|
Post by Stormrider on Mar 19, 2007 21:18:49 GMT -6
Fanuidhol:
I was brought up Catholic and it was my understanding that when one partner died, the other was free to marry again--to either someone who had never married or was a widow(er).
However, I was born in the 1950's when Edith was ill as stated above, so the Catholic Church may have become less strict in its views on widows and remarriage. Perhaps in the early part of the century, the Church was more strict on its standings on remarrying and permanent meant forever and after throughout eternity. (I suppose I should go look into early 20th century Catholic doctrine but I am not the best person for doing research!)
Tolkien may have believed the permanence of marriage and never doubted the Catholic doctrine until Edith was ill and then changed his terminology to lifelong thus basing his writings on Catholicism and personal experience!
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Mar 20, 2007 7:03:23 GMT -6
The Silm states "But in the bearing of her son Miriel was consumed in spirit and body" ('Of Feanor and the Chaining of Melkor' 3rd paragraph.) Sounds to me like she was a passive participant.
While thumbing through HoMe 10, 11 and 12 for clues to Miriel's character, I wondered where JRR would have gone with this story had he lived long enough to publish the Silm himself. There is a wealth of material in 10 and 12. For a moment, I'd like to jump ahead to 'The Shibboleth of Feanor', written in 1968, found in The Peoples of Middle-earth This essay goes into Feanor's history and in this version Miriel stuck around until Feanor reached adulthood. A couple pretty solid reasons were given for Feanor's resentment of Finwe's second marriage. True death was unheard of up to this point. Feanor could no longer go sit vigil over his Mom's body or hope that she would come back. He figured that he would never ever see her again. Then there is a linguistical matter. A purposeful change in pronunciation of a letter was proposed. Feanor opposed it, in part because his mother's name contained this letter, but Finwe and Indis accepted the change. The Vanyar adhered to the old pronunciation except for Indis, in support of her husband. Feanor took this as a personal affront to his mother.
In the 1951 version of the story, found in Morgoth's Ring, a "secret fire" was the cause of Feanor's swift growth after birth. Miriel's supreme skill in needlework gets some mention but that seems to be all there is.
It was the 1958-1960 version that really had alot of meat to it, especially the debate of the Valar concerning the issue p 239-247 and the meeting of Finwe and Miriel after his death 248-250. (Morgoth's Ring)
Unfortunately, I have to go. Fan
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Mar 20, 2007 10:12:03 GMT -6
The debate is interesting to our discussion because the Valar discuss who is to blame for the situation.
Aule thinks that Feanor's greatness comes from Iluvatar and therefore the cost to Miriel must be for the good of Arda. Ulmo thinks that death for the Eldar is an evil and unnatural so comes from the marring of Arda. If it came from Iluvatar then there would have been no sorrow. Nienna asks "Which of you Valar, in your wisdom, will blame these children, Finwe and Miriel?" For Miriel the cost was too great. The Valar could do nothing for Finwe. His life was impaired. Ulmo countered that both Finwe and Miriel had a "failure of Hope". Miriel died by necessity but she willed not to return because she decided her body was beyond healing. She deserted her spouse and child. Finwe fell into despair in a few years and only considered his desires rather than what had befallen his wife. A failure of love. Nienna felt that if given enough time and left in peace Miriel might not have hardened in her resolve not to come back. Finwe's impatience is of greater fault. Vaire believed that no amount of time or peace would change Miriel. And that Finwe knew this when he made his petition. She asked the Valar to consider that Finwe cannot follow Miriel as that would be unnatural. Manwe talked philosophically about Arda Unmarred and Arda Marred and the effects. Then Mandos declared that the Statute (allowing Finwe to marry again) would be declared. Even though the death of Miriel is an evil, Indis will be glad and fruitful and her children great.
Later on when Finwe died, Miriel realized her mistake and thought she might have influenced Feanor. However, she was glad that the children of Indis would "redress his errors." Finwe wished to trade places with Miriel, so to allow her to return to life. He stated "It is unlawful to have two wives, but one may love two women..." (p 249) Mandos allowed it because it was made out of pity for another, healing and good would grow from it. Miriel did not return to the Noldor, but became a handmaiden of Vaire instead. She was renamed Firiel, "She that died". This was an earlier version. The debate was not included in the later version. One thing of interest is even though Miriel was still "consumed in body and spirit" by the birth of Feanor in what sounds like a passive act on her part, she stated later ""My life has gone out into Feanor, my son. That gift I have given to him whom I loved. I can give no more." p 260 It sounds to me that even though she passively allowed her essence to be consumed, she might have had the power to prevent it. Finwe is more sympathetic in this version, voicing his willingness to wait for Miriel. The greater fault seems to be with Miriel. Fan
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Mar 20, 2007 13:51:12 GMT -6
getting back to a point I made a few posts ago and a counter from Andorinha:
""In those unhappy things which later came to pass, and in which Feanor was the leader, many saw the effect of this breach within the house of Finwe, judging that if Finwe had endured his loss and been content with the fathering of his mighty son, the courses of Feanor would have been otherwise, and great evil might have been prevented..." (The Silmarillion, hb version, p. 65)
I wrote: "I love what Verlyn Flieger has to say in Splintered Light, 2nd edition p 114, in regard to Feanor's refusal to give up the Simarils. "Subsequent events or deeds would not be externally different, but the motives behind them could be different."
I think this is applicable to my understanding of the Silm quote above. The evil talked about may be in Feanor's attitude rather than just his actions."
Andorinha wrote: "You know, Fan, I think I'd disagree with VF here. I see it from a different perspective, but wouldn't a less egotistic Feanor -- one capable of giving up his Silmarils for the common good -- have meant that he would probably have enough of a social conscience that he could not have stolen the ships of the Teleri, and committed the great crime of the Kinslaying? If his ego were not so powerful, perhaps he would not have tried to go to Middle-earth at all? Not much of a story then...
I think, to make the subsequent "adventures and crimes" of Feanor plausible, JRRT had to make this Elf a supreme egoist, had to make him the kind of person who would/ must refuse to give up the artifacts of his highest achievement. A Feanor able to sacrifice the Silmarils to "re-animate" the Trees, would not have been Feanor at all."
I think the only way to explain the statement from Silm quoted above is to accept that the story would have been radically different had Feanor been better influenced by his father and without the rivalry he felt toward his brothers.
Even if Feanor had given up the Silmarils, they had been taken by Melkor. Some of the events would have stayed the same. Feanor would have convinced the Noldor to hastily pursue Morgoth. Chances are that there would have been no Kinslaying, if and only if Feanor's temper could be kept in check. Some Elves might have been left to fend for themselves at Helcaraxe. Feanor still would have died soon after coming to Middle-earth, etc. Fan
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 20, 2007 21:11:55 GMT -6
Re Fanuidhol message #11:
"I have been digging into Hammond and Scull's two volume JRR Tolkien: Companion and Guide both the 'Chronology' and 'Reader's Guide' for some help to determine what influenced Tolkien. Andorinha seems to concentrate on Tolkien's Roman Catholic-ness, while I tend to think that somewhat more personal events may have lead the story in a particular direction." (emphasis mine)
Good point Fan, it may be possible that JRRT's personal belief system does not always conform to the standard version RC faith; and secondly, he may have had many reactions to the events of the world about him that were not cross-referenced to his religion in any way.
But, what I'm thinking here, is that for whatever personal reasons JRRT may have felt "uncomfortable" with the remarriage/ divorce issue, he probably checked through the RC dogmas to find validation for his opinions. As with most complex situations, the solutions are likely to be multi-variate. So, while the "Zimmerman fiasco," Edith's troubles, and the C.S. Lewis situation all provided influences for Tolkien's thought, I think he still passed them through the sieve of his belief system (which just happened to be RC) before making his decisions. Had JRRT been Muslim, would this issue of remarriage and/ or divorce ever have come up? On this particular issue, Fan, you'll have a hard time getting me to see no connection between JRRT's RC faith and his attitudes towards remarriage/ divorce, LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 20, 2007 21:34:47 GMT -6
RE Fanuidhol message #12: "On an entirely different note: The relatively late addition of Finwe's marriage to the golden-haired Indis may have actually come about as an explanation for Elven hair-color genetics. No proof, yet. Just a thought."
Hmmm, a possibility, and an intriguing one... But it might be hard to justify the creation of a major tragic situation of spousal bereavement, remarriage, spoiled son of first marriage going from bad to worse, just as a mechanism to explain why some Noldor have golden hair? But, as a fortuitous event, JRRT, after sketching the Feanor tragedy, might very well have decided to make the second wife a blond to explain such Noldori as Galadriel.
__________________________
RE Fanuidhol message #18
RE: "I think the only way to explain the statement from Silm quoted above is to accept that the story would have been radically different had Feanor been better influenced by his father and without the rivalry he felt toward his brothers." (emphasis mine)
Here, I think that JRRT gives us several "if only!" statements from which I suppose we may choose.
1. If only Miriel had survived, or had been willing/ able to regenerate, then Finwe would not have remarried, and Feanor would not have had sybling rivals, and then maybe he would not have done the evil things he did.
2. Even with Miriel "dead," had Finwe had more self-control he could have accepted the loss and not sought a second wife. Then there would be no syblings for Feanor, and then maybe etc. etc. ...
So why doesn't the usually "conservative-minded," sometimes judgmental JRRT put the blame on the actual criminal, Feanor? Feanor refuses to accept his step-brothers, refuses to accept his step-mother. Feanor acts antagonistically towards them; they all try to placte him, and he is simply implaccable. What a brat! LOL!
Sorry, Fan, but I cannot see Feanor ever acting in a socially responsible way. As egotistic as he is, why should he alter his ways? He wants something, and he cares not how he gets it. Syblings or not, the Feanor we do know would still have made the Silmarils, wouldn't he? He would still excite the avarice of Morgoth, the Jewels would still be stolen, and Feanor would still seek to recover them. I think this is what V. Fliegher meant when she merely pointed out that the motives and attitudes for Feanor's actions would have been changed, but not the chain of the tragic events? So I get the feeling that you are, maybe, going beyond her concept when you say that "the story would have been radically different" had Feanor not had syblings? (I may not be reading you correctly here, so please let me know if I'm messed up again!)
Even without syblings, and even IF their absence would have alterred his personality, we might then ask: could Feanor have been so wildly, dangerously a creative genius? Would a "nicey-nice" Feanor have had the necessary drive to make the Silmarils in the first place? His overwhelming egotism drove him to learn from Mahtan all that he could, drove him to find some suitably impressive master-piece work that he alone could make -- mainly just to show off. A less egotistic Feanor, might never have had any reason to make the Jewels, and then what would JRRT have written? The Silmarils became the backbone thread for all the rest of Middle-earth history...
Here, I cannot see how the story could be much alterred, if we look at it from the perspective of Tolkien's need to tell an exciting tale: the Silmarils MUST exist; Morgoth MUST covet them, and steal them; Feanor MUST go in search of them. Otherwise, the entire fabric of LotR falls apart.
Even if the Silmarils were given up to the Valar to restore the Trees (assuming Morgoth had not been able to get them first) then the whole tale still falls apart. Morgoth would have gone back to Middle-earth to continue/ further his domination unchecked, and there is no happy ending for Beren and Luthien, etc., etc.
But, I am unwilling to even concede that having no syblings would have automatically meant a "better" more sociable, tamed Feanor. I think we'd have to re-arrange too greatly his basic character to make him "nice," and then, would he still be Feanor? I just don't see it, but then I am notoriously short-sighted. So, if the possibility of a "nicer" but sybling-less Feanor works for you, that's grand; a lot of JRRT's story can be viewed in many differing, but equally valid ways and I certainly find your interpretations always worth the reading, and sometimes, I even prefer your's and Stormrider's to my own!
Nonetheless, I still think a few long sessions in the wood-shed would have done more to straightened the boy out, than any number of "blame the parents" coddling-exercizes!
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Mar 21, 2007 5:06:40 GMT -6
""In those unhappy things which later came to pass, and in which Feanor was the leader, many saw the effect of this breach within the house of Finwe, judging that if Finwe had endured his loss and been content with the fathering of his mighty son, the courses of Feanor would have been otherwise, and great evil might have been prevented..." (The Silmarillion, hb version, p. 65)
Andorinha, I skimmed through the relevant chapters in Silm, so I certainly could have missed something. But, where you may see "ego" with regard to the Silmarils, I see "possessiveness". Feanor's "ego", in my opinon, comes out mostly in regard to his brothers. Feanor is hot-headed and tempermental. For a time his wife was able to restrain him. He followed Morgoth to M-e more to avenge his father's death than to get the Silmarils back. (p 85 Ballantine 2nd ed.)
The rest of the quote is "...for the sorrow and the strife in the house of Finwe is graven in the memory of the Noldorin Elves." "House" is not capitalized. I take that to mean the actual dwelling place rather than Finwe's dynasty. Hopefully CT got that right. Fan
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 21, 2007 8:21:13 GMT -6
Maybe our last two posts here belong in the next chapter, but I hate to break the continuity of the discussion.
Fan, I don't think I make as fine a distinction between "egotism" and "possessiveness" as you may be doing. To possess something as greedily as Feanor does the Silmarils is to exercize one's ego, 'this is mine, I possess it, and no one can play with it but me!' Sounds "selfish" to me, and "ego" is just a Latin term for "self."
"For Feanor began to love the Silmarils with a greedy love, and grudged the sight of them to all save to his father and his seven sons; he seldom remembered now that the light within them was not his own." (Silmarillion, hb, p. 69)
When Feanor has the chance to revive the two Trees, has a chance to make a personal sacrifice for the common good of all Valinor, he refuses. He places his own needs, his own desires ahead of the entire community -- this is selfishness/ possessiveness all combined, in my estimation.
I also do not find as much concern made for the death of Finwe as I think you do. The Oath of Feanor is not, as one might expect, a blood-feud oath, rather it concerns the Silmarils themselves and Feanor and sons seem preoccupied with retrieving the Jewels rather than killing Morgoth to avenge Finwe. The death of Finwe seems, to me, just one more grief that adds to Feanor's hate of Morgoth, and the loss of his father seems never to be mentioned alone*, never rises to become a prime motivating factor in the rest of the tale, but is coupled with the loss of the Silmarils, and I think subordinated by them: "... but he [Feanor] was distraught with grief for the slaying of his father, and with anguish for the rape of the Silmarils." (Sil. hb, p. 82)
When Feanor addresses the Noldor, p. 83, his speech is all about his selfishness: he will not be "ruled" by the Valar, he will go to Middle-earth and set up his own realm; he will lead his people into danger and privation, he spouts like some later day dictator, that though the way be strewn with the corpses of his own folk, it will be a glorious path! Wonderful (I sneer).
"... we will never turn back from pursuit. After Morgoth to the ends of the Earth! War he [Morgoth] shall have and hatred undying. But when we have conquered and have regained the Silmarils, then we and we alone shall be lords of the unsullied Light, and masters of the bliss and beauty of Arda. No other race shall oust us!" (Sil. hb, p. 83, emphasis mine)
No mention of vengeance for poor daddy here, just a demagogic tirade filled with exclusivism, selfishness/ egotism. The Silmarils will be recovered, not for the common good of all Arda, but just so that Feanor and the Noldor will be the "masters" of Light, and become the master race. Sounds a bit "Hitlerian" to me, another egomaniac who led his gulible people to disaster...
The Oath of Feanor then follows, and it says nothing about Finwe, it is only concerned with the Silmarils:
"They swore an oath which none shall break, and none should take... 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." (Sil, hb, p. 83)
This blasphemous oath becomes the ruling statement for the rest of the Silmarillion, and in this oath there is not even a tiny codocile referring to Finwe's death.
_____________ *"Then Feanor ran from the Ring of Doom... for his father was dearer to him than the Light of Valinor or the peerless works of his hands; and who among sons, of Elves or of Men, have held their fathers of greater worth?"
The quote you mention, if it is the same one I found, on p. 79 chapt 9 of the hb version, is brought up but this once (so far as I can find), and it does not become a major theme in the narrative, does it? I find mention after mention of the Silmarils in the succeeding pages, but nothing about the Elves being out on a blood feud to avenge Finwe's death. I also wonder about Feanor's "love" of his father, surely that love should have been less an egotistical thing than it appears to me? If Feanor "loved" his father it seems a "possessive/ egotistical" sort of love, doesn't it? Finwe would have preferred a peaceful family, without Feanor's hate of his step brothers -- and maybe it would have been a better kind of father-son love, had Feanor put his father's wishes first, and swallowed his own pride, and just learned to live gracefully with the situation of the second marriage?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 21, 2007 10:13:22 GMT -6
Fan, I've been through chapters 6 - 9 of my hard back version Silmarillion, and I can't seem to find the passage you refer to: "He followed Morgoth to M-e more to avenge his father's death than to get the Silmarils back. (p 85 Ballantine 2nd ed.)" I'm probably reading right through it, but could you quote it in full? Thanks!!!
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Mar 22, 2007 5:31:15 GMT -6
Andorinha, I concede to you regarding Feanor. I found that I don't have the energy nor the interest in Feanor that is required to keep this up. I'll just ignore this quote the next time I read Silm: "In those unhappy things which later came to pass, and in which Feanor was the leader, many saw the effect of this breach within the house of Finwe, judging that if Finwe had endured his loss and been content with the fathering of his mighty son, the courses of Feanor would have been otherwise, and great evil might have been prevented, for the sorrow and the strife in the house of Finwe is graven in the memory of the Noldorin Elves."
I am far more interested at how the whole of the story developed from inception onward. Fan
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 22, 2007 9:12:45 GMT -6
Yes, Fan, this has gotten to be a deep-rooted, wide-ranging, perhaps even somewhat tedious discussion, LOL! But, I have a peculiar form of logorhoea this month, and I have a few more loose ends to tie up for my own education -- so I'll continue for two or three more posts along the lines I've already established, but no responses are required or even expected!
Ah, but no! I should open up a new thread elsewhere, as my ruminations on these themes are apt to move quite far from the limited responses solicited here by Androga, somewhere far above our recent verbiages...
|
|