Relative Powers

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thalion

The crux of this statement is "WHAT DOES GREATEST MEAN?!"...this question defines the statement...how you answer it will alter your beliefs as to what placement Luthien deserves amongst the elves.......as I've said multiple times before, defining "greatness" can be to say "of most renown" or "most famous"...to define "greatness" in this way would no way place Luthien atop a list of the highest in relative powers,

I think the issue is one of context. What did Tolkien mean by saying both Feanor & Luthien were 'greatest'?

Tolkien states at different times that Frodo, Sam & Aragorn was the 'hero' of LotR. Clearly they can't all have been the hero - simply that at different times Tolkien considered one to be the hero, at other times he considered another to fulfil that role. But in terms of context a statement may be qualified by what isn't stated

In Appendix F we find the 'clear' statement about Elves:

They were tall, fair of skin & grey-eyed, though their locks were dark save in the golden house of Finarfin.

Now, CT has stated in BoLT1:

Thus these words describing characters of face and hair were actually written of the Noldor only, and not of all the Eldar: indeed the Vanyar had golden hair, and it was from Finarfin's Vanyarin mother lndis that he, and Finrod Felagund and Galadriel his children, had their golden hair that marked them out among the princes of the Noldor. But I am unable to determine how this extraordinary perversion of meaning arose.

Because of this, in the revised 50th anniversary text the editors (Hammond & Scull) add the following note to LotR:

These words describing characters of face & hair in fact applied only to the Noldor.

So, what we have is an apparently clear statement about the physical attributes of the 'Eldar' as a whole, but which in fact only applies to the Noldor. Whether this failure to distinguish between the Noldor & the Eldar as a whole applies in the case of Luthien vs Feanor is probably impossible to answer, but certainly it might be true to say that while Luthien was the 'greatest' of the Eldar, Feanor was the 'greatest' of the Noldor (unless we give that crown to Galadriel). Yet, Luthien was not strictly 'Eldar, but half-Eldar-half Ainur.

Let's not forget that Tolkien often made 'poetic' statements about characters & events as well as strictly 'factual' ones. And once we introduce the 'Translator Conceit' we have to ask which 'writer' within the Legendarium wrote which statement. There are a number of 'contributors' to the Legendarium, from Pengolodh to Bilbo, & one could speculate that they may have had their own particular biases.

I think this alone shows that we must be very careful about simply trying to trump each other with quotes....

[narfforc]

Davem makes a good point concerning the translator. At one point Feanor is 'Mightiest in beauty', then Luthien is considered the most beautiful of all the Children of Iluvatar. Feanor is 'Mightiest in valour, then Fingolfin is the most valiant. My problem is that Fingolfin was valiant in facing Morgoth in battle, how valiant was Luthien then?

[Formendacil]

To go back to Tolkien's Fëanor statement, which the Phantom so eagerly supplies, one can see that Tolkien is NOT saying that Fëanor was the greatest craftsman (and so greater than Lúthien) but that he was the greatest all around- and then lists several fields as examples.

Since Tolkien elsewhere makes a similar (although without examples) statement about Lúthien being the greatest- and since he also makes a statment lumping the two of them together with Galadriel as the greatest, it is clear that they are both great, that one of them is the greatest- and that Tolkien's word, alone and by itself, cannot be taken as the final authority.

One must therefore, to determine which is the greater, take a look at the achievements and accomplishments- and failures- of the respective Elves to decide who is the greater.

[davem]

To argue against myself (which I have the greatest joy in doing) the statement re Feanor says he was made the greatest of the Eldar, not that he was, at least in the end, actually the greatest. Melkor was originally made the greatest of the Valar, but he subsequently fell from that position through his own actions. The same could be said of Feanor.

Of course, that doesn't clear things up, as Luthien (as I stated earlier) is not technically one of the Eldar (though the Eldar claim her as one of their own). She was half Eldar - half Ainur. Of course she would be 'greater' in terms of sheer power than Feanor, simply due to being half divine. Hence, Tolkien is technically wrong to class her as greatest among the Eldar.

Its equally true to say that Shadowfax is greater among equines than Bill, but we're not comparing like with like, so the comparison is ultimately false. Remove Luthien's divine aspect, (ie put aside those things she could only do due to that divinity) inherited from Melian, compare her to the 'unfallen' Feanor, at the height of his power & who is superior then?

This is my point about taking into account what isn't said as well as what is said & not taking statements (even ones by Tolkien) at face value.

[narfforc]

As we can see with the HoME, Tolkien was a niggler. He changed things all the time, can anyone put their hand on their heart and say that Tolkien would have been happy with every sentence of The Silmarillion as published, why do you think he never finished it.

[obloquy]

When one of you finds the true source of the quote provided from the '77 Silmarillion within HoMe (where we can be assured of its authenticity) and compares the date of that material with the date on The Shibboleth of Feanor, I'd be willing to bet the latter is the later.

Luthien was an Elda by nature. There is no two ways about it, since, having been born an Incarnate, her nature could not have been Maia. She was infused with the blood of an incarnate Maia, yes, but that does not change that she was an Elda. If you want to disqualify her because of her advantage, that's one thing. But to say she's not even an elf is retarded.

As for "fallen" and "unfallen" Feanor, there's no indication that he was any less powerful in his end than he was in his beginning. Elves did not diminish through physical exertion as clothed/incarnate ealar did. The quote supplied by the phantom about Feanor's might was from within the narrative and at a time when Luthien did not yet exist. It therefore does not conflict with Tolkien's later (presumably) note wherein he, as the creator of the mythos, unequivocally states the top three greatest Eldar, side-by-side, and which of the three is the greatest of all. Tolkien is not coyly toying with his reader since this piece was evidently not part of anything he ever expected to be published. Yes, sometimes he messes around and throws things out there only to jerk them back (Gandalf = Manwe?), but in this case his statement bears finality and is never contradicted.

I'm done.

[narfforc]

I'd be willing to bet that not everything Tolkien ever wrote has been commited to the published page, things will be released in the future that will either enlighten or confuse. The only books you can quote from are The Hobbit and LotR, the rest was work in progress. Anything in HoME that does not appear in LotR should be discounted, because Tolkien did not use it, and anything published after his death cannot be used 100% as evidence, we do not know if he would have used it or not, yes Tolkien wrote those words, but which version is correct 1940 or 1950. We are just going to have to admit that Tolkien wrote many versions of the same story, of which some are contradictory. Remember it was Christopher Tolkien who released The Silmarillion, if Tolkien was with us still, would he say: But Christopher old chap, you put in the wrong bits. Even in Letters you can see the stories changing with time, a letter written in the 40s, may well have been written differently in the 60s.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legolas

This list is based on the all of the works we have this far. I don't perceive anything else being published. It is useless to throw out quotes because he may have contradicted them in unpublished writings. This matter is not contradicted by anything else we have, so there's no question - it is the way things were in Middle-earth according to JRR, which is what we're looking for in this thread.

New Tolkien material is being published all the time in Vinyar Tengwar, so we can't say that there is no 'new' material out there which may alter our perceptions of the Legendarium. Osanwe Kenta for instance is a major (though short) work which definitely should have been included in HoM-e. CT for his own reasons left it out. Again, CT has edited HoM-e, and any final word on date of writing, relevance, what's included & what's left out was his.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Luthien was an Elda by nature. There is no two ways about it, since, having been born an Incarnate, her nature could not have been Maia. She was infused with the blood of an incarnate Maia, yes, but that does not change that she was an Elda. If you want to disqualify her because of her advantage, that's one thing. But to say she's not even an elf is retarded.

The fact that she had the blood of an incarnate Maia surely makes her more than an Elf. Luthien is unique. She is not pure Eldar. In fact she makes me think of figures like Merlin, Achilles, Cuchulllain (or Jesus) who have one 'human' & one divine parent. These beings, in myth & reality (if you are a believer) are children of this world & the otherworld, & play a very specific role in myth of linking the two worlds & providing a kind of living 'bridge' between them.

I didn't say she wasn't 'even an Elf', I said she was far more than an Elf, & so Feanor cannot be fairly compared with her.

As for "fallen" and "unfallen" Feanor, there's no indication that he was any less powerful in his end than he was in his beginning. Elves did not diminish through physical exertion as clothed/incarnate ealar did. The quote supplied by the phantom about Feanor's might was from within the narrative and at a time when Luthien did not yet exist. It therefore does not conflict with Tolkien's later (presumably) note wherein he, as the creator of the mythos, unequivocally states the top three greatest Eldar, side-by-side, and which of the three is the greatest of all. Tolkien is not coyly toying with his reader since this piece was evidently not part of anything he ever expected to be published. Yes, sometimes he messes around and throws things out there only to jerk them back (Gandalf = Manwe?), but in this case his statement bears finality and is never contradicted.

I'm done.

Sorry, but you're still avoiding the central question - which is what did Tolkien mean when he used 'greatest' in this specific context. Luthien was clearly not greater than Feanor in every way - she was not a 'greater' warrior, she was not a 'greater' creative artist, She was not a 'greater' disaster, her ego was not 'greater', she was not physically 'greater' in terms of height or girth. Greatest in what sense is still the issue. And who is supposed to have written these quotes (within the Legendarium)? One could see one of the descendents of Feanor or one of their people (one of the Elves of Eregion for instance) producing the statement that Feanor was the 'greatest' of the Eldar, while one of the Elves of Rivendell produced the statement that Luthien was the 'greatest'.

Assuming we're dealing with the figure of 'Tolkien the Translator' being the source of this particular essay we can only say that having read all the available texts (principally the Red Book) he would have formed his own personal & possibly biassed opinion, & opinion cannot be treated as 'fact'.

but in this case his statement bears finality and is never contradicted.

No, all we can say is that he died before he could change his mind. Looking at the way Tolkien changed his mind back & forth we can only talk about any statement of his being his 'last' one not his 'final' one. I suspect when we all get to finally meet up with him his (at that time current) Legendarium will not correspond with what he has left us. It may be slightly or very different, but for certain I'm betting it will not be in any sense 'final'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Where are you getting this that Feanor is mentally weak, Sauce?

I never said that Feanor was mentally weak. I said that he had a mental weakness which should be taken into account when assessing his relative power.

But you concerted defence of him does illustrate another problem inherent in trying to come up with this kind of a list. It will always, as far as certain characters are concerned, be highly objective. Lmp recognises this and so retains for himself the final word. But there will always be disagreement over the placing of favourite characters.

One further point that has been bothering me. Why are Radagast and the Blue Wizards so low? They were Maiar, albeit subject to the restrictions imposed upon the Istari. As such, they should be an a par (if slightly lower, perhaps) than Saruman the White and Gandalf the Grey. They may not have used their power to great effect in the overall scheme of things, but they would undoubtedly have had a similar "level" of power.

And are Aiwendil, Alatar and Pallando on the list? I don't recall them being there. If they are not, they should be placed similarly, relative to Olorin and Curumo.

[the phantom]

I never said that Feanor was mentally weak. I said that he had a mental weakness which should be taken into account when assessing his relative power.

Ah, I understand what you mean. Thanks for pointing that out. But my response to that would be that every single being besides Eru had some sort of mental weakness from Manwe down to the common orc. Feanor's only showed through the way it did because he was specifically marked and attacked by the most powerful being in all of Arda (and a couple of unfortunate events and a blunder or two by the Valar didn't help).

But you concerted defence of him does illustrate another problem inherent in trying to come up with this kind of a list. It will always, as far as certain characters are concerned, be highly objective. Lmp recognises this and so retains for himself the final word. But there will always be disagreement over the placing of favourite characters.

Quite right.

On the subject of "favourite characters", I readily admit that I absolutely love Feanor, but at the same time I think my approach to him is far more factual than emotional. Indeed, it was ignoring emotion and taking into account facts that made me a huge fan of Feanor in the first place.

When one reads the Silmarillion, it is natural to come away from it not liking Feanor. He is not treated with as much sympathy as he could've been- he is not treated like a hero. Feanor's actions are never remotely excused, and the Valar are never said to have made a mistake in their dealings with him. If I had just read the book, I probably would think Feanor was an out of control, egotistical, evil jerk, and that the Valar were practically perfect.

But I didn't just read. I considered the facts apart from the way in which they were presented. I thought, "Hmm, Feanor couldn't possibly hope to remain unaffected by Melkor if Melkor was trying to influence him. After all, Melkor obviously was capable of fooling Manwe. Given that, it appears Feanor is being banished from his home for not doing the impossible. The primary objectives after discovering Melkor's evil should have been to catch Melkor and to undo his evil words. But instead, the first thing the Valar do is give Feanor a punishment that reinforces Melkor's lies. Wow. That is, without a doubt, the worst possible decision they could've made."

So, as I hope you can see, my pro-Feanor stance grew from my examination of events, not from the way the events were presented. Surely that counts for something, and puts my opinions in a better light than some others who fanatically support one character or another.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

When one reads the Silmarillion, it is natural to come away from it not liking Feanor.

Well, I could not honestly say that I "like" Feanor. He did too may heartless things, and unnecessarily so, to garner my affection. The burning of the ships, forcing the remaining Noldor to brave the Hellcaraxe, for example. That said, I nevertheless find his story fascinating and he undoubtedly contributes hugely to the tale. For that, I can admire and respect him as a character.

Yes, others had various weaknesses that affect their "power". But Feanor's mental weakness was hugely detrimental to his own well-being, that of his entire line and most of those who came into contact with him.

So, as I hope you can see, my pro-Feanor stance grew from my examination of events, not from the way the events were presented.

I can understand that. But I still think that, in your admirable defence of him, you err on the side of ignoring his negative qualities.

[littlemanpoet]

Regarding the Translator Conceit, play with it if you like, or not. It matters not to me. I think there may be more to it than I have so far cared to think. However, it can also render itself to such efforts as this thread no better than a confounding befuddlement bearing no useful results.

As to Fëanor, my further reading in the Sil has pointed up something rather critical to understanding him and his fellow Noldor:

(p. 104: But the dawn is brief and the day full often belies its promise; and now the time drew on to the great wars of the powers of the North, when Noldor and Sindar and Men strove against the hosts of Morgoth Bauglir. To this end the cunning lies of Morgoth that he sowed of old, and sowed ever anew among his foes, and the curse that came of the slaying at Alqualondë, and the oath of Fëanor, were ever at work.

There are three things at work here, then, dooming the Noldor: (1) the lies of Morgoth (2) the oath of Fëanor (empowered by Eru since his name is invoked in it) (3) the curse that came of the slaying at Alqualondë (at the bidding of Manwë). Now, this curse affected the offspring of Fingolfin as much as it did the sons of Fëanor; whereas the children of Finarfin (Finrod & Galadriel for example held themselves aloof from it. Only Fëanor and his sons swore the oath. Morgoth's lies affected many: all and sundry. So the oath is the most specific and most powerful being from Eru; the curse less powerful and less specific, being from Manwë; the lies are the most far flung, and only as powerful as those who heard them allowed them to be, which reflects back upon the oath and curse. One thing more should be said. Being Eldar does not remove choice. It sets a doom, but within that doom are many choices, for which every Eldar is accountable. There is therefore a limit to the "determinism" some would read into the doom of the Eldar.

Sauc'sy point as to Fëanor is an interesting one. Tolkien goes to great trouble to establish the psychological (as it were) roots of Fëanor's character, what with his mother leaving the body after giving birth, leaving him a sort of orphan and then Finwë's resulting favoritism which caused its own problems. Loss of a parent is a rather obvious treatment in the Legendarium, repeated over and over again, with varying results depending upon the character. That Fëanor's character is so rash and, well, fiery, seems to be a powerful intrinsic aspect, complicated further by his orphanhood. A more self-absorbed character most of us have never met. So is Saucy right? And if so, what do we make of it?

Originally Posted by the phantom

lmp, since this is your thread why don't you tell me, would a good description of what you are looking for be sheer amount of knowledge, strength of will, number of skills, strength of skills, ability to impact mind and matter, and ability in battle?

All of it and then some probably. Who had the ability to affect Middle Earth the most, and who did so?

This has been a fascinating discussion on many levels, but I find myself most intrigued by the current (halted) discussion between the phantom and the saucepan man in regard to Fëanor. Very well argued on both sides.

(p66) For Fëanor 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.

(p69)High Princes were Fëanor and Fingolfin, the elder sons of Finwë, honoured by all in Aman; but now they grew proud and jealous each of his rights and his possessions.

Then the lies of Morgoth about Fingolfin's supposed ambitions reach Fëanor's ears - - - and he chooses to believe them. Why? Because the seeds of pride and jealousy had already been sown in his heart. By Morgoth? No.

Fëanor 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 that the light within them was not his own.

It's not a mental weakness that is the primary failure in Fëanor. Rather, it's the "will to hording" that Tolkien frequently wrote about, which comes of loving a thing more than it deserves. So misplaced love is Fëanor's greatest character flaw, and as Tolkien indicated, this was because he loved things of his own making too much. I suddenly see a lot of what Tolkien feared in himself, in Fëanor.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by lmp

So is Saucy right? And if so, what do we make of it?

I think he is, and I think what we make of it goes back to earlier observations that the list has little merit without some context.

If the context is simply that two given characters go into a cage and fight to the death, then you can sort out the beginnings of a list rather easily (I expect that's mostly what drives the current rankings, with a few notable exceptions). A theme of Tolkien's is that evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable.

Originally Posted by lmp

I suddenly see a lot of what Tolkien feared in himself, in Fëanor.

Nice insight!

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

I think the issue is one of context. What did Tolkien mean by saying both Feanor & Luthien were 'greatest'?

Tolkien states at different times that Frodo, Sam & Aragorn was the 'hero' of LotR. Clearly they can't all have been the hero - simply that at different times Tolkien considered one to be the hero, at other times he considered another to fulfil that role. But in terms of context a statement may be qualified by what isn't stated

In Appendix F we find the 'clear' statement about Elves:



Now, CT has stated in BoLT1:



Because of this, in the revised 50th anniversary text the editors (Hammond & Scull) add the following note to LotR:



So, what we have is an apparently clear statement about the physical attributes of the 'Eldar' as a whole, but which in fact only applies to the Noldor. Whether this failure to distinguish between the Noldor & the Eldar as a whole applies in the case of Luthien vs Feanor is probably impossible to answer, but certainly it might be true to say that while Luthien was the 'greatest' of the Eldar, Feanor was the 'greatest' of the Noldor (unless we give that crown to Galadriel). Yet, Luthien was not strictly 'Eldar, but half-Eldar-half Ainur.

Let's not forget that Tolkien often made 'poetic' statements about characters & events as well as strictly 'factual' ones. And once we introduce the 'Translator Conceit' we have to ask which 'writer' within the Legendarium wrote which statement. There are a number of 'contributors' to the Legendarium, from Pengolodh to Bilbo, & one could speculate that they may have had their own particular biases.

I think this alone shows that we must be very careful about simply trying to trump each other with quotes....

I've seen these points before. The problem with your argument is that the note about Luthien being the greatest of all the Eldar is actually attached to a statement about Feanor and Galadriel being the greatest of the Noldor. In other words, Tolkien did not forget about one or the other, nor did he confuse his terms.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I've seen these points before. The problem with your argument is that the note about Luthien being the greatest of all the Eldar is actually attached to a statement about Feanor and Galadriel being the greatest of the Noldor. In other words, Tolkien did not forget about one or the other, nor did he confuse his terms.

Aren't you giving too much weight to a single statement? Tolkien's thoughts were often in flux, & often one statement is contradicted by another. Look at the way Orodreth's character changes over the course of the Legendarium. At various times we have Feanor in the Ascendent, then Luthien, then Galadriel, & taking one statement about hierarchy as being definitive is purely arbitrary.

As I said originally - we have to look at what is 'unsaid' in any particular statement, not just at what is said.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

Aren't you giving too much weight to a single statement? Tolkien's thoughts were often in flux, & often one statement is contradicted by another. Look at the way Orodreth's character changes over the course of the Legendarium. At various times we have Feanor in the Ascendent, then Luthien, then Galadriel, & taking one statement about hierarchy as being definitive is purely arbitrary.

As I said originally - we have to look at what is 'unsaid' in any particular statement, not just at what is said.

Tolkien's words on this don't conflict. I understand that he often changes his mind, but in this case the quoted material is not in conflict with older statements. Additionally, it provides a concept of all three respective "statures" as they were conceived at a single time, without any one individual of this sort of triumvirate receiving special mention due to momentary whim. Again, at the time he wrote this, he was considering the stature of all three simultaneously and as compared with one another. Therefore it is the most solid conception.

Unless you're positing that there was another Elda besides these three who might be considered "greatest." In which case I'd like to see your references.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Tolkien's words on this don't conflict. I understand that he often changes his mind, but in this case the quoted material is not in conflict with older statements. Additionally, it provides a concept of all three respective "statures" as they were conceived at a single time, without any one individual of this sort of triumvirate receiving special mention due to momentary whim. Again, at the time he wrote this, he was considering the stature of all three simultaneously and as compared with one another. Therefore it is the most solid conception.

Unless you're positing that there was another Elda besides these three who might be considered "greatest." In which case I'd like to see your references.

And who wrote this statement - I mean within the Legendarium? Is the statement to be considered the opinion of that particular writer or one by the 'translator' Tolkien. Is the writer qualified to make an objective judgement or is he simply making a personal assessment? What standards is this writer using - what does he mean by 'greatest'? How is he using the term?

[Thalion]

Tolkien's words on this don't conflict. I understand that he often changes his mind, but in this case the quoted material is not in conflict with older statements. Additionally, it provides a concept of all three respective "statures" as they were conceived at a single time, without any one individual of this sort of triumvirate receiving special mention due to momentary whim. Again, at the time he wrote this, he was considering the stature of all three simultaneously and as compared with one another. Therefore it is the most solid conception.

I'd concur that the statement itself contains within it a hierarchy of charcters as Tolkien (possibly through some source, I forget who within the legendarium wrote that particular statement) saw them...but again, I'd question as to what hierarchy we are talking about...Tolkien choose his words very carefully being a philologist...what exactly is the right reading of the word "greatest"?...maybe only he knows...

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

And who wrote this statement - I mean within the Legendarium? Is the statement to be considered the opinion of that particular writer or one by the 'translator' Tolkien.

The statement wasn't written within the Legendarium. It was one of Tolkien's essays, written about Middle-earth from without.

Originally Posted by davem

Is the writer qualified to make an objective judgement or is he simply making a personal assessment?

He's qualified to judge objectively. They're his creations.

Originally Posted by davem

What standards is this writer using - what does he mean by 'greatest'? How is he using the term?

It's used as you see it. A general "greatness of being," obviously not intended to indicate the size of the individuals. One might say that Tarkovsky is the greatest of all film directors, and while that statement is certainly debatable and the criteria for judgment obscure, the intended meaning is clear--Tarkovsky is superior to all other film directors. Unlike my example, the statement we're discussing is not debatable since it comes from the Creator. Since the statement is unqualified, the criteria for judgment are evidently all those things that make an Elda an Elda (or Noldo). It may be true that Feanor was a "greater" craftsman than Luthien, but that does not change that as individuals are estimated in greatness by their Creator, Luthien is greatest.