Were the Valar more merciful to Sauron than to Feanor?












14















Were the Valar more merciful to Sauron than to Feanor?



Even considering Sauron's skill in guile, they gave him a "second chance", didn't they? Feanor had sworn the most terrible of all oaths and was responsible for the most terrible crimes. He defied every living thing to hinder him - even the gods. But the one thing that I grant him is that there was no deception or guile about him in his arrogance.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • The word "more" already means it's "relatively speaking" :-)

    – Rand al'Thor
    yesterday











  • Feanor's favorite sin was pride. He didn't really want a second chance. He wouldn't have seen anything he did as wrong.

    – JavaMikeMoore
    yesterday
















14















Were the Valar more merciful to Sauron than to Feanor?



Even considering Sauron's skill in guile, they gave him a "second chance", didn't they? Feanor had sworn the most terrible of all oaths and was responsible for the most terrible crimes. He defied every living thing to hinder him - even the gods. But the one thing that I grant him is that there was no deception or guile about him in his arrogance.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • The word "more" already means it's "relatively speaking" :-)

    – Rand al'Thor
    yesterday











  • Feanor's favorite sin was pride. He didn't really want a second chance. He wouldn't have seen anything he did as wrong.

    – JavaMikeMoore
    yesterday














14












14








14


1






Were the Valar more merciful to Sauron than to Feanor?



Even considering Sauron's skill in guile, they gave him a "second chance", didn't they? Feanor had sworn the most terrible of all oaths and was responsible for the most terrible crimes. He defied every living thing to hinder him - even the gods. But the one thing that I grant him is that there was no deception or guile about him in his arrogance.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Were the Valar more merciful to Sauron than to Feanor?



Even considering Sauron's skill in guile, they gave him a "second chance", didn't they? Feanor had sworn the most terrible of all oaths and was responsible for the most terrible crimes. He defied every living thing to hinder him - even the gods. But the one thing that I grant him is that there was no deception or guile about him in his arrogance.







tolkiens-legendarium






share|improve this question









New contributor




Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 17 hours ago









V2Blast

14219




14219






New contributor




Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









Margaret JohnsonMargaret Johnson

764




764




New contributor




Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Margaret Johnson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • The word "more" already means it's "relatively speaking" :-)

    – Rand al'Thor
    yesterday











  • Feanor's favorite sin was pride. He didn't really want a second chance. He wouldn't have seen anything he did as wrong.

    – JavaMikeMoore
    yesterday



















  • The word "more" already means it's "relatively speaking" :-)

    – Rand al'Thor
    yesterday











  • Feanor's favorite sin was pride. He didn't really want a second chance. He wouldn't have seen anything he did as wrong.

    – JavaMikeMoore
    yesterday

















The word "more" already means it's "relatively speaking" :-)

– Rand al'Thor
yesterday





The word "more" already means it's "relatively speaking" :-)

– Rand al'Thor
yesterday













Feanor's favorite sin was pride. He didn't really want a second chance. He wouldn't have seen anything he did as wrong.

– JavaMikeMoore
yesterday





Feanor's favorite sin was pride. He didn't really want a second chance. He wouldn't have seen anything he did as wrong.

– JavaMikeMoore
yesterday










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















23














They didn't really give Sauron a second chance, though it might have turned out that way. The issue was Eonwë, at the the end of the War of Wrath had no right to judge his fellow Ainur. So he told Sauron, if he truly repented (which he seemed to, if only very briefly), he had to return to Valinor and be judged there. He feared the consequences of that judgement though and escaped, remaining quiet for quite a while.




When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwë, the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eonwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eonwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.




The Silmarillion - Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Whenever I read this passage I always get songmeanings.com/songs/view/125736 going through my head ...

    – Ian Bush
    yesterday






  • 1





    Eonwe is such a gullible fool. Hue hue.

    – Annatar
    yesterday



















8














This is a very interesting question, and I thought that @suchiuomizu's answer was quite good and upvoted it. But I think it's incomplete. There are two other points which need to be considered:



First, the Valar (and Maiar) were not at all Godlike in their judgment. They made numerous mistakes, generally mistakes of being too trusting -- see the question Why did Manwe not understand the concept of Evil? for a discussion of this. Bottom line: Naivety and bad judgment.



But secondly, oaths were taken very, very seriously in this world. (This is a reflection of the seriousness of oaths in the North in our own world.) Feanor swore an oath to do evil and made it in an unbreakable form:




Then Feanor swore a terrible oath. His seven sons leapt straightway to his side and took the selfsame vow together, and red as blood shone their drawn swords in the glare of the torches. 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.



Thus spoke Maedhros and Maglor and Celegorm, Curufin and Caranthir, Amrod and Amras, princes of the Noldor; and many quailed to hear the dread words. For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.




Some of Feanor's sons later sought a way out, but failed:




Yet Maglor still held back, saying 'If Manwe and Varda themselves deny the fulfilment of an oath to which we named them in witness, is it not made void?'



And Maedhros answered 'But how shall our voices reach to Iluvatar beyond the Circles of the World? And by Iluvatar we swore in our madness, and called the Everlasting Darkness upon us, if we kept not our word. Who shall release us?'



'If none can release us,' said Maglor, '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.'




In the end, Maglor wanted to break the oath, and rightly judged that even by the standards of his world that would be the less evil, but he still didn't break it.




Yet he yielded at last to the will of Maedhros, and they took counsel together how they should lay hands on the Silmarils. And they disguised themselves, and came in the night to the camp of Eönwe, and crept into the place where the Silmarils were guarded; and they slew the guards, and laid hands on the jewels.




I think today we look at as pretty silly that someone would swear an oath to God to do evil and think that God would bind them to do that evil. But in the context of the Norse and Middle-Earth, this was solemn and terrible and resolvable only by the direct intervention of Iluvatar.



So on the one hand, the Valar had Feanor (and sons) who were sworn to do evil and had ample proof that they took the oath seriously and would carry it out no matter what forgiveness was forthcoming from the Valar. How could they let them run loose?



On the other hand, they had Sauron and had been running in bad company but who had not made an unbreakable commitment to doing evil. That they could pardon.



In some respects they were right. Sauron was not dedicated to doing evil so much as selfish. Given his "fair hue" it was not unreasonable to think that he could be turned back to good pursuits.






share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    They didn't swear to do evil as such - because it was Melkor who had taken the Silmarils and it was him they were waging war against. It wasn't until Silmarils had been reclaimed by Beren, Luthien and later Eonwe, that the oath bid them to do evil deeds.

    – Amarth
    yesterday



















0














In addition to the oaths that Feanor swore, there was also the killing of the Teleri when they would not surrender their ships. Kinslaying is frowned upon.






share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear to you. I didn't mean "why weren't the Valar more merciful to Feanor"? I meant, "why weren't the Valar more merciful - in comparison to Sauron etc etc" I was just thinking of a comparison, you see.

    – Margaret Johnson
    yesterday



















0














Feanor died after entering Beleriand, and (as all dead elves do) went to the Halls of Mandos. Unlike other elves (Glorfindel, for example), Feanor never left. I don't believe we know more than that about his fate. Given that, it's impossible to tell how merciful anyone was to Feanor. Is he still in the Halls voluntarily or involuntarily? Is he better off there or outside?






share|improve this answer































    0














    I personally don't see them be particularly merciful to any of the two wrongdoers. Both times, the Valar just step away, let the prideful choose their own path, seal their own fates and suffer the consequences of their own mistakes. And then just sometimes send some Maiar to clean up after the most extreme outbursts of evil.



    Sauron is the maker of his own second chances. And the third, and so on. While Morgoth's evil deeds where well known by the end of the First Age, Sauron could still get away with "I just chose a side and followed orders", and he did. He then spent two Ages trying to usurp power over the Middle-Earth, building himself a base and an army, plotting and corrupting, attempting to control everything magically.



    Feanor didn't. He just rode into every fight he could find and after meeting first serious opposition, got himself killed. But that's hardly Valar's doing. He chose differently from Sauron, that's all.



    No one from major Arda sapient races dies completely, there's life after death. Ainur and Elves don't even die irreversibly. For them, dying means losing what you had, losing ability to affect the world, forceful relocation to remote places, but not destruction. Unlike Men, all of them can come back. Both Sauron and Feanor can.



    In some drafts, there are prophecies about the return. For example, in HoME v.4 "The Shaping of Middle-earth", chapter 3 "Quenta" (early version of Quenta Silmarillion from 1930s) contains the following:




    Thus spake the prophecy of Mandos, which he declared
    in Valmar at the judgement of the Gods, and the rumour of
    it was whispered among all the Elves of the West: when the
    world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth
    shall come back through the Door out of the Timeless
    Night; and he shall destroy the Sun and the Moon, but
    Earendel shall come upon him as a white flame and drive
    him from the airs. Then shall the last battle be gathered on
    the fields of Valinor...
    Thereafter shall the Silmarils' be recovered out of sea
    and earth and air; for Earendel shall descend and yield up
    that flame that he hath had in keeping. Then Feanor shall
    bear the Three and yield them unto Yavanna Palurien; and
    she will break them and with their fire rekindle the Two
    Trees, and a great light shall come forth; and the Mountains
    of Valinor shall be levelled, so that the light goes out all
    over the world.




    So in principle, nothing is completely lost for both characters. One day thay may act again. If it hasn't happened yet, it means their time hasn't yet come. And Valar didn't do anything particular to stop either of them from having one more go at it.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      Mayar -> Maiar (unless you meant just one, then Maia :-)

      – David Roberts
      yesterday











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "186"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Margaret Johnson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f204468%2fwere-the-valar-more-merciful-to-sauron-than-to-feanor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    23














    They didn't really give Sauron a second chance, though it might have turned out that way. The issue was Eonwë, at the the end of the War of Wrath had no right to judge his fellow Ainur. So he told Sauron, if he truly repented (which he seemed to, if only very briefly), he had to return to Valinor and be judged there. He feared the consequences of that judgement though and escaped, remaining quiet for quite a while.




    When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwë, the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eonwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eonwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.




    The Silmarillion - Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      Whenever I read this passage I always get songmeanings.com/songs/view/125736 going through my head ...

      – Ian Bush
      yesterday






    • 1





      Eonwe is such a gullible fool. Hue hue.

      – Annatar
      yesterday
















    23














    They didn't really give Sauron a second chance, though it might have turned out that way. The issue was Eonwë, at the the end of the War of Wrath had no right to judge his fellow Ainur. So he told Sauron, if he truly repented (which he seemed to, if only very briefly), he had to return to Valinor and be judged there. He feared the consequences of that judgement though and escaped, remaining quiet for quite a while.




    When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwë, the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eonwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eonwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.




    The Silmarillion - Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      Whenever I read this passage I always get songmeanings.com/songs/view/125736 going through my head ...

      – Ian Bush
      yesterday






    • 1





      Eonwe is such a gullible fool. Hue hue.

      – Annatar
      yesterday














    23












    23








    23







    They didn't really give Sauron a second chance, though it might have turned out that way. The issue was Eonwë, at the the end of the War of Wrath had no right to judge his fellow Ainur. So he told Sauron, if he truly repented (which he seemed to, if only very briefly), he had to return to Valinor and be judged there. He feared the consequences of that judgement though and escaped, remaining quiet for quite a while.




    When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwë, the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eonwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eonwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.




    The Silmarillion - Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age






    share|improve this answer















    They didn't really give Sauron a second chance, though it might have turned out that way. The issue was Eonwë, at the the end of the War of Wrath had no right to judge his fellow Ainur. So he told Sauron, if he truly repented (which he seemed to, if only very briefly), he had to return to Valinor and be judged there. He feared the consequences of that judgement though and escaped, remaining quiet for quite a while.




    When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwë, the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eonwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eonwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.




    The Silmarillion - Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday









    Lexible

    7,87112561




    7,87112561










    answered yesterday









    suchiuomizusuchiuomizu

    4,17121223




    4,17121223








    • 1





      Whenever I read this passage I always get songmeanings.com/songs/view/125736 going through my head ...

      – Ian Bush
      yesterday






    • 1





      Eonwe is such a gullible fool. Hue hue.

      – Annatar
      yesterday














    • 1





      Whenever I read this passage I always get songmeanings.com/songs/view/125736 going through my head ...

      – Ian Bush
      yesterday






    • 1





      Eonwe is such a gullible fool. Hue hue.

      – Annatar
      yesterday








    1




    1





    Whenever I read this passage I always get songmeanings.com/songs/view/125736 going through my head ...

    – Ian Bush
    yesterday





    Whenever I read this passage I always get songmeanings.com/songs/view/125736 going through my head ...

    – Ian Bush
    yesterday




    1




    1





    Eonwe is such a gullible fool. Hue hue.

    – Annatar
    yesterday





    Eonwe is such a gullible fool. Hue hue.

    – Annatar
    yesterday













    8














    This is a very interesting question, and I thought that @suchiuomizu's answer was quite good and upvoted it. But I think it's incomplete. There are two other points which need to be considered:



    First, the Valar (and Maiar) were not at all Godlike in their judgment. They made numerous mistakes, generally mistakes of being too trusting -- see the question Why did Manwe not understand the concept of Evil? for a discussion of this. Bottom line: Naivety and bad judgment.



    But secondly, oaths were taken very, very seriously in this world. (This is a reflection of the seriousness of oaths in the North in our own world.) Feanor swore an oath to do evil and made it in an unbreakable form:




    Then Feanor swore a terrible oath. His seven sons leapt straightway to his side and took the selfsame vow together, and red as blood shone their drawn swords in the glare of the torches. 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.



    Thus spoke Maedhros and Maglor and Celegorm, Curufin and Caranthir, Amrod and Amras, princes of the Noldor; and many quailed to hear the dread words. For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.




    Some of Feanor's sons later sought a way out, but failed:




    Yet Maglor still held back, saying 'If Manwe and Varda themselves deny the fulfilment of an oath to which we named them in witness, is it not made void?'



    And Maedhros answered 'But how shall our voices reach to Iluvatar beyond the Circles of the World? And by Iluvatar we swore in our madness, and called the Everlasting Darkness upon us, if we kept not our word. Who shall release us?'



    'If none can release us,' said Maglor, '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.'




    In the end, Maglor wanted to break the oath, and rightly judged that even by the standards of his world that would be the less evil, but he still didn't break it.




    Yet he yielded at last to the will of Maedhros, and they took counsel together how they should lay hands on the Silmarils. And they disguised themselves, and came in the night to the camp of Eönwe, and crept into the place where the Silmarils were guarded; and they slew the guards, and laid hands on the jewels.




    I think today we look at as pretty silly that someone would swear an oath to God to do evil and think that God would bind them to do that evil. But in the context of the Norse and Middle-Earth, this was solemn and terrible and resolvable only by the direct intervention of Iluvatar.



    So on the one hand, the Valar had Feanor (and sons) who were sworn to do evil and had ample proof that they took the oath seriously and would carry it out no matter what forgiveness was forthcoming from the Valar. How could they let them run loose?



    On the other hand, they had Sauron and had been running in bad company but who had not made an unbreakable commitment to doing evil. That they could pardon.



    In some respects they were right. Sauron was not dedicated to doing evil so much as selfish. Given his "fair hue" it was not unreasonable to think that he could be turned back to good pursuits.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3





      They didn't swear to do evil as such - because it was Melkor who had taken the Silmarils and it was him they were waging war against. It wasn't until Silmarils had been reclaimed by Beren, Luthien and later Eonwe, that the oath bid them to do evil deeds.

      – Amarth
      yesterday
















    8














    This is a very interesting question, and I thought that @suchiuomizu's answer was quite good and upvoted it. But I think it's incomplete. There are two other points which need to be considered:



    First, the Valar (and Maiar) were not at all Godlike in their judgment. They made numerous mistakes, generally mistakes of being too trusting -- see the question Why did Manwe not understand the concept of Evil? for a discussion of this. Bottom line: Naivety and bad judgment.



    But secondly, oaths were taken very, very seriously in this world. (This is a reflection of the seriousness of oaths in the North in our own world.) Feanor swore an oath to do evil and made it in an unbreakable form:




    Then Feanor swore a terrible oath. His seven sons leapt straightway to his side and took the selfsame vow together, and red as blood shone their drawn swords in the glare of the torches. 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.



    Thus spoke Maedhros and Maglor and Celegorm, Curufin and Caranthir, Amrod and Amras, princes of the Noldor; and many quailed to hear the dread words. For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.




    Some of Feanor's sons later sought a way out, but failed:




    Yet Maglor still held back, saying 'If Manwe and Varda themselves deny the fulfilment of an oath to which we named them in witness, is it not made void?'



    And Maedhros answered 'But how shall our voices reach to Iluvatar beyond the Circles of the World? And by Iluvatar we swore in our madness, and called the Everlasting Darkness upon us, if we kept not our word. Who shall release us?'



    'If none can release us,' said Maglor, '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.'




    In the end, Maglor wanted to break the oath, and rightly judged that even by the standards of his world that would be the less evil, but he still didn't break it.




    Yet he yielded at last to the will of Maedhros, and they took counsel together how they should lay hands on the Silmarils. And they disguised themselves, and came in the night to the camp of Eönwe, and crept into the place where the Silmarils were guarded; and they slew the guards, and laid hands on the jewels.




    I think today we look at as pretty silly that someone would swear an oath to God to do evil and think that God would bind them to do that evil. But in the context of the Norse and Middle-Earth, this was solemn and terrible and resolvable only by the direct intervention of Iluvatar.



    So on the one hand, the Valar had Feanor (and sons) who were sworn to do evil and had ample proof that they took the oath seriously and would carry it out no matter what forgiveness was forthcoming from the Valar. How could they let them run loose?



    On the other hand, they had Sauron and had been running in bad company but who had not made an unbreakable commitment to doing evil. That they could pardon.



    In some respects they were right. Sauron was not dedicated to doing evil so much as selfish. Given his "fair hue" it was not unreasonable to think that he could be turned back to good pursuits.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3





      They didn't swear to do evil as such - because it was Melkor who had taken the Silmarils and it was him they were waging war against. It wasn't until Silmarils had been reclaimed by Beren, Luthien and later Eonwe, that the oath bid them to do evil deeds.

      – Amarth
      yesterday














    8












    8








    8







    This is a very interesting question, and I thought that @suchiuomizu's answer was quite good and upvoted it. But I think it's incomplete. There are two other points which need to be considered:



    First, the Valar (and Maiar) were not at all Godlike in their judgment. They made numerous mistakes, generally mistakes of being too trusting -- see the question Why did Manwe not understand the concept of Evil? for a discussion of this. Bottom line: Naivety and bad judgment.



    But secondly, oaths were taken very, very seriously in this world. (This is a reflection of the seriousness of oaths in the North in our own world.) Feanor swore an oath to do evil and made it in an unbreakable form:




    Then Feanor swore a terrible oath. His seven sons leapt straightway to his side and took the selfsame vow together, and red as blood shone their drawn swords in the glare of the torches. 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.



    Thus spoke Maedhros and Maglor and Celegorm, Curufin and Caranthir, Amrod and Amras, princes of the Noldor; and many quailed to hear the dread words. For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.




    Some of Feanor's sons later sought a way out, but failed:




    Yet Maglor still held back, saying 'If Manwe and Varda themselves deny the fulfilment of an oath to which we named them in witness, is it not made void?'



    And Maedhros answered 'But how shall our voices reach to Iluvatar beyond the Circles of the World? And by Iluvatar we swore in our madness, and called the Everlasting Darkness upon us, if we kept not our word. Who shall release us?'



    'If none can release us,' said Maglor, '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.'




    In the end, Maglor wanted to break the oath, and rightly judged that even by the standards of his world that would be the less evil, but he still didn't break it.




    Yet he yielded at last to the will of Maedhros, and they took counsel together how they should lay hands on the Silmarils. And they disguised themselves, and came in the night to the camp of Eönwe, and crept into the place where the Silmarils were guarded; and they slew the guards, and laid hands on the jewels.




    I think today we look at as pretty silly that someone would swear an oath to God to do evil and think that God would bind them to do that evil. But in the context of the Norse and Middle-Earth, this was solemn and terrible and resolvable only by the direct intervention of Iluvatar.



    So on the one hand, the Valar had Feanor (and sons) who were sworn to do evil and had ample proof that they took the oath seriously and would carry it out no matter what forgiveness was forthcoming from the Valar. How could they let them run loose?



    On the other hand, they had Sauron and had been running in bad company but who had not made an unbreakable commitment to doing evil. That they could pardon.



    In some respects they were right. Sauron was not dedicated to doing evil so much as selfish. Given his "fair hue" it was not unreasonable to think that he could be turned back to good pursuits.






    share|improve this answer













    This is a very interesting question, and I thought that @suchiuomizu's answer was quite good and upvoted it. But I think it's incomplete. There are two other points which need to be considered:



    First, the Valar (and Maiar) were not at all Godlike in their judgment. They made numerous mistakes, generally mistakes of being too trusting -- see the question Why did Manwe not understand the concept of Evil? for a discussion of this. Bottom line: Naivety and bad judgment.



    But secondly, oaths were taken very, very seriously in this world. (This is a reflection of the seriousness of oaths in the North in our own world.) Feanor swore an oath to do evil and made it in an unbreakable form:




    Then Feanor swore a terrible oath. His seven sons leapt straightway to his side and took the selfsame vow together, and red as blood shone their drawn swords in the glare of the torches. 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.



    Thus spoke Maedhros and Maglor and Celegorm, Curufin and Caranthir, Amrod and Amras, princes of the Noldor; and many quailed to hear the dread words. For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.




    Some of Feanor's sons later sought a way out, but failed:




    Yet Maglor still held back, saying 'If Manwe and Varda themselves deny the fulfilment of an oath to which we named them in witness, is it not made void?'



    And Maedhros answered 'But how shall our voices reach to Iluvatar beyond the Circles of the World? And by Iluvatar we swore in our madness, and called the Everlasting Darkness upon us, if we kept not our word. Who shall release us?'



    'If none can release us,' said Maglor, '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.'




    In the end, Maglor wanted to break the oath, and rightly judged that even by the standards of his world that would be the less evil, but he still didn't break it.




    Yet he yielded at last to the will of Maedhros, and they took counsel together how they should lay hands on the Silmarils. And they disguised themselves, and came in the night to the camp of Eönwe, and crept into the place where the Silmarils were guarded; and they slew the guards, and laid hands on the jewels.




    I think today we look at as pretty silly that someone would swear an oath to God to do evil and think that God would bind them to do that evil. But in the context of the Norse and Middle-Earth, this was solemn and terrible and resolvable only by the direct intervention of Iluvatar.



    So on the one hand, the Valar had Feanor (and sons) who were sworn to do evil and had ample proof that they took the oath seriously and would carry it out no matter what forgiveness was forthcoming from the Valar. How could they let them run loose?



    On the other hand, they had Sauron and had been running in bad company but who had not made an unbreakable commitment to doing evil. That they could pardon.



    In some respects they were right. Sauron was not dedicated to doing evil so much as selfish. Given his "fair hue" it was not unreasonable to think that he could be turned back to good pursuits.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    Mark OlsonMark Olson

    13.9k24881




    13.9k24881








    • 3





      They didn't swear to do evil as such - because it was Melkor who had taken the Silmarils and it was him they were waging war against. It wasn't until Silmarils had been reclaimed by Beren, Luthien and later Eonwe, that the oath bid them to do evil deeds.

      – Amarth
      yesterday














    • 3





      They didn't swear to do evil as such - because it was Melkor who had taken the Silmarils and it was him they were waging war against. It wasn't until Silmarils had been reclaimed by Beren, Luthien and later Eonwe, that the oath bid them to do evil deeds.

      – Amarth
      yesterday








    3




    3





    They didn't swear to do evil as such - because it was Melkor who had taken the Silmarils and it was him they were waging war against. It wasn't until Silmarils had been reclaimed by Beren, Luthien and later Eonwe, that the oath bid them to do evil deeds.

    – Amarth
    yesterday





    They didn't swear to do evil as such - because it was Melkor who had taken the Silmarils and it was him they were waging war against. It wasn't until Silmarils had been reclaimed by Beren, Luthien and later Eonwe, that the oath bid them to do evil deeds.

    – Amarth
    yesterday











    0














    In addition to the oaths that Feanor swore, there was also the killing of the Teleri when they would not surrender their ships. Kinslaying is frowned upon.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3





      Sorry, I didn't make myself clear to you. I didn't mean "why weren't the Valar more merciful to Feanor"? I meant, "why weren't the Valar more merciful - in comparison to Sauron etc etc" I was just thinking of a comparison, you see.

      – Margaret Johnson
      yesterday
















    0














    In addition to the oaths that Feanor swore, there was also the killing of the Teleri when they would not surrender their ships. Kinslaying is frowned upon.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3





      Sorry, I didn't make myself clear to you. I didn't mean "why weren't the Valar more merciful to Feanor"? I meant, "why weren't the Valar more merciful - in comparison to Sauron etc etc" I was just thinking of a comparison, you see.

      – Margaret Johnson
      yesterday














    0












    0








    0







    In addition to the oaths that Feanor swore, there was also the killing of the Teleri when they would not surrender their ships. Kinslaying is frowned upon.






    share|improve this answer













    In addition to the oaths that Feanor swore, there was also the killing of the Teleri when they would not surrender their ships. Kinslaying is frowned upon.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    VerdanVerdan

    57669




    57669








    • 3





      Sorry, I didn't make myself clear to you. I didn't mean "why weren't the Valar more merciful to Feanor"? I meant, "why weren't the Valar more merciful - in comparison to Sauron etc etc" I was just thinking of a comparison, you see.

      – Margaret Johnson
      yesterday














    • 3





      Sorry, I didn't make myself clear to you. I didn't mean "why weren't the Valar more merciful to Feanor"? I meant, "why weren't the Valar more merciful - in comparison to Sauron etc etc" I was just thinking of a comparison, you see.

      – Margaret Johnson
      yesterday








    3




    3





    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear to you. I didn't mean "why weren't the Valar more merciful to Feanor"? I meant, "why weren't the Valar more merciful - in comparison to Sauron etc etc" I was just thinking of a comparison, you see.

    – Margaret Johnson
    yesterday





    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear to you. I didn't mean "why weren't the Valar more merciful to Feanor"? I meant, "why weren't the Valar more merciful - in comparison to Sauron etc etc" I was just thinking of a comparison, you see.

    – Margaret Johnson
    yesterday











    0














    Feanor died after entering Beleriand, and (as all dead elves do) went to the Halls of Mandos. Unlike other elves (Glorfindel, for example), Feanor never left. I don't believe we know more than that about his fate. Given that, it's impossible to tell how merciful anyone was to Feanor. Is he still in the Halls voluntarily or involuntarily? Is he better off there or outside?






    share|improve this answer




























      0














      Feanor died after entering Beleriand, and (as all dead elves do) went to the Halls of Mandos. Unlike other elves (Glorfindel, for example), Feanor never left. I don't believe we know more than that about his fate. Given that, it's impossible to tell how merciful anyone was to Feanor. Is he still in the Halls voluntarily or involuntarily? Is he better off there or outside?






      share|improve this answer


























        0












        0








        0







        Feanor died after entering Beleriand, and (as all dead elves do) went to the Halls of Mandos. Unlike other elves (Glorfindel, for example), Feanor never left. I don't believe we know more than that about his fate. Given that, it's impossible to tell how merciful anyone was to Feanor. Is he still in the Halls voluntarily or involuntarily? Is he better off there or outside?






        share|improve this answer













        Feanor died after entering Beleriand, and (as all dead elves do) went to the Halls of Mandos. Unlike other elves (Glorfindel, for example), Feanor never left. I don't believe we know more than that about his fate. Given that, it's impossible to tell how merciful anyone was to Feanor. Is he still in the Halls voluntarily or involuntarily? Is he better off there or outside?







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        David ThornleyDavid Thornley

        1,07989




        1,07989























            0














            I personally don't see them be particularly merciful to any of the two wrongdoers. Both times, the Valar just step away, let the prideful choose their own path, seal their own fates and suffer the consequences of their own mistakes. And then just sometimes send some Maiar to clean up after the most extreme outbursts of evil.



            Sauron is the maker of his own second chances. And the third, and so on. While Morgoth's evil deeds where well known by the end of the First Age, Sauron could still get away with "I just chose a side and followed orders", and he did. He then spent two Ages trying to usurp power over the Middle-Earth, building himself a base and an army, plotting and corrupting, attempting to control everything magically.



            Feanor didn't. He just rode into every fight he could find and after meeting first serious opposition, got himself killed. But that's hardly Valar's doing. He chose differently from Sauron, that's all.



            No one from major Arda sapient races dies completely, there's life after death. Ainur and Elves don't even die irreversibly. For them, dying means losing what you had, losing ability to affect the world, forceful relocation to remote places, but not destruction. Unlike Men, all of them can come back. Both Sauron and Feanor can.



            In some drafts, there are prophecies about the return. For example, in HoME v.4 "The Shaping of Middle-earth", chapter 3 "Quenta" (early version of Quenta Silmarillion from 1930s) contains the following:




            Thus spake the prophecy of Mandos, which he declared
            in Valmar at the judgement of the Gods, and the rumour of
            it was whispered among all the Elves of the West: when the
            world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth
            shall come back through the Door out of the Timeless
            Night; and he shall destroy the Sun and the Moon, but
            Earendel shall come upon him as a white flame and drive
            him from the airs. Then shall the last battle be gathered on
            the fields of Valinor...
            Thereafter shall the Silmarils' be recovered out of sea
            and earth and air; for Earendel shall descend and yield up
            that flame that he hath had in keeping. Then Feanor shall
            bear the Three and yield them unto Yavanna Palurien; and
            she will break them and with their fire rekindle the Two
            Trees, and a great light shall come forth; and the Mountains
            of Valinor shall be levelled, so that the light goes out all
            over the world.




            So in principle, nothing is completely lost for both characters. One day thay may act again. If it hasn't happened yet, it means their time hasn't yet come. And Valar didn't do anything particular to stop either of them from having one more go at it.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              Mayar -> Maiar (unless you meant just one, then Maia :-)

              – David Roberts
              yesterday
















            0














            I personally don't see them be particularly merciful to any of the two wrongdoers. Both times, the Valar just step away, let the prideful choose their own path, seal their own fates and suffer the consequences of their own mistakes. And then just sometimes send some Maiar to clean up after the most extreme outbursts of evil.



            Sauron is the maker of his own second chances. And the third, and so on. While Morgoth's evil deeds where well known by the end of the First Age, Sauron could still get away with "I just chose a side and followed orders", and he did. He then spent two Ages trying to usurp power over the Middle-Earth, building himself a base and an army, plotting and corrupting, attempting to control everything magically.



            Feanor didn't. He just rode into every fight he could find and after meeting first serious opposition, got himself killed. But that's hardly Valar's doing. He chose differently from Sauron, that's all.



            No one from major Arda sapient races dies completely, there's life after death. Ainur and Elves don't even die irreversibly. For them, dying means losing what you had, losing ability to affect the world, forceful relocation to remote places, but not destruction. Unlike Men, all of them can come back. Both Sauron and Feanor can.



            In some drafts, there are prophecies about the return. For example, in HoME v.4 "The Shaping of Middle-earth", chapter 3 "Quenta" (early version of Quenta Silmarillion from 1930s) contains the following:




            Thus spake the prophecy of Mandos, which he declared
            in Valmar at the judgement of the Gods, and the rumour of
            it was whispered among all the Elves of the West: when the
            world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth
            shall come back through the Door out of the Timeless
            Night; and he shall destroy the Sun and the Moon, but
            Earendel shall come upon him as a white flame and drive
            him from the airs. Then shall the last battle be gathered on
            the fields of Valinor...
            Thereafter shall the Silmarils' be recovered out of sea
            and earth and air; for Earendel shall descend and yield up
            that flame that he hath had in keeping. Then Feanor shall
            bear the Three and yield them unto Yavanna Palurien; and
            she will break them and with their fire rekindle the Two
            Trees, and a great light shall come forth; and the Mountains
            of Valinor shall be levelled, so that the light goes out all
            over the world.




            So in principle, nothing is completely lost for both characters. One day thay may act again. If it hasn't happened yet, it means their time hasn't yet come. And Valar didn't do anything particular to stop either of them from having one more go at it.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              Mayar -> Maiar (unless you meant just one, then Maia :-)

              – David Roberts
              yesterday














            0












            0








            0







            I personally don't see them be particularly merciful to any of the two wrongdoers. Both times, the Valar just step away, let the prideful choose their own path, seal their own fates and suffer the consequences of their own mistakes. And then just sometimes send some Maiar to clean up after the most extreme outbursts of evil.



            Sauron is the maker of his own second chances. And the third, and so on. While Morgoth's evil deeds where well known by the end of the First Age, Sauron could still get away with "I just chose a side and followed orders", and he did. He then spent two Ages trying to usurp power over the Middle-Earth, building himself a base and an army, plotting and corrupting, attempting to control everything magically.



            Feanor didn't. He just rode into every fight he could find and after meeting first serious opposition, got himself killed. But that's hardly Valar's doing. He chose differently from Sauron, that's all.



            No one from major Arda sapient races dies completely, there's life after death. Ainur and Elves don't even die irreversibly. For them, dying means losing what you had, losing ability to affect the world, forceful relocation to remote places, but not destruction. Unlike Men, all of them can come back. Both Sauron and Feanor can.



            In some drafts, there are prophecies about the return. For example, in HoME v.4 "The Shaping of Middle-earth", chapter 3 "Quenta" (early version of Quenta Silmarillion from 1930s) contains the following:




            Thus spake the prophecy of Mandos, which he declared
            in Valmar at the judgement of the Gods, and the rumour of
            it was whispered among all the Elves of the West: when the
            world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth
            shall come back through the Door out of the Timeless
            Night; and he shall destroy the Sun and the Moon, but
            Earendel shall come upon him as a white flame and drive
            him from the airs. Then shall the last battle be gathered on
            the fields of Valinor...
            Thereafter shall the Silmarils' be recovered out of sea
            and earth and air; for Earendel shall descend and yield up
            that flame that he hath had in keeping. Then Feanor shall
            bear the Three and yield them unto Yavanna Palurien; and
            she will break them and with their fire rekindle the Two
            Trees, and a great light shall come forth; and the Mountains
            of Valinor shall be levelled, so that the light goes out all
            over the world.




            So in principle, nothing is completely lost for both characters. One day thay may act again. If it hasn't happened yet, it means their time hasn't yet come. And Valar didn't do anything particular to stop either of them from having one more go at it.






            share|improve this answer















            I personally don't see them be particularly merciful to any of the two wrongdoers. Both times, the Valar just step away, let the prideful choose their own path, seal their own fates and suffer the consequences of their own mistakes. And then just sometimes send some Maiar to clean up after the most extreme outbursts of evil.



            Sauron is the maker of his own second chances. And the third, and so on. While Morgoth's evil deeds where well known by the end of the First Age, Sauron could still get away with "I just chose a side and followed orders", and he did. He then spent two Ages trying to usurp power over the Middle-Earth, building himself a base and an army, plotting and corrupting, attempting to control everything magically.



            Feanor didn't. He just rode into every fight he could find and after meeting first serious opposition, got himself killed. But that's hardly Valar's doing. He chose differently from Sauron, that's all.



            No one from major Arda sapient races dies completely, there's life after death. Ainur and Elves don't even die irreversibly. For them, dying means losing what you had, losing ability to affect the world, forceful relocation to remote places, but not destruction. Unlike Men, all of them can come back. Both Sauron and Feanor can.



            In some drafts, there are prophecies about the return. For example, in HoME v.4 "The Shaping of Middle-earth", chapter 3 "Quenta" (early version of Quenta Silmarillion from 1930s) contains the following:




            Thus spake the prophecy of Mandos, which he declared
            in Valmar at the judgement of the Gods, and the rumour of
            it was whispered among all the Elves of the West: when the
            world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth
            shall come back through the Door out of the Timeless
            Night; and he shall destroy the Sun and the Moon, but
            Earendel shall come upon him as a white flame and drive
            him from the airs. Then shall the last battle be gathered on
            the fields of Valinor...
            Thereafter shall the Silmarils' be recovered out of sea
            and earth and air; for Earendel shall descend and yield up
            that flame that he hath had in keeping. Then Feanor shall
            bear the Three and yield them unto Yavanna Palurien; and
            she will break them and with their fire rekindle the Two
            Trees, and a great light shall come forth; and the Mountains
            of Valinor shall be levelled, so that the light goes out all
            over the world.




            So in principle, nothing is completely lost for both characters. One day thay may act again. If it hasn't happened yet, it means their time hasn't yet come. And Valar didn't do anything particular to stop either of them from having one more go at it.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered yesterday









            avekavek

            44133




            44133








            • 1





              Mayar -> Maiar (unless you meant just one, then Maia :-)

              – David Roberts
              yesterday














            • 1





              Mayar -> Maiar (unless you meant just one, then Maia :-)

              – David Roberts
              yesterday








            1




            1





            Mayar -> Maiar (unless you meant just one, then Maia :-)

            – David Roberts
            yesterday





            Mayar -> Maiar (unless you meant just one, then Maia :-)

            – David Roberts
            yesterday










            Margaret Johnson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Margaret Johnson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Margaret Johnson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Margaret Johnson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f204468%2fwere-the-valar-more-merciful-to-sauron-than-to-feanor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Paul Cézanne

            UIScrollView CustomStickyHeader Resize height generates problems when scroll is too fast

            Angular material date-picker (MatDatepicker) auto completes the date on focus out