Dunno man.
Nope. To be just as clear. The Noldorin war against Morgoth was without hope of victory if there was no help from the Valar. Morgoth was simply too powerful. Had the points you brought up earlier been handled differently then they would have had the help of the Valar sooner. However, this also gives rise to the issue that had the host of the Valar struck sooner then Morgoth was in a position of destroying the whole of Arda rather than allow them victory.Dunno man.
I remember (as you're saying) that Valar's advised Noldors not to go because "the time is not right".
But then again, I remember Tolkien pointing out, that, ONLY if Feanor agreed to give Sillmarils (even they were already stolen without his and Valar's knowledge at that time), everything would be very different.
To be clear.. I don't think they've could have killed and capture Morgoth. None of the Noldors had the power to do that.
But if they did (and didn't) done all the points that I addressed earlier, they could maybe destroy his whole army (maybe even Balrogs), and take Silmarils from him, and make him run to some distant place, , where he'd needed another 1000-2000 years to become a threat again.
(just speculating of course)
If he wasn't in a position to do so the first time the Valar attacked him prior to leading the Elves to Valinor, I doubt he would have been able to the second time. And then JRRT makes it such a big thing that by the time of the War of Wrath, Morgoth had bred (how?) the flying, flame-breathing dragons, particularly Ancalagon. That part has me thinking, as with his utterly out-of-control description of the Morgoth-Ungoliant business, that he'd have to take a very long, very cold shower (and get some sleep) before returning to do some serious revising of this boiling hyperbole. If anything, Tulkas would have body-slammed Morgoth more often, and harder, than the first time around - at which time they could, I would imagine, also have been able to banish him to the void, had JRRT not "endowed" Manwë with a naïvité that would be pathetic in a three-year-old.
How do you say that he was not in a position to do so the first time? The great battle of the powers destroyed much of the north and changed much to the south. Motgoth at that time did not believe that the Valar, even with all their host could defeat him so would not feel the need to destroy Arda rather than lose. When he returned to Middle-earth, even after he had given Ungoliant a large amount of power, he was still able to do vast amounts of destruction and had he been attacked by the host of the Valar at that time he would know that he would lose and out of spite would destroy as much as he could simply because "If he could not have it, no one could". After he had weakened himself further by spreading his will and power through his creatures and the fabric of Middle-earth, the War of Wrath resulted in the almost complete destruction of Beleriand with damage to other parts. How much of Middle-earth would have been left if Morgoth was anywhere near his original strength?If he wasn't in a position to do so the first time the Valar attacked him prior to leading the Elves to Valinor, I doubt he would have been able to the second time. And then JRRT makes it such a big thing that by the time of the War of Wrath, Morgoth had bred (how?) the flying, flame-breathing dragons, particularly Ancalagon. That part has me thinking, as with his utterly out-of-control description of the Morgoth-Ungoliant business, that he'd have to take a very long, very cold shower (and get some sleep) before returning to do some serious revising of this boiling hyperbole. If anything, Tulkas would have body-slammed Morgoth more often, and harder, than the first time around - at which time they could, I would imagine, also have been able to banish him to the void, had JRRT not "endowed" Manwë with a naïvité that would be pathetic in a three-year-old.
This is why I think that in War Of Wrath Valar's didn't participated at all (maybe only Tulkas, at the end to put a chain on Morgoth), and very few Maia's.by the time of the War of Wrath, Morgoth had bred (how?) the flying, flame-breathing dragons, particularly Ancalagon. That part has me thinking
You can call it naive, but if his thoughts worked in a way that he couldn't forgive, and question Morgoth motives all the time (distrusting him), he would be much closer to Morgoth in thoughts, then an apposite of Morgoth.As for Manwe's naïvité, I agree. There was a serious failing there. At the point where they had taken Morgoth to Aman they should have either banished him to the void or made a permanent room for him in the Halls of Mandos.
What else would you call it? Manwe could not comprehend the evil of Morgoth. Manwe was the Only Vala that did not understand the depth of Morgoth's evil.You can call it naive, but if his thoughts worked in a way that he couldn't forgive, and question Morgoth motives all the time (distrusting him), he would be much closer to Morgoth in thoughts, then an apposite of Morgoth.
He was complete opposite.
And as Mandos said:'So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. for the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been.'
'And yet remain evil. To me shall Fëanor come soon.'
I would not call Manwe naive. He may not have fully comprehended the Evil of Morgoth, but within him, I think it was more his overwhelming compassion and kindness that gave pardon to the sins of Morgoth, whether rightly or not. Remember, Manwe sought counsel from the Mighty Illuvatar Himself. It may be a bit unwise to name his very forgiving take as naivety.
Well, you may agree or not but Fingolfin showed that Morgoth's physical body could be injured (something that was not in doubt) and it cost Fingolfin his life to do so. Had he actually managed to get in a "Killing Blow" what would have been the result? Morgoth would have needed to take a breather and built up a new body. This could possibly had the unwanted result of Morgoth becoming less bound to the physical body he then would inhabit as it would be new. The facts are that at no time were the Noldor anywhere near victory during the whole of the time they were in Middle-earth until The War of Wrath!
I can only answer "Yes!" He was both as the only other answer in my view is "willful ignorance".Was Manwe naive? Or was he conducting his proper part in the composition.
This, I think, we must leave to each one of us to decide. It is, frankly, the 'great question' we always face.
I can only answer "Yes!" He was both as the only other answer in my view is "willful ignorance".
Very good quote.
This was extremely entertaining and educational to read. Cannot recommend enough.Noldor. plural Noldorim, but can also be referred to as Noldorin. The distinction between Noldorim and Noldorin is subtle, with the latter being “Those who Speak Noldorin Quenya.”
Teleri is the Plural, with “Teler” being the Singular. So “The Teleri” or “Lindar“ (as the Teleri call themselves) IS the Plural, already:
The Teleri people. The Teleri Swan-Ships. The Falmari Teleri Home at Aqualondë in Aman, or the Falathrim Teleri home at Eglarest and Brithombar in Beleriand.
The ending -im can mean “The People of the -.“ But this is principally a Quenya Postfix-stem, and not a Telerin or Sindarin Postfix-stem, although it is applied to the Falathrim, and the Mithrim of Northwestern Beleriand, in Dorthonion, Nevrast, and the land that took their name: Mithrim, which means something different from the Mithrim “Teleri/Sindarin” of the same name who inhabited Mithrim, the land.
I hate Linguistics (no I don’t, but it is a very “messy and untidy” thing — which is why Tolkien created Languages, trying to Tidy them up, which his life showed he had more difficulty than his more youthful self anticipated).
The ending -in as already mentioned, means “The Language of the -“ and “The People who speak -.“ But some of the people to whom it is refered, like the Sindarin, just took that to mean the same thing as the -im ending stem.
Dizzying, no?
As for possessive names, typically none of the Middle-earth languages use the English ’s, and instead use the above ending-stems and plurals to also be the possessive. Or in some cases, you will have things like “Gondorian” or “Easterling” that are also possessive nouns.
This isn’t to be insulting or degrading, but solely to introduce proper nomenclature (grammar for naming things).
As for Fëanor.
He was “Fey.” To which it means: “He lost his mind,” or more accurately “His mind was Broken.”
It wasn’t spite, so much as Grief and Pride that broke him.
Morgoth tried to seduce him to The Shadow (This is Catholicism’s, and thus Tolkien’s, way of saying “Blocked him from access to knowing what is Right and Wrong or Good and Evil”), but Fëanor was too opposed to Melkor-Morgoth to fall to The Shadow (Morgoth’s Influence, or “Rebellion against Eru/God”).
But Fëanor wasn’t immune to simply “losing it,” and thus being unable to accurately assess what he was doing.
And, as for why Fingolfin remained Loyal.
Fëanor was the Rightful King of the Noldor.
Tolkien was a Traditionalist. That means so much more than I could put into not just this post; nor into the entire website nor an entire Book; nor an entire Volume of Books; nor an entire collection of Volumes of Books on the subject; nor into an entire bookshelf of collected Volumes on the subject.
If you feel like spending a few days in researching the basics of this, look into the Pastoralist Movements of the 19th Century, with those like William Morris, who is the Author with the largest influence on Tolkien outside of Catholicism, and then the Catholic controversies leading to Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum and then The Encyclical of the First Vatican Ecumenical Council of 1868 to 1870. The Encyclical is the Vatican I to the 20th Century’s more famous, infamous, and contentious or controversial Vatican II Encyclical.
But Vatican I IS The Foundations of Middle-earth. It is based upon a specific type of Catholic Theology that turns against the Sciences; against Modernity; against “Progress;” against The Enlightenment and all of its products (Such as Liberal Democracy, Capitalism, the elimination of the Class Systems and Aristocracy of what is called the Ancien Régime of Europe); and is instead supportive of the Divine Right of the Aristocracy; Supportive of The Duty to that Aristocracy for all who are Rightfully/Legitimately Ruled BY that Aristocracy; supportive of Traditional Values and the Pastoralist, effectively Feudal, and/or more “Ancient” forms of Lifestyle that did not center itself around large cities, and basically everything that you find depicted in The Lord of the Rings in the Shire or in Gondor (Where Cities did exist but only as administrative centers and for protection of a population if attacked; most of the population would be found in rural hamlets, townships, and homesteads collected within the highland valleys, such as Morthond Vale — Blackroot Valley — where the Oath Breakers previously lived).
So, back to Fingolfin.
He continued to follow Fëanor because it was his Duty to do so. And while Fingolfin was not bound by The Oath of Fëanor, he was bound by What is Right and Wrong as depicted in the previous description of The Foundations of Middle-earth in Catholic Theology.
Fingolfin “Breaking that Trust” would have been a dire “Sin,” even if Tolkien did not frame it explicitly as such. It would have damned Fingolfin’s Fëa from Reunification or Reconstitution of his Hröa as a penance for that violation of Fëanor’s Rights as King of the Noldorim.
And because Fingolfin knew Fëanor was not quite “In his Right Mind” that Duty doubled to helping to protect Fëanor from himself in whatever way he could without patronizing or introducing doubt or disloyalty in others.
Middle-earth isn’t quite the “Pretty-Place” many tend to conceive with readings that focus solely on the story, and don’t “look beneath the hood” at what is underneath. And that does not mean the languages. These can be instructive if you get into the same kind of depth beyond just learning the surface grammar and vocabulary, as the Languages are pretty much a decorative framework built atop the Foundations to hold the rest of the structure of the Mythology.
MB
This was extremely entertaining and educational to read. Cannot recommend enough.
These are good points. Thanks for sharing.Indeed.
But of course - "nobody" in "real life" ever ends up with a 'broken mind' and needs help like Feanor - and "nobody" ever feels compelled to, or tries to, fulfill the same roles and functions that Fingolfin found himself in the position of needing to do. (I speak facetiously, of course.)
In other words, to understand Tolkien means to grasp the ever so complex nature of beings endowed with a thinking existence of an order of thought beyond the basic repetitive behavioral and preservation stage. (Now now, I DO understand a great deal of humankind lives in the state of "repetitive nature" and "unthinking". I do not speak of these.)
As a side note, Tolkien's "im" plural form is directly derivative of the ancient Hebrew language as well, a great deal about which one could speak. But not here, as it too inevitably raises some intriguing discussions. We can be certain Tolkien knew of its use in the Hebrew.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?