In message <news:3086550.GWoJdJbvJU@cedar.serverforest.com>
Derek Broughton <news RemoveThis @pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> NY Teacher wrote:
>>
>> "Jamie Armstrong" <J.D.Armstrong RemoveThis @durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:fn5lsm$nn7$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
>>>
>>> I've never thought that Tolkien meant "And from the blade rang a
>>> cold voice in answer: 'Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly... I
>>> will slay thee swiftly'" (Silmarillion, Of Turin Turambar) to be
>>> taken literally. Turin was alone, so no-one heard him talk to
>>> Gurthang, not the sword answer back. I always felt this was just
>>> a bit of poetic license, rather than a factual account.
Without addressing the relation to the issue of Gandalf's comment, I
nevertheless think that it is indeed intended to be literal.
We shouldn't take the narrative conceit too seriously -- despite the
translator pose, Tolkien's stories are nevertheless told from the
point of an omniscient narrator (you can find several examples in
LotR as well -- including for instance the description of the
relation between Sauron and Shelob).
The whole episode is closely based on the similar episode in the
Finnish Kalevala, and there is no doubt that the speaking sword is
intended as literally true within the sub-created 'reality' of the
Kalevala mythos -- the Tśrin story even started as a deliberate
retelling of the Kullervo story.
We also have Tolkien's statements from /On Fairy-Stories/ regarding
the story-internal truth of the story:
It is at any rate essential to a genuine fairy-story, as
distinct from the employment of this form for lesser or
debased purposes, that it should be presented as 'true.'
[OFS, 'Fairy Story', /Tree and Leaf/ p. 14]
What is presented in a fairy-story must be 'true' within the story,
and therefore I don't think that there is anything told in the
narrative voice that should be seen as fictional or simple 'poetic
license' within the story -- the narrative voice must be accepted as
story-internally truthful, even when it's making silly comments about
Shire foxes (there could, I suppose, be exceptions, but these would
definitely be few and very insignificant -- that blasted fox might be
one, for all I know). Of course, since nobody is perfect, I would
expect the narrative voice to contradict itself at times -- I know
for certain that it occasionally refers to events that were later
dropped from the larger story, but the reference remained.
This kind of 'poetic license' -- or rather 'telling falsehoods in the
narrative voice' -- implies a distancing by the author to his own
sub-creation and mythologizing which I think is wholly alien to
Tolkien, who was extremely serious about his sub-creation and the
internal consistency and veracity of the story.
We see this in a larger scale with respect to the recasting of the
mythology sketched in 'Myths Transformed' (Part five of /Morgoth's
Ring/). Christopher Tolkien, in his extensive commentary to the
question of the necessity of the tranformation, finds it 'remarkable
that [Tolkien] never at this time seems to have felt that what he
said in this present note provided a resolution of the problem that
he believed to exist:' the note in question tells that the
Silmarillion myths 'are traditions ... handed on by Men in Nśmenor
and later in Middle-earth [...] blended and confused with their own
Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.' I, however, do not find it
particularly remarkable (at least not in the sense of 'surprising')
-- the one thing Tolkien could not do was to consider the mythologies
/false/.
>>> I therefore don't think weapons would refuse to kill
That is a good question: was it possible for a weapon to refuse to
strike? Could Gurthang have refused to slay Tśrin, for instance
jumping out of its setting in the ground as he tried to throw himself
upon it?
I really don't think it could.
>>> (or else would not Gurthang had saved any number of the
>>> victims of Turin's rage?).
But as Thingol turned the hilt of Anglachel towards
Beleg, Melian looked at the blade; and she said: 'There
is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still
dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves; neither
will it abide with you long.'
[Silm, Silm QS,21 'Of Tśrin Turambar']
A 'better' sword might, but not Gurthang
>>> However, I have always thought that the line "Indeed my friends,
>>> none of you have any weapon that could hurt me" was supposed to
>>> have "now" at the end of it - in fact, I had to check that it
>>> *didn't*!
I know what you mean -- I had exactly the same error of memory with
respect to Aragorn's comment about Gandalf being able to get anywhere
faster than any of the others -- I was convinced that there was a
'now' in that sentence somewhere
>>> I think it's interesting to look at two incidents in LotR. At
>>> Weathertop Gandalf encounters all nine of the Nazgul, who attack
>>> him. When he flees the next day, he is pursued by four of the
>>> nine, so clearly they think that these four can comfortably take
>>> on and defeat Gandalf the Grey.
>
> No, I think _they_ think that four is enough to keep him busy.
Yes, I agree that this is all we can conclude. Gandalf had, after
all, just defended his position against all nine for a whole night,
so how could they believe that the four would be able to defeat him
outright. They did, however, count on four as being able to keep him
away from the Ringbearer's company, showing that they believed that
four were too many for him to dismiss out of hand. And of course, by
his own statement, he only 'escaped' at sunrise and 'fled towards the
north', so he didn't think himself that he would have been able to
survive another night (judging by the Moria sequence, the magic
necessary to keep them off probably exhausted him to the point where
he couldn't have done in for two nights running).
> They're not mindless - they can't _all_ chase Gandalf, because
> that wouldn't leave anyone to stop the ringbearer, and they can't
> just let Gandalf go, as that might allow him to join up with
> Frodo.
Good summary of their motives.
> While the mission of the Istari was probably never widely
> understood in Middle Earth, surely Sauron, through his domination
> of Saruman, knows exactly what Gandalf can and can not do here,
With the exception, of course, of the effect of Providence. Sauron
just didn't get that part, and neither did Saruman (definitely not
when he got in contact with Sauron), and so they couldn't take that
into account.
Not that I think it has much influence here (except maybe to draw off
four instead of just two Ringwraiths), but the account in 'The Quest
of Erebor' of Gandalf's premonition about Bilbo is exactly of the
sort of extra help that was available to those who remained true to
the mission.
> and it's not Gandalf the Grey's mission to overthrow Sauron or his
> Black Riders.
Good point.
> Gandalf the White is issued an extended writ precisely _because_
> Saruman has betrayed the mission.
And to act specifically as a set-off to Saruman, yes.
>> Maybe I am off base here, but in a fight between the Balrog and
>> the Nine Nazgul, I think the Balrog would be the betting man's
>> choice.
>
> While that smacks of the much-hated "Who was more powerful?"
> thread, I'd agree with you.
Well -- suffice to say that I wouldn't be taking that bet
>>> "The Nazgul screeched and swept away, for their Captain was not
>>> yet come to challenge the white fire of his foe." (RotK, The
>>> Siege of Gondor)
>>>
>>> Clearly there is a significant difference between the two
>>> Gandalfs, and that the Nazgul can sense it and are, if not
>>> afraid then at least wary.
>>
>> I see it slightly differently, based on Gandalf's defeat of the
>> Balrog...Gandalf the White was, perhaps, more powerful than the
>> Grey, but more importantly the strictures against his *use* of
>> his power were, IMHO, lessened.
It does go deeper than that. The old Gandalf could not have done to
Théoden what Gandalf the White did, and I don't think this has to do
with voluntary strictures -- despite wearing Narya for just this
purpose, he wouldn't have been able to kindle Théoden's heart before
his enhancement by Eru.
Tolkien explicitly states that 'Gandalf sacrificed himself, was
accepted, and enhanced, and returned.' He also stresses that the new
Gandalf was 'still under the obligation of concealing his power and
of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills'.
Yes, strictures were also loosened so that he could act with physical
force in an emergency, but his power to do so was definitely much
enhanced.
<snip>
> I don't think you're seeing it differently at all. The Witchking
> wasn't afraid of Gandalf the Grey - he knew Gandalf would try to
> hinder him, but couldn't use his power directly.
I don't think that Gandalf the Grey were restricted in his use of his
power against the Nazgūl at Weathertop. The restrictions dealt more
with their relations to Sauron's opponents, and they
were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty,
or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open
display of power
[UT 4,II 'The Istari']
None of this, however, applies to the direct confrontation between
Gandalf and he Rignwraiths at Weathertop. I also think I've seen some
statement that Gandalf sensed that his restrictions were loosened
already before his return, but I can't find the reference.
In any case Tolkien states in letter #156 about why the Istari were
sent in incarnate forms that
the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their
exhibition of 'power' on the physical plane, and so that
they should do what they were primarily sent for: train,
advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those
threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own
strengths; and not just to do the job for them.
[Letters #156, To Robert Murray, SJ. (draft), 1954]
The limitations to their 'exhibition of "power" on the physical
plane' were inherent in their bodies -- not just a question of
voluntary limitations. When Gandalf was sent back, the restrictions
were largely in place, except for emergencies, but his exhibition of
physical power was no longer as limited and hindered as it had been
in his old body.
Incidentally I also found a couple of other quotations regarding the
bodies of the wizards that specifically states that they could be
injured:
but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but
subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able
to hunger and thirst and be slain
[UT 4,II 'The Istari']
and
By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies
capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the
spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though
supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and
only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.
[Letters #156, To Robert Murray, SJ. (draft), 1954]
There seems an underlying idea to Tolkien's work that the ageing is
really an expression of the onset of spiritual weariness -- and this
weariness was slower in the wizards. Their bodies could also 'endure
long' due to the indwelling of their angelic spirits, but I don't
think there's any suggestion that Gandalf the Grey was more resistant
to injury than e.g. Glorfindel (who also died killing a Balrog), or
other of the more powerful elves.
> The Witchking recognized the difference in Gandalf the White, and
> - trusting prophecy - suddenly Gandalf is very dangerous to him.
This could naturally be correct regardless of what exactly the
difference was, and I quite agree.
> As far as he could tell, Gandalf was probably the only person in
> Minas Tirith who _could_ threaten him.
If we assume that he had been told what Gandalf was, he would know
that Gandalf was not a 'man'.
But even as Gandalf denies the Witch-king access to Minas Tirith, the
Witch-king doesn't seem particularly concerned about it: 'Old fool!
This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and
curse in vain!'
It doesn't appear to me as if the Witch-king, who at this point 'is
given an added demonic force' (letter #210), is worried about the
prospects of facing down Gandalf the White.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal
nothing.
- Frodo Baggins, /The Return of the King/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
>> Stay informed about: The Istari were susceptible to mortal pitfalls. 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
