you missed my point, which is about how the world works, not about human cultures and values.

Take the example of the Oathbreakers from the Paths of the Dead. How did they end up cursed for three millennia? How did Aragorn summon them to serve him?

Somehow I don't think that sort of thing went on in pre-Biblical times, or any other. :)I have to admit, never did I think I'd ever find reason to quote from the Ten Commandments in an Entmoot thread!

"You shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God for the Lord will not clear one who swears falsely by His name." Exodus 20:7 (JPS Translation) See also Deuteronomy 5:11.

It doesn't get much more direct/stronger than this, Gaffer.

And that's exactly my point. The letter of Biblical law is clear: you swear, you don't follow through, you're cooked. But that's just the letter and just of that law. There's also a law, after all, "You shall not murder." What happens when "You shall not swear falsely" butts up against "You shall not murder?" I can tell you this: in the case of the religion that birthed the Ten Commandments, the former gave way to the latter. Always. (And not only in such an extreme conflict, via Kol Nidre, in other unfair/inappropriate/unethical cases, too.)

Apparently not in ME for the sons of Feanor, though.

The Elves were not stupid or lacking in brains or creativity.

I still don't get it.

[CAB]

This outcome seems so simple and practical that it leads me to ask: why no Middle Earth equivalent? The Valar are essentially Illuvatar's representatives on Earth, aren't they.
I don’t think we can assume that such a thing was impossible in Middle Earth. Quite probably, there had never been an occasion before this when it was necessary, so maybe the brothers were unaware of the possibility. I think most likely though, in spite of Maedrhos and Maglor’s quotes, Feanor’s two surviving sons (especially Maedrhos) were unwilling to seek forgiveness due to their great pride and guilt.

Seems to me Maglor, in fact, "got" this. He was just too weak AKA insufficiently ethical to "act" on it.I agree and think that Maedrhos “got it� also. Their priorities were out of place, pride being placed above more important things.

[The Gaffer]

I have to admit, never did I think I'd ever find reason to quote from the Ten Commandments in an Entmoot thread!
Clearly you've not been hanging out in General Messages much then. :)

However, I don't see any mention of God condemning people to walk the earth as the living dead for three millenia. Nor does it address the "how" (it is just like saying Eru=God)

Some more examples of words with power:
- Gandalf's Word of Command
- Elbereth Gilthoniel

[Rían]

And that's why, in his big-heartedness, having learned clearly his lessons from the destruction of Menegroth, he decided to attack the settlement at the Mouths of the Sirion, kill a good deal of the inhabitants there, destroy the town, and send Elwing fleeing over the cliff end.

In equal spirits, a while later he goes off in the night, slays some guards and escapes with a stolen silmaril.

Yeah, I'm sure he's a big softie, really. :p
LOL!!

[Lotesse]

I agree. Fëanor was the catalyst for all that followed. Without him Middle Earth would still be the realm of Melkor. And I think that it was the death of his father that was the true motivation behind his oath, more than it was the Silmarils.
Absolutely, and it was the genius and fire and beauty & originality and spark and flawed creativity and tortured vigour of Feanor's mind and heart and will which brought about the monumental changes in middle-earth history that we all know of as the Third Age. There'd be no story without Feanor. There'd be no nothing without this figure, quite frankly, as far as Lord Of The Rings stories go.

Why did Tolkien create Feanor? He was making a beautiful, genius artistic point, with the creation and implementaion of Feanor into his stories. Feanor was not a "Lucifer," he was not "evil," he was not even a fraction as bad or bad-ass as Sauron ever was, but he was real, accessible, human more than Elvish with his abilities both to make terrible, proud decisions and crushing, Middle-Earth shattering mistakes, his extremely rare ability to lead on such a massive scale as to have all sorts of elves following him into uncertainty and possible ostracision from Eru, with devoted fervor, even after the terrible burning of the ships and all the other fantastically far-fetched f*cked up decisions Feanor made as a leader.

About Feanor's Oath - so, you just "don't get it?" Well, try to think about it a little, try to put yourself even slightly into the mind and shoes of this great mythological leader; he was far greater a leader than Attila the Hun, or Napolean, or Genghis Khan or George Washington or Joan of Arc or Lucifer or Jesus or Puff the Magic Dragon, all combined!!!

Feanor was all that, and a bag 'o chips. He'd have freaked out Jesus, made Genghis & Attila very nervous, caused Joan to go into a paranoid trance, madce Napolean insanely jealous, and prompted George Washington to say f*ck it, can't compete, and light up a spliff.

Lucifer & Jesus'd just stick around and squabble over the publicity rights, arguing about who deserves what recognition for what portrayal of whose true character, yada yada blah blah. They'd be still locked up in litigation about that sh*t right now; cases like that last for centuries, don't they. Anyway, we all know how much intense sibling rivalry has always gone down between THOSE two, Lucifer & Jesus, oh, fuggetaboutit.

[The Gaffer]

Outstanding post, Lotsy! Especially

Feanor was all that, and a bag 'o chips.

xx

[Earniel]

About Feanor's Oath - so, you just "don't get it?" Well, try to think about it a little, try to put yourself even slightly into the mind and shoes of this great mythological leader; he was far greater a leader than Attila the Hun, or Napolean, or Genghis Khan or George Washington or Joan of Arc or Lucifer or Jesus or Puff the Magic Dragon, all combined!!!
While Fëanor did have a truckload of skills, I wouldn't quite put leadership among it. Oh, he sure knew how to inspire and convince people, he oozed charisma, no doubt. In leadership he was IMO overly rash and hasty, which eventually led to his death and the death of many. He wanted glory, whatever the cost. His last action was to remind his sons about that ill-conceived vow, knowing fully well his people could not succeed. A good leader combines passion and wisdom, Fëanor let passions rule him instead.

[Landroval]

he was far greater a leader than Attila the Hun, or Napolean, or Genghis Khan or George Washington or Joan of Arc or Lucifer or Jesus or Puff the Magic Dragon, all combined!!!
What sort of a leader is he, if he leaves behind the greater part of his host? And then burns the ship that might bring them? Forcing them to cross the Helcaraxxe at great cost of lives? The text is very clear about his madness:
Nothing did he know of Angband or the great strength of defence that Morgoth had so swiftly prepared: but even had he known it would not have deterred him, for he was fey, consumed by the flame of his own wrath
He may display ofermode, "overmastering pride", but that doesn't make him a great leader, quite the contrary. Atilla, Napoleon, Genghis Han or Washington would have to fear Feanor if they were fighting on the same side. If Feanour would be fighting against them, he would be their best asset.

[Jon S.]

About Feanor's Oath - so, you just "don't get it?" Well, try to think about it a little, try to put yourself even slightly into the mind and shoes of this great mythological leader; he was far greater a leader than Attila the Hun, or Napolean, or Genghis Khan or George Washington or Joan of Arc or Lucifer or Jesus or Puff the Magic Dragon, all combined!!!
Had I begun this post with, "So you don't get my not getting it? Well, try to read a little," that would not have made my points any more persuasive. Your post is both rude and misleading. Rude because who the _ _ _ _ are you to tell me to "try to think a little." Misleading because some of Feanors' descendents themselves expressed their doubts and I was discussing them, too.

It's not only a ME phenomenom. The real world is full of people who put their self-perceived "principles" and "leadership" above their ethics. People who will literally murder a human being for a jewel or an oath.

That, yes, I "get."

[Rían]

A good leader combines passion and wisdom, Fëanor let passions rule him instead.Exactly. Passions are a good slave but a terrible master.

And starting the fires that killed your own sons (as JRRT "hints" happened at the ships) because they didn't buy into your own personal agenda ... wow... :(

Reading The Shibboleth of Feanor in HoME 12 (The Peoples of Middle-Earth) gave me more compassion for the guy, though. I like that he's a complex character, but I think he made a progression of self-centered, self-serving choices at terrible cost to others, and his heart grew harder each time.

[brownjenkins]

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]

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]

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.
He learned a lot from Melkor
I disagree
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.
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.
who of course set him free
Tolkien commented at large in Osanwe-kenta about Manwe setting Melkor, it was his duty to do so
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?

:confused:

[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]

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]

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:
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
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.