'Háma, Doorward of Théoden' scene (Aragorn Post)

[Radaghast]

This post is not about Háma, so much as it is about Aragorn, but it's the scene where Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are required to leave their weapons at the door. In the film, they do without question, except for Gandalf's staff. But in the book, in Chapter 6, "The King of the Golden Hall" in the corresponding scene Aragorn makes a ado about it. Just after Legolas has left the weapons given to him by Galadriel and is told that nobody will touch them, Aragorn essentially throws a hissy fit about leaving Andúril, until he is convinced to do so by Gandalf. But before uttering some bold words:

‘Here I set it,’ he said; ‘But I command you not to touch it, nor to permit any other to lay hand on it. In this elvish heath dwells the Blade that was Broken and has been made again. Telchar first wrought it in the deeps of time. Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil’s sword save Elendil’s heir.’

It's one of the few scenes from the book that I don't fault the movie for leaving out, all else considered, because it wouldn't really amounted to anything, and doesn't seem to in the book either. I want to try and examine the reason for its inclusion by Tolkien. I have to think that it's a piece of characterization by Tolkien, to establish that Aragorn is not some boy scout, someone to be trifled with, even by those who would be allies; someone to whom heritage and heirloom is very important. Perhaps it also sets up the moment with the encounter with the Mouth of Sauron, where the MoS quails from Aragorn merely looking at him.

What do others think? Any particular thoughts about this scene?

 

[Halasían]

‘Here I set it,’ he said; ‘But I command you not to touch it, nor to permit any other to lay hand on it. In this elvish heath dwells the Blade that was Broken and has been made again. Telchar first wrought it in the deeps of time. Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil’s sword save Elendil’s heir.’

It's one of the few scenes from the book that I don't fault the movie for leaving out, all else considered, because it wouldn't really amounted to anything...

Considering how shallow Peter Jackson had made Aragorn in the movies compared to how Tolkien wrote his story in the books, I agree this would not have made any sense whatsoever if presented out of the blue in the films. Aragorn, after all, simply 'chose exile' instead of kingship and ran off north to chase some Elven girl. In the movies, he didn't get possession of Anduril until some time after the door scene.

... it wouldn't really amounted to anything, and doesn't seem to in the book either. I want to try and examine the reason for its inclusion by Tolkien. I have to think that it's a piece of characterization by Tolkien, to establish that Aragorn is not some boy scout, someone to be trifled with, even by those who would be allies; someone to whom heritage and heirloom is very important. Perhaps it also sets up the moment with the encounter with the Mouth of Sauron, where the MoS quails from Aragorn merely looking at him.

What do others think? Any particular thoughts about this scene?

I disagree with your take that Aragorn saying that to Hama the Door Warden in the books didn't amount to anything. I agree that Tolkien included it to build on the development of Aragorn as the heir of Elendil. With the wider legendarium of Aragorn as part of the story, (Aragorn having served King Thengel of Rohan with his broken blade) and all the other swords of renown previously mentioned in The Hobbit (Glamdring) and in the Lord of the Rings 'Fog On the Barrow Downs chapter (the blades of Westernesse), Aragorn speaks of a blade that announces indirectly to Hama who he is because he carries it. That is how I took it when I read the books.

 

[Radaghast]

I think you're right, Halasían. It's a surprising moment for the reader to see Aragorn in that light, as someone who takes his heritage very, very seriously. I just think it a bit funny, perhaps, that the guards had already promised not to touch Legolas' stuff.

 

[Eldacar]

To me, this part has always been the scene that really illustrates like no other the difference between movie and book Aragorn. The kind of kingly pride he really has. I was convinced from the first reading that it was included for just this purpose.

It is not clear to me that the will of Théoden son of Thengel, even though he be lord of the Mark, should prevail over the will of Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elendil’s heir of Gondor.’

 

[Radaghast]

To me, this part has always been the scene that really illustrates like no other the difference between movie and book Aragorn. The kind of kingly pride he really has. I was convinced from the first reading that it was included for just this purpose.

It is not clear to me that the will of Théoden son of Thengel, even though he be lord of the Mark, should prevail over the will of Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elendil’s heir of Gondor.’

True, the movies shied away from showing Aragorn as kingly.

 

[Eljorahir]

It is not clear to me that the will of Théoden son of Thengel, even though he be lord of the Mark, should prevail over the will of Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elendil’s heir of Gondor.’

Though the reader couldn't know it at this point (I think), comparing Aragorn's words with the terms of the ancient "conditional" land grant founding Rohan reveals Aragorn's words not to be merely kingly pride. He's bringing up a question of legal authority, I think.

Cirion, Steward of Gondor, to Eorl the Young: 'To Eorl I will give in free gift all the great land...his people shall dwell in freedom while the authority of the Stewards endures, until the Great King returns...'

Is Aragorn already the "Great King" by virtue of his blood? If so, he can take Anduril wherever he wants. If not, he needs to leave it at the door.

Of course the legal question becomes a moot point in the scene thanks to Gandalf's advice and Aragorn's wisdom.

 

[Erurávennë]

This post is not about Háma, so much as it is about Aragorn, but it's the scene where Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are required to leave their weapons at the door. In the film, they do without question, except for Gandalf's staff. But in the book, in Chapter 6, "The King of the Golden Hall" in the corresponding scene Aragorn makes a ado about it. Just after Legolas has left the weapons given to him by Galadriel and is told that nobody will touch them, Aragorn essentially throws a hissy fit about leaving Andúril, until he is convinced to do so by Gandalf. But before uttering some bold words:


It's one of the few scenes from the book that I don't fault the movie for leaving out, all else considered, because it wouldn't really amounted to anything, and doesn't seem to in the book either. I want to try and examine the reason for its inclusion by Tolkien. I have to think that it's a piece of characterization by Tolkien, to establish that Aragorn is not some boy scout, someone to be trifled with, even by those who would be allies; someone to whom heritage and heirloom is very important. Perhaps it also sets up the moment with the encounter with the Mouth of Sauron, where the MoS quails from Aragorn merely looking at him.

What do others think? Any particular thoughts about this scene?

I believe this is because Aragorn’s character is slightly different in the book vs. the film. He believes he is very ready to become king and lead as opposed to the movie’s reluctant Aragorn. Other scenes in the book when compared to the movie such as Aragorn’s beholding of the Aragonath also show this difference. Check this out: