🧙Gandalf's Death in Moria - An Afterthought?

[Walter]

Could it be?

 

[Walter]

Well, since none seems to be interested to discuss this topic here, I guess I should see if I'm more lucky when I post it elsewhere...

 

[Tyaronumen]

LOL -- you think that no one is interested? Maybe you've just come upon something that people don't really have anything to say about . . . except 'wow...'...?

I was definitely interested -- but what sort of response would I give you...? An uneducated opinion?

 

[Arvedui]

I agree with Tyaronumen. Wow!
It is not the sort of question to answer straight away. Need some time to think this over.

 

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Could it have been an editorial choice? Maybe if the editors knew of two different versions, they may have made the choice themselves, or Tolkien made the choice AFTER this letter.

I like the 'death' version myself, but Tolkien at first, being Catholic, may have felt qualms about implying so much supernatural or 'reincarnation' ideas. But, I'm glad they did, because that version really opens the readers mind to a greater extent.

Or maybe he DID have an affinity to ideas of reincarnation (as many thinkers thru the ages have), but early on had to repress them because of his religion.

 

[Walter]

Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin
Could it have been an editorial choice? Maybe if the editors knew of two different versions, they may have made the choice themselves, or Tolkien made the choice AFTER this letter.

I like the 'death' version myself, but Tolkien at first, being Catholic, may have felt qualms about implying so much supernatural or 'reincarnation' ideas. But, I'm glad they did, because that version really opens the readers mind to a greater extent.

Or maybe he DID have an affinity to ideas of reincarnation (as many thinkers thru the ages have), but early on had to repress them because of his religion.

As for editorial changes, I am hoping that someone with an early version of the LotR will help us throwing some light on the issue.

Considering Tolkien's religious background I think he might have seen it rather as "resurrection" than "reincarnation".

 

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I wonder if anyone has an old "English" edition, i.e., before it was published here in the U.S. Anybody?

(I still think people may contemplate reincarnation, even though they don't buy into it. I grew up Catholic and have a generalized memory of the idea of a PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus as being, for the most part, left vague and ambiguous in our catechisms.)

 

[Ancalagon]

I do not think Gandalfs death was an afterthought, though neither do I think it was his original intention, as it is an essential transition for him and the fellowship in breaking.

From the Treason of Isenguard, HOME;

On the way they ask Gandalf how he escaped. He refuses the full tale- but tells how he passed through fire (and water?) and came to the 'bottom of the world', there he finally overthrew the Balrog, who fled. Gandalf followed up a secret way to Durin's Tower on the summit of the mountains (?of Caradhras). There they had a battle - those who beheld it from afar thought it a thunderstorm with lightening. A great rain came down. The Balrog was destroyed, and the tower crumbled and stones blocked the door of the secret way. Gandalf was left on the mountaintop. The Eagle Gwaihir rescued him. He went then to Lothlorien. While Gandalf was on the mountain-top he saw many things - a vision of Mordor etc.

This is taken from Tolkiens first draft of notes on the subject. The fact that while he had visions on the mountain-top, he was still fully alive and well suggests no original thoughts of 'death and spiritual travel beyond Arda.'

 

[Walter]

Many thanks, Anc. This was the quotation I referred to in my opening post and which I did not give (as I said I would).

You wouldn't happen to know someone owning one of the first printed versions of LotR, now would you?

 

[Ancalagon]

Hehe, sorry, I don't. I own a Second Edition, but the terminology is the same. However, it would be interesting to know what triggered the change in direction for Tolkien?! Why does Gandalf go through death to return stronger, more invigorated and enlightened?

 

[Walter]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
Hehe, sorry, I don't. I own a Second Edition, but the terminology is the same. However, it would be interesting to know what triggered the change in direction for Tolkien?! Why does Gandalf go through death to return stronger, more invigorated and enlightened?

Now if you replace Gandalf with Jesus in your last sentence, this might provide us with an answer why Tolkien finally choose this turn of the story rather than what he had initially drafted (and maybe even had delivered for publication, assuming he had been quoting from the book in his draft for a letter).

 

[Chymaera]

Gandalf's "death", if a Maia can die, say transformation instead.

I see it as a device to break up the Fellowship cleanly. That is to say that If Gandalf just defeated the Balrog on the bridge and stayed the leader then the story goes in a totally different direction.

Gandalf had to fall.

Otherwise only Boromir would have left the group not having an opportunity to waylay Frodo, off everyone goes to Mordor following Gandalf's lead.

No, interaction of Frodo, Sam and Gollum.
No Pippin Merry and Treebread.
No, Rohan.
No, Isengard.
No, Helms Deep, well no victory at Helms Deep.
No, Paths of the Dead
Lots of the story just dies.

Gandalf has to fall at the Bridge, but he also has to come back too.

 

[Walter]

I didn't question that Gandalf had to fall at the bridge, and disappear for a while, but the question is: Did he have to die after he fell? I had gotten the idea that Gandalf's death was maybe an afterthought of Tolkien from the discussion in another thread, and the quotations in my first post are meant to indicate that there may have been a different storyline even in the first printed versions of LotR...

 

[Arvedui]

From letter 181:

Gandalf is a created person; though possibly a spirit that excisted before in the physical world. His function as a wizard is an angelos or messenger from the Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-Earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided. But since in the view of this tale & mythology Power - when it dominates or seeks to dominate other wills and minds (except by the assent of their reason) - is evil, these 'wizards' were incarnated in the life-forms of Middle-Earth, and so suffered the pains both of mind and body. They were also, for the same reason, thus involved in the peril of the incarnate: the possibility of 'fall', of sin, if tou will. The chief form this would take with them would be impatience, leading to the desire to force others to their own good ends, and so inevitably at last to mere desire to make their own wills effective by any means. To this evil Saruman succumbed. Gandalf did not. But the situation became so much the worse by the fall of Saruman, that the 'good' were obliged to greater effort and sacrifice. Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back as he seya, with enhanced power.

I therefore do not see Gandalfs death as an afterthought, but rather as something that was inevitable. Tolkien had to let Gandalf die, so that he could come back with more power, strong enough to counter Saruman. The Valar probably found this nescesarry (sp?) since Saruman was their own making, and as such, their problem to solve.

 

[Ancalagon]

Regarding the need for 'death' in respect of Gandalf is a questionable term. For 'death', he would have needed to be reborn, which in this case did not happen. What did happen however was that he was 're-housed' within his body. Death is final, yet it seems in Tolkiens mythology, there are a number of cases whereby the dead have been returned to physical form, though only in extreme circumstances. Beren is a primary example of 'death' without 'rebirth' and from what I can remember, alone in the world of Men to have been granted this second opportunity at life.

Yet, Gandalf was Maia, and did not suffer the same fate of death, that was the gift of Men. One wonders then at the consequence of death in this case, if it was not to be reborn, then what?

...Then darkness took me; and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell.

This quote seems to offer some deeper insight into the question of his death (or transcendence) and has been argued by others, but is relevant to this debate. I believe Tolkien uses Gandalfs passing 'out of time and thought' to his eventual return ''Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death' as an example that can only be compared to Christs own transfiguration. He had become a more exalted form, not reborn but an actual metamorphic change in stature. How so? Well, I think Tar-Elenion touched on this before, but it seems more likely that Gandalf passed beyond the realm of Arda, beyond the Valar and possibly out to Eru himself. If so, Eru sent him back to complete his task, and this is significant if one remembers that Olorin was the reluctant Istari.

Tolkien could well have considered the meaning of this as he wrote it, however I do not see an actual comparison between Jesus and Gandalf other than that of the transfiguration. Gandalf certainly did not die in order to open the gateway of heaven. However, one thing that strikes me about this is the possibility that Gandalf actually 'gave up' his body deliberately. Tolkien may have considered this, possibly in the same vein as Jesus wanted to give up his spirit and reutn to the Father before his task was complete??!! (Now there is a similitude for you Maedhros)

I suppose one cannot simply envisage Tolkiens reflections on death as squarely a Christian perspective, much can be made of his understaning of Norse mythology. Whether there is some influence relating to the death of Balder as a result of Loki's actions and his eventual return described of Ragnarok, I cannot say.

 

[Chymaera]

Originally posted by Walter
...the quotations in my first post are meant to indicate that there may have been a different storyline even in the first printed versions of LotR...

I see what you are asking about.

After reading HoME VI - VII; You can see that there were quite a few changes. So It is possibile that the death was an afterthought.

 

[Maedhros]

An interesting topic Walter. My guess would be that when Gandalf refers to his "death", he means the slaying of his hröa (body) to relate his experience to humans so that they could understand better.
I think that Saruman gets the idea when he talks to him about his "death." Both of them are Maia, and I think that that interaction was made more for the "public" to know than they themselves. There was no HOME at that time.

 

[Arvedui]

Posted by Anc:

Regarding the need for 'death' in respect of Gandalf is a questionable term. For 'death', he would have needed to be reborn, which in this case did not happen. What did happen however was that he was 're-housed' within his body.

I agree, to a certain extent. Olorin var originally a Maia, and he was sort of issued a human-type body when he was sent by the Valar to ME. I believe it is the Middle-Earth life-form Gandalf that died, not the soul and spirit that is Olorin. He was sent back, maybe even by Eru, I don't know, with powers strong enough to defeat Saruman. Even if the Ents had destroyed the works of Saruman in and around Orthanc, he was still a force to be reckoned with, and possessed great powers.

I believe Tolkien uses Gandalfs passing 'out of time and thought' to his eventual return ''Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death'

A wild guess: Maybe this quote had a rather different meaning to Saruman than to the others present. Maybe Gandalf by saying this, actually said to Saruman: " I have been with the Valar, and you know why I'm here: You're fired!" Or something similar.

 

[Ancalagon]

A wild guess: Maybe this quote had a rather different meaning to Saruman than to the others present. Maybe Gandalf by saying this, actually said to Saruman: " I have been with the Valar, and you know why I'm here: You're fired!" Or something similar.

I am not sure if I agree with the part pertaining to the Valar, I think Gandalf not only passed through fire and death, but evolved with a greater sense of conviction about his own role, and in particular a greater sense of authority. The sharp rebuke of Saruman was particularly commanding and visibly potent. He had risen above his station, transcended his own doubts and spoke with the greatest authority, possibly as one who speaks in the name of Eru himself.

 

[Arvedui]

I do not disagree with your thoughts on Eru, as you well can read in my previous post. I only didn't add it in the wild guess. Actually, I think we are on to something here. It would make a perfectly good explanation for the whole question, wouldn't it?