Immortality and the sons of Elrond

[Aiwendil]

Mithadan wrote:

The problem is that the solution I outline is not what Tolkien appears to have settled upon. Rather, he treats the children of Elros and Elrond differently because... well just because. The importance of the Eru's gift cannot be the answer for why similarly situated persons are treated differently; Elrond's children have less Mannish blood than those of Elros, but based upon the analyses of multiple posters here, the presence of any Mannish blood is significant.

I disagree, and would respectfully suggest that your argument here misses the point of the 'Gift of Eru' argument. You ask why Elrond's children are treated differently from Elros's; in other words, why is there an asymmetry between the cousins? The answer is that it's because there's an asymmetry between Men and Elves. Elros's children "ought" to be human, because both of their parents are. Elrond's children "ought" to be Elves, because both of their parents are. But the rule is that the Gift of Eru cannot be forcibly taken away from anyone with any Mannish heritage. So Elrond's children must be given the choice. Elros's children are not given the choice because there is no analogous rule to the effect that one with Elvish heritage cannot have immortality taken away. They have Elvish blood, but due to the asymmetry of the Gift of Eru, Elvish blood does not necessitate the option of immortality, whereas Mannish blood does necessitate the option of mortality.

One can perhaps dispute that account by calling into question the validity of Tolkien's statements in Letters and elsewhere, but I do not think one can make the charge of inconsistency in it. It coheres and it agrees with what is said in LotR.

It is the fëar that determine the nature of Men and Elves, not their bodies or their blood. When Half-Elven make their choice, it is a change to the spirits not to their bodies. So genetics has nothing to do with the effect of a Half-Elf's choice over the nature of their offspring. Elros' fëa was mortal as was his wife's and, accordingly, his children's spirits were Mannish. Elrond and Celebrian's fëar were Elvish. Why should the spirits of their children be otherwise. This is the problem I have here.

Well, one might first of all note that Tolkien stressed that there is a strong connection between a fea and its hroa. One can influence the other, and vice versa. And clearly the differences between Men and Elves were not solely spiritual.

But as for your question - is there necessarily anything problematic with the fea of the child differing from the fear of the parents? Certainly, there's no logical impossibility involved there. And, apparently, Tolkien didn't feel that there was a metaphysical impossibility either.

There's also an interesting supposition behind your argument here: that there are Elvish fear and there are Mannish fear, and that Elvishness or Mannishness is an intrinsic, perhaps unalterable, attribute of the spirit. I think we must question to what extent this is true. Yes, human spirits leave Arda after death while Elvish spirits do not; but does this imply any particular difference between the two classes of spirits themselves, beyond the difference in their ultimate fates? It seems plain, at least, that the Elvishness or Mannishness of a fea could be changed: Luthien provides an unambiguous case of an Elvish spirit becoming Mannish. When this happened, Luthien's soul, her will, her consciousness did not change. She had the same fea before and after; only its fate was different.

I suggest that a fea itself is not intrinsically Elvish or Mannish, though in most cases a particular fate is attached to it the moment it enters the world, due to its parentage. But that fate could be altered (as in Luthien's case); and in the case of Elrond's children, to whom the choice was granted even before they were born, neither fate would be prescribed to the fea when it first entered the world.