Staffs. . .Symbols? Powerful relics? Which and why?

Thorondor_ · Aug 5, 2005

What magicc does the Mouth of Sauron use?

"'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' ...and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron" Rotk, chapter 10

The nine rings are the magic objects and the source of the magic

I think that the following quote from Silmarillion, of the rings of power and the third age, makes it pretty clear that the ring wraiths were sorcerers in and of themselves:". Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."

The barrow wight is certainly some sort of evil spirit, but what magic did it use?

From chapter 8, Fotr
"After a while the song [of the wight] became clearer, and with dread in his heart he perceived that it had changed into an incantation"
"A Barrow-wight had taken him, and he was probably already under the dreadful spells of the Barrow-wights about which whispered tales spoke"

The two watchers at Cirith Ungol are stone statues and thus count as magic objects, presumably created by Sauron

I think that they count as beings:
They seemed to be carved out of huge blocks of stone, immovable, and yet they were aware: some dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them. They knew an enemy. Visible or invisible none could pass unheeded. They would forbid his entry, or his escape. Rotk, chapter 1

There is no evidence that Denethor can "read" minds

"He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son, Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best. He has long sight. He can perceive, if he bends his will thither, much of what is passing in the minds of men, even of those that dwell far off. It is difficult to deceive him, and dangerous to try." Rotk, chapter 1
Also, Faramir can do this too:
"There are locked doors and closed windows in your mind, and dark rooms behind them,' said Faramir. `But in this I judge that you speak the truth. " TTT, chapter 6

In The Hobbit we have dwarves using magic spells and commanding smoke rings; magic abilities that there is no evidence for in LOTR

"Yes,' said Gandalf, 'these doors are probably governed by words. Some dwarf-gates will open only at special times, or for particular persons; and some have locks and keys that are still needed when all necessary times and words are known. These doors have no key. In the days of Durin they were not secret. They usually stood open and doorwards sat here. But if they were shut, anyone who knew the opening word could speak it and pass in. At least so it is recorded, is it not, Gimli? "

I am not sure if we should continue discussing about related aspects of magic in this thread though.. perhaps you can propose a better thread for this.

Inderjit S · Aug 5, 2005

It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) used by me since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff."

I am sorry but your claim has no grounds-Gandalf is not a "Elvish wight", why would he "use that particular word" when it meant "Elvish wight" (with magic staff) when any such description was a mannish fallacy-you cannot merely reject one aspect of the etymology then suddenly claim the other one is valid because Tolkien used "that particular word" for a reason, ignoring the fact that the other half of the name is an obvious fallacy which Tolkien himself would not use to describe Gandalf, but Men (who gave him the name) would use, not knowing who or what Gandalf was, and thinking he was some kind of conjurer whose power lay in his staff. (Or that he was a powerful Elf.)

I think that the following quote from Silmarillion, of the rings of power and the third age, makes it pretty clear that the ring wraiths were sorcerers in and of themselves:". Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."

Er..don't see how that supports your argument-the quote says "Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old", implying that they were able to become mighty kings etc. after they gained the rings. The rings of course were "shaped" to match the desires of each ringbearer-so some may have become great warriors with their ring and some great sorcerors with their ring-just as the Dwarvish rings brang about Dwarvish greed, the Mannish rings brang about Mannish greed.

They seemed to be carved out of huge blocks of stone, immovable, and yet they were aware: some dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them. They knew an enemy. Visible or invisible none could pass unheeded. They would forbid his entry, or his escape. Rotk, chapter 1

Do you think they are similair to the statues of the Druedain?

Thorondor_ · Aug 5, 2005

ignoring the fact that the other half of the name is an obvious fallacy which Tolkien himself would not use to describe Gandalf

I disagree; the following quote is from Letter 211:
"Manwe, husband of Varda; or in grey-elven Manwe and Elbereth. Since the Valar had no language of their own, not needing one, they had no 'true' names, only identities, and their names were conferred on them by the Elves, being in origin therefore all, as it were, 'nicknames', referring to some striking peculiarity, function, or deed. (The same is true of the 'Istari' or Wizards who were emissaries of the Valar, and of their kind.) "

Er..don't see how that supports your argument

My (initial) point was that they too wielded magic, besides the elves and the wizards.

Do you think they are similair to the statues of the Druedain?

Hm.. if I remember correctly, the Druedain are described as wild and wary as the beasts.. so I wouldn't make that comparison with them...

Thorondor_ · Aug 6, 2005

About the "wight" part, its orgininal, archaic meaning is "living creature", coming from the german wicht; in scandinavian folklore, vetter reffers to elves.
There is an interesting passage in Humphrey Carpenter's biography:
"Before setting off on the return journey to England, Tolkien bought some picture postcards. Among them was a reproduction of a painting by a German artist, J. Madelener . It is called Der Berggeist, the mountain spirit, and it shows an old man sitting on a rock under a pine tree. He has a white beard and wears a wide-brimmed round hat and a long cloak. He is talking to a white fawn that is nuzzling his upturned hands, and he has a humorous but compassionate expression; there is a glimpse of rocky mountains in the distance. Tolkien preserved this postcard carefully, and long afterwards he wrote on the paper cover in which he kept it: 'Origin of Gandalf'."
http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/pix3/der_berggeist.jpg

Greenwood · Aug 6, 2005

Thorondor said:
Here is the quote:
It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) used by me since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff."
Several observations:
- Tolkien associates twice the words magic and staff in that quote
- he chose this particular name for the wizard exactly because it makes refference to the magic staff
- what's more important than the date of the publishing of this quote is when it was created by Tolkien (well, in his mind at least) - that is, at the time he thought about the name of Gandalf, which is prior to the writing of Hobbit and Lotr.
So, in your opinion, does Gandalf's name make a refference to something that actually doesn't exist in the world he creates (i.e. magic staff)?

The quote is about the name Gandalf. It is not about the nature of wizard's staffs, as I have pointed out every time you have brought it up. Please carefully read the first part of the quote. Tolkien says he chose the name Gandalf because "it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic". The staff is used in magic; I believe we all agree wizards sometimes use their staffs when performing magic. It does not say that the staff itself is magical. Further, as Inderjit has already correctly pointed out, if the second part of your quote is taken literally, as you wish to interpret it, than Gandalf is an "elvish wight"; which he clearly is not. You cannot selectively choose which part of Tolkien's words you are going to interpret literally and which parts you are not. In any event, it is absurd when dealing with the meaning of names to argue that the meanings are to be taken in a literal way. In letter 211 Tolkien discusses the meaning of some elvish names. In relation to Elrond and Elros he says "rondo was a primitive elvish word for cavern". Your style of interpretation would force us to believe that Elrond and Elros were big caves, or somehow had big holes in them. In the same passage Tolkien says Elwing means "elf-foam". Under your literal style of interpretation are we to take this to mean that Tolkien meant this character was made of foam? Perhaps they were rabid and were foaming at the mouth? In the same letter Tolkein says: "Legolas means 'green-leaves' ". This does not mean that we are to picture Legolas as dressed in green leaves or carrying green leaves around with him.

So in answer to your final question, Gandalf's name is meant to allude to the fact that he is a wizard who carries a staff and that he uses that staff in the performance of his magic. It says nothing about the actual nature of the staff.

Eledhwen · Aug 6, 2005

Wizards don't need cats because they haven't got broomsticks.

Greenwood · Aug 6, 2005

Thorondor said:
"'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' ...and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron" Rotk, chapter 10

Whatever magic the Mouth of Sauron may be capable of performing (and we never see him perform any) is derived from his master Sauron, a Maia. He, a human, has no magic powers of his own.

Thorondor said:
I think that the following quote from Silmarillion, of the rings of power and the third age, makes it pretty clear that the ring wraiths were sorcerers in and of themselves:". Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."

Inderjit has already dealt with this. The "magic" powers wielded by the possessors of the rings are derived from the rings and the rings' powers are derived from Sauron and the elves.

Thorondor said:
From chapter 8, Fotr
"After a while the song [of the wight] became clearer, ......"
"A Barrow-wight had taken him, and he was probably already under the dreadful spells of the Barrow-wights about which whispered tales spoke"
.
.
.
About the "wight" part, its orgininal, archaic meaning is "living creature", coming from the german wicht; in scandinavian folklore, vetter reffers to elves.

I concede the point that barrow-wights probably could use magic, but they are not living creatures like men or dwarves. When you gave the archaic definition of wight you ignored another archaic definition: "a supernatural being, as a sprite" [from Randon House Webster's Dictionary]. So wights are supernatural beings.

Thorondor said:
I think that they count as beings:

And how does an immovable block of stone count as a "being" rather than an object?

Thorondor said:
"He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, ....... He has long sight. He can perceive, if he bends his will thither, much of what is passing in the minds of men, even of those that dwell far off. It is difficult to deceive him, and dangerous to try." Rotk, chapter 1
Also, Faramir can do this too: "There are locked doors and closed windows in your mind, and dark rooms behind them,' said Faramir. `But in this I judge that you speak the truth. " TTT, chapter 6

Neither of these two passages can be taken to mean Denethor and Faramir had some magical ability to read minds, as opposed to a non-magical ability to assess people's characters and tell when someone is lying to them or hiding the truth. We learn later in LOTR what Denethor's "long sight" is based on; it is based on a palantir. In our every day lives when we use expressions such as "I know what you are thinking" or "I know what's on your mind" we do not mean we are employing some magical, telepathic ability. You are unjustifiably imposing a literal "mind-reading" ability interpretation on these passages.

Thorondor said:
"Yes,' said Gandalf, 'these doors are probably governed by words. Some dwarf-gates will open only at special times, ...................

Dwarf-gates do indeed seem to involve some magical component, so you have a point here. But this "magic" again seems to be pretty confined and we do not know the source of it.

Thorondor said:
I am not sure if we should continue discussing about related aspects of magic in this thread though.. perhaps you can propose a better thread for this.

Differences in magic, and other things, between The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion might indeed make for an interesting thread, but I see no reason why we cannot discuss magic here since it clearly is relevant to the question of the nature of wizards' staffs. However, this post is already quite long. My next post will continue to discuss magic in LOTR.

Thorondor_ · Aug 6, 2005

When you gave the archaic definition of wight you ignored another archaic definition: "a supernatural being, as a sprite" [from Randon House Webster's Dictionary]. So wights are supernatural beings.

My last post concerned only Gandalf, not the barrow wights. I wanted to address Inderjit's statement that "Tolkien himself would not use to describe Gandalf".

if the second part of your quote is taken literally, as you wish to interpret it, than Gandalf is an "elvish wight"; which he clearly is not.

You are ignoring the quote from 211, where it is stated clearly that the wizards have nicknames given to them. As the quote from UT about his name further goes :
"Gandalf was not an Elf, but would be by Men associated with them, since his alliance and friendship with Elves was well-known. Since the name is attributed to "the North" in general, Gandalf must be supposed to represent a Westron name but one made up of elements not derived from Elvish tongues"
And, anyway, there are much more resemblances between an istar and an elf than between an istar and any other incarnate creature.

In relation to Elrond and Elros he says "rondo was a primitive elvish word for cavern". Your style of interpretation would force us to believe that Elrond and Elros were big caves, or somehow had big holes in them. In the same passage Tolkien says Elwing means "elf-foam". Under your literal style of interpretation are we to take this to mean that Tolkien meant this character was made of foam? Perhaps they were rabid and were foaming at the mouth? In the same letter Tolkein says: "Legolas means 'green-leaves' ". This does not mean that we are to picture Legolas as dressed in green leaves or carrying green leaves around with him.

False analogy; the quote I gave from letter 211 doesn't reffer to how the names are given to other beings, only to how the names are given to the valar and the istari.

So in answer to your final question, Gandalf's name is meant to allude to the fact that he is a wizard who carries a staff and that he uses that staff in the performance of his magic. It says nothing about the actual nature of the staff.

I don't see how why we should ignore the magical adjective, even if it is in paranthesis - a magic staff (and not a mere wooden stick) would best fit a most magic being, in a magic world, fighting a foe which is most known for his magic power - either of his own, of his objects or of his servants.

Greenwood · Aug 6, 2005

In Tolkien's letters, number 155 deals with "magic" in LOTR. Not all of it is directly relevant to this discussion, but it is all of interest so I am going to quote it in its entirety:

I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and others show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely abiut motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a pseudo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction between magia and goeteia [NOTE: goeteia is derived from Greek. Goety is defined in the O.E.D. as 'witchcraft or magic performed by the invocation and employment of evil spirits; necromancy.'] Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy'. Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is especially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life'.

Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' -- with destructive and evil effects -- because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia -- quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work -- is immediacy: speed, eduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one; the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.

Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but it is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while A. is not pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'.

[italics are all in original and NOTE is from the Collected Letters]

There are a couple of important things to note in this letter relevant to our immedate discussion. First, the only kinds of people he has performing "magic" (either 'magia' or 'goeteia') is Sauron and Gandalf (both Maia) and elves. Importantly for our discussion, Tolkien says (last paragraph) that magic is an "inherent power" -- you cannot learn "magic". Thus, the Nazgul, who are men, do not have any "magic" of their own -- their powers must be derived from their rings and the rings' powers are derived from Sauron and the elves who made the rings. Thus, also the Mouth of Sauron cannot have any "magic" powers of his own -- any power he has must be derived from Sauron. We see, also in the last paragraph, that even the one "power" that Aragorn exhibits that could be termed "magical" is derived from his elve ancestry. I admit nothing in this letter directly addresses dwarves, but it does quite clearly discuss the limitations that Tolkien intended on magic in LOTR. I suggest that to extend magic powers to the dwarves, a "mortal" race like men and hobbits, would be to greatly distort Tolkien's intent.

Greenwood · Aug 6, 2005

Thorondor said:
You are ignoring the quote from 211, where it is stated clearly that the wizards have nicknames given to them. As the quote from UT about his name further goes :

What you continue to ignore, and thereby are confusing the discussion, is that in the passsage you cite from Unfinished Tales Tolkien is speaking as the author describing why HE chose the name Gandalf which he found in old Norse writings. This is outside the world of LOTR. That wizards have nicknames given to them is a property internal to the world of LOTR. You cannot combine them.

Thorondor said:
False analogy; the quote I gave from letter 211 doesn't reffer to how the names are given to other beings, only to how the names are given to the valar and the istari.

My analogy is perfectly valid and had nothing to do with your quotation from letter 211. Additionally, the two passages quoted are unrelated except for the fact that they occur in the same letter. Letter 211 is a series of answers by Tolkien to a series of questions from one of his editors. The passage I quoted is from Tolkien's answer to question #4: Explain the meaning of El- in Elrond, Elladan, Elrohir; when does El- mean 'elf' and when 'star'? Explain the meaning of the name Legolas. The passage you quote is from Tolkien's answer to question #5: Who is the Elder King mentioned by Bilbo in his song of Earendil? Is he the One?

Thorondor said:
- a magic staff (and not a mere wooden stick) would best fit a most magic being, in a magic world, fighting a foe which is most known for his magic power - either of his own, of his objects or of his servants.

The magic is derived from Gandalf, it doesn't matter that it is a "mere wooden stick". Your insistence on turning the staff into a "magic" objectg with powers of its own is purely your own personal preference. You have yet to provide any support from Tolkien for that preference. The closest you have been able to come is a single reference to Gandalf's "magic staff" in The Hobbit. However, your own quotes show that "magic" in The Hobbit is handled differently in The Hobbit than in LOTR. In The Hobbit the "magic" is much more childlike as befits the children's book it is.

Thorondor_ · Aug 6, 2005

that in the passsage you cite from Unfinished Tales Tolkien is speaking as the author describing why HE chose the name Gandalf which he found in old Norse writings. This is outside the world of LOTR. That wizards have nicknames given to them is a property internal to the world of LOTR. You cannot combine them.

I don't see the problem; isn't the author who, directly or not, actually gives names to the characters?
I think we should give the names their proper importance "to me a name comes first and the story follows" (letter 165).

My analogy is perfectly valid and had nothing to do with your quotation from letter 211

I disagree, since you invoke elvish names, which don't have to reffer to a "striking peculiarity, function, or deed", as the names of the valar and istari do.

The closest you have been able to come is a single reference to Gandalf's "magic staff" in The Hobbit. However, your own quotes show that "magic" in The Hobbit is handled differently in The Hobbit than in LOTR. In The Hobbit the "magic" is much more childlike as befits the children's book it is.

In Tolkien's work and in our discussion there are two refferences to the magic of the staff and no refference at all to the fact that there are no magical staffs. I know of nothing in Tolkien's work which belittles the importance of magic in the Hobbit; Lotr is actually a sequel to he Hobbit, and Tolkien tried as much as he could to make it to naturally fit.

Thorondor_ · Aug 6, 2005

Whatever magic the Mouth of Sauron may be capable of performing (and we never see him perform any) is derived from his master Sauron, a Maia. He, a human, has no magic powers of his own.

I don't think he is a "pure" human, considering his numenorean ascendence.

And how does an immovable block of stone count as a "being" rather than an object?

How could a mere stone know an enemy? Or forbid his entry or escape?

You are unjustifiably imposing a literal "mind-reading" ability interpretation on these passages

It's not unjustifiable; the magic of the palantir can be used for thought communication.

I suggest that to extend magic powers to the dwarves, a "mortal" race like men and hobbits, would be to greatly distort Tolkien's intent.

Well, the last part of the quote reffers strictly to Men. Hm, there isn't any instance that I can think of when ("pure") Men wield magic (either spells or magical objects); the steward who uses the palantir has numenorean ascendence and we don't know exactly what the hobbits are. To me, the dwarves are quite distinct from the Men also, considering their creation and their role in the final music, so I think that they are exempt from this quote too; they made the magic gates by themselves, and they could not "learn" magic, which means that they have "inner" magic.
This forum is indeed a great opportunity to better understand Tolkien's work.

Greenwood · Aug 7, 2005

Thorondor said:
I don't see the problem; isn't the author who, directly or not, actually gives names to the characters?

The problem is the difference between the author, as the author in the real world, explaining why he chose a real world word from Norse, a real world language, as opposed to the author explaining the usages of his imaginary languages by his imaginary characters in his imaginary world. You are mixing the two together.

Thorondor said:
I think we should give the names their proper importance "to me a name comes first and the story follows" (letter 165).

The original context of the passage you quote from letter 165 makes it clear that Tolkien was talking about the fact that he invented his languages first and then invented a mythological world for those languages, and the invention of those languages as they related to his professional life.:

The authorities of the university might well consider it an aberration of an elderly professor of philology to write and publish fairy stories and romances, and call it a 'hobby', pardonable because it has been (surprisingly to me as much as to anyone) successful. But it is not a 'hobby', in the sense of something quite different from one's work, taken up as a relief-outlet. The invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. To me a name comes first and the story follows. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. But, of course, such a work as The Lord of the Rings has been edited and only as much 'language' has been left in as I thought would be stomached by readers. (I now find that many would have liked more.) But there is a great deal of linguistic matter (other than actuallt 'elvish' names and words) included or mythologically expressed in the book. It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in 'linguistic aesthetic', as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what is it all about?'

If you continue to take isolated passages out of context and give them meanings they did not have in the original I will consider it a waste of my time to discuss Tolkien with you.

Thorondor said:
I disagree, since you invoke elvish names, which don't have to reffer to a "striking peculiarity, function, or deed", as the names of the valar and istari do.

That they are elvish names is besides the point. Even under your interpretation your assertion is meaningless since Gandalf is not his true name.

Thorondor said:
In Tolkien's work and in our discussion there are two refferences to the magic of the staff and no refference at all to the fact that there are no magical staffs. I know of nothing in Tolkien's work which belittles the importance of magic in the Hobbit; Lotr is actually a sequel to he Hobbit, and Tolkien tried as much as he could to make it to naturally fit.

The only time Gandalf's staff is called a magic staff, so far found, is in The Hobbit. We are all aware that LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit, and while Tolkien did his best to reconcile the two, the fit is far from perfect.

Thorondor said:
I don't think he is a "pure" human, considering his numenorean ascendence.

What does that mean? The Numenoreans are humans! Only the descendents of Elros have an elvish strain in them.

Thorondor said:
How could a mere stone know an enemy? Or forbid his entry or escape?

They are not "mere stones". They are magical objects, presumably created by Sauron to help guard his realm.

Thorondor said:
It's not unjustifiable; the magic of the palantir can be used for thought communication.

But it is the 'magic' of the palantir, not the user and the palantiri are clearly elvish in origin, perhaps made by Feanor himself, the greatest of all elven craftsmen. It has nothing to do with any 'magic' powers of Denethor. Pippin also used a palantir amd he is not Numenorean and certainly Tolkien did not intend hobbits to have magical powers. You continue to distort Tolkien's work out of all recognition to suit your own interpretations. As for Faramir, he certainly wasn't using any palantir in his interogation of Gollum.

Thorondor said:
Well, the last part of the quote reffers strictly to Men. Hm, there isn't any instance that I can think of when ("pure") Men wield magic (either spells or magical objects); the steward who uses the palantir has numenorean ascendence and we don't know exactly what the hobbits are.

There isn't any instance where men wield magic of their own period! Tolkien's letter 155 that I quote above makes it quite clear that was intentional on Tolkien's part. "Numenorean ascendence", whatever you mean by that is irrelevant. Numenoreans are men. The palantir is a magical object created by very powerful elves, not men, and it requires no inate magic of one's own to use it.

Thorondor said:
To me, the dwarves are quite distinct from the Men also, considering their creation and their role in the final music, so I think that they are exempt from this quote too; they made the magic gates by themselves, and they could not "learn" magic, which means that they have "inner" magic.

Yes, dwarves are quite distinct from men, but they are still mortals -- not maia or elves who as letter 155 makes clear are the ones in LOTR with inate magic powers.

Thorondor said:
This forum is indeed a great opportunity to better understand Tolkien's work.

Only if one sticks with Tolkien and resists grafting one's personal interpretations on his work as if they were Tolkien's.

Thorondor_ · Aug 7, 2005

I decided I should keep my initial reaction of indignation to my own self and continue this discussion at the calmest possible level.
"Only if one sticks with Tolkien and resists grafting one's personal interpretations on his work as if they were Tolkien's.
You continue to distort Tolkien's work out of all recognition to suit your own interpretations"
May I point out that so far, you have only tried to discredit his refferences to the magic staff, even if he never ruled out the relevance of his refferences? You are playing down his own affirmations when he doesn't do so in any manner, anywhere.
"The problem is the difference between the author, as the author in the real world, explaining why he chose a real world word from Norse, a real world language, as opposed to the author explaining the usages of his imaginary languages by his imaginary characters in his imaginary world. You are mixing the two together."
Consider the following quote from letter 144:
"Languages, however, that were related to the Westron presented a special problem. I turned them into forms of speech related to English. Since the Rohirrim are represented as recent comers out of the North, and users of an archaic Mannish language relatively untouched by the influence of Eldarin, I have turned their names into forms like (but not identical with) Old English. The language of Dale and the Long Lake would, if it appeared, be represented as more or less Scandinavian in character; but it is only represented by a few names, especially those of the Dwarves that came from that region. These are all Old Norse Dwarf-names."
Gandalf's name is also scandinavian in origin. I believe that this quote makes a clear link to the real world names. Furthermore, in his foreword to Home 6:
"I don't much approve of The Hobbit myself, preferring my own mythology (which is just touched on) with its consistent nomenclature - Elrond, Gondolin, and Esgaroth have escaped out of it - and organized history, to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Voluspa, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo -Saxon runes"
"The original context of the passage you quote from letter 165 makes it clear that Tolkien was talking about the fact that he invented his languages first and then invented a mythological world for those languages, and the invention of those languages as they related to his professional life"
Am I correct in saying that you rule out the fact that personal names, which are also a part of his languages (and, as we see above, he incorporated scandinavian names into his world) can appear first into his mind, and afterwards a storry follows? If so, is this ruling out supported by anything Tolkien said?
"That they are elvish names is besides the point."
I disagree (emphasis added):since the Valar had no language of their own, not needing one, they had no 'true' names, only identities, and their names were conferred on them by the Elves, being in origin therefore all, as it were, 'nicknames', referring to some striking peculiarity, function, or deed. (The same is true of the 'Istari). Unlike the valar/istari, the elves have "true" names.
"Even under your interpretation your assertion is meaningless since Gandalf is not his true name."
If you mean that his "true" name is Olorin, then you are wrong, since a maia is not the same thing as an istar.
"The only time Gandalf's staff is called a magic staff, so far found, is in The Hobbit. We are all aware that LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit, and while Tolkien did his best to make to reconcile the two, the fit is far from perfect"
An imperfection which is no ground to rule out the magic of the staff, unless Tolkien does so, but he doesn't.
"What does that mean? The Numenoreans are humans! Only the descendents of Elros have an elvish strain in them."
But if the Mouth of Sauron is a sorcerer (i.e. user of magic), then he is not a human, so either he has elven ascendence or, like the wringwraiths, his human condition is changed by Sauron.
"They are not "mere stones". They are magical objects, presumably created by Sauron to help guard his realm"
I think that "a dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them" can be interpreted as them being creatures and not magical objects.
"Tolkien did not intend hobbits to have magical powers"
I disagree; Frodo uses Elbereth's name with good use, but that cannot come from the name itself.
"It has nothing to do with any 'magic' powers of Denethor...The palantir is a magical object created by very powerful elves, not men, and it requires no inate magic of one's own to use it"
Tolkien makes it pretty clear humans can't use magic at all. If Denethor can use magic, then he is not a human.
"Yes, dwarves are quite distinct from men, but they are still mortals -- not maia or elves who as letter 155 makes clear are the ones in LOTR with inate magic powers"
The letter excludes only humans (not mortals) from the use of magic.

Greenwood · Aug 7, 2005

Thorondor said:
May I point out that so far, you have only tried to discredit his refferences to the magic staff, even if he never ruled out the relevance of his refferences? You are playing down his own affirmations when he doesn't do so in any manner, anywhere.

What I have been discrediting is your use of the quotes from Tolkien. Tolkien has not "affirmed" your interpretations. He is long gone and cannot be asked to "affirm" anyone's views. The best that can be done is to see whether there are any writings of Tolkien's that directly deal with the question. If there are not, then we are forced to look for indirect indications. When using such indirect, or circumstantial, evidence it is necessary to show that this is a valid/reasonable interpretation of what Tolkien wrote. In the case of your quote from UT, Inderjit has pointed out that you are selectively taking only a single part of the quote and giving that part a literal interpretation and ignoring the fact that the other part of the very same quote is not interpretable in a literal way. Given that a literal interpretation i impossible for the first part of the quote, a literal interpretation becomes impossible for the second part. I have pointed out that the context of the quote is of Tolkien, the author, explaining his choice of the name Gandalf. You have attempted to combine this type of discussion of Tolkien's, which is external to the books, with Tolkien comments that are meant to be internal to the books. This is invalid and a twisting of meanings. You continue to pursue the same kind of invalid and misleading argument by citing other writings of Tolkien's which once again mix the internal and the external workings of the author.

Thorondor said:
Furthermore, in his foreword to Home 6:

A minor point, but it is indicative of your continued mixing and confusion of sources: Tolkien did not write the Foreward to HOME 6. His son Christopher did. The quote you give is indeed by Tolkien, but it is from a letter Cristopher is quoting. The letter does point out the fact that The Hobbit and the rest of the mythology are not wholly congruent in Tolkien's view; a point which you seem to wish to ignore.

Thorondor said:
Am I correct in saying that you rule out the fact that personal names, which are also a part of his languages (and, as we see above, he incorporated scandinavian names into his world) can appear first into his mind, and afterwards a storry follows? If so, is this ruling out supported by anything Tolkien said?

I pointed out that the quotation you misused, did not mean in its original context, what you tried to make it mean. I am under no obligation to provide quotes from Tolkien to disprove things he never said.

Thorondor said:
An imperfection which is no ground to rule out the magic of the staff, unless Tolkien does so, but he doesn't.

The imperfection of the fit between The Hobbit and LOTR does mean that things and ideas found in The Hobbit are not automatically transferrable to LOTR. This does not rule out transferring things and ideas from one to the other, but it means when there are evident differences between the treatment of things and ideas in the two books, these differences have to be respected. The use of magic in the two books is a case of one of these differences and probably would make an interesting thread in its own right.

Thorondor said:
But if the Mouth of Sauron is a sorcerer (i.e. user of magic), then he is not a human, so either he has elven ascendence or, like the wringwraiths, his human condition is changed by Sauron.

You ignore the obvious alternative that any "magic" the Mouth of Sauron may use, and we never see him use any, is Sauron's "magic" -- it is not derived from the Mouth of Sauron. You are also, again, violating Tolkien's clear intentions by giving Sauron the ability to change the very nature of a rational, sentient being in Middle Earth.

Thorondor said:
I think that "a dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them" can be interpreted as them being creatures and not magical objects.

You are again giving Sauron powers beyond his means. Once again, your interpretation violates Tolkien's view of his creation; considering the Watchers magical objects infused with magical abilities by Sauron does not.

Thorondor said:
I disagree; Frodo uses Elbereth's name with good use, but that cannot come from the name itself.

Of course it comes from the name itself!!!! As Aragorn says in Flight to the Ford in FOTR: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."

Thorondor said:
Tolkien makes it pretty clear humans can't use magic at all. If Denethor can use magic, then he is not a human.

Tolkien makes it clear humans have no innate magic of their own. This is a completely different thing than using a magic object that has magical abilities that were built into it by beings that do have innate magical abilities. Your statement about Denethor is illogical.

Thorondor said:
The letter excludes only humans (not mortals) from the use of magic.

The letter is pretty clear as to who has innate "magic" abilities -- maia and elves -- and that humans do not; excluding all mortals is a reasonable inference.

BTW Tolkien states specifically in two different letters that hobbits are a "branch" of the human race: 1) In a footnote in Letter 131: "The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race ... " 2) In letter 319 in explaining how hobbits were his own creation and not derived from similarly spelled words for "house sprites", Tolkien writes: "my 'hobbits' were in any case of wholly dissimilar sorrt, a diminutive branch of the human race." Thus, since humans are excluded from having any innate magical abilities, hobbits are likewise excluded from having innate magical abilities.

Thorondor_ · Aug 7, 2005

You have attempted to combine this type of discussion of Tolkien's, which is external to the books, with Tolkien comments that are meant to be internal to the books.

I disagree;
- in that same paragraph he immediately makes refference to the the Men of ME, so this is not an "external" discussion (or, at least, there is no incongruence (in this case) between "external" and "internal" refferences);
- what does he rule out in that same paragraph? only the fact that Gandalf is not actually an elf (even if an elf is the closest possible being to an istar); he does not rule out the refference to the magic staff.

I pointed out that the quotation you misused, did not mean in its original context, what you tried to make it mean.

Tolkien states that "to me a name comes first and the story follows"; how come my observation that we should give names their proper importance is at odds with Tolkien's statement?

The use of magic in the two books is a case of one of these differences and probably would make an interesting thread in its own right.

Well, let's have it then Magic in Lotr and the Hobbit

You ignore the obvious alternative that any "magic" the Mouth of Sauron may use, and we never see him use any, is Sauron's "magic" -- it is not derived from the Mouth of Sauron. You are also, again, violating Tolkien's clear intentions by giving Sauron the ability to change the very nature of a rational, sentient being in Middle Earth.

I don't see why you bolded that part of your sentence, Tolkien reffers clearly to his "great sorcery". Anyone who uses magic is not a human. If the Mouth of Sauron and the ringwraiths can use magic, it means that either they have elven ascendence (which is not true, at least for the wraiths) either their condition is changed by Sauron's power - otherwise, as simple humans, they can't use power.

Of course it comes from the name itself!!!! As Aragorn says in Flight to the Ford in FOTR: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."

But "lore" or spells can't be, of themselves, sources of magic power; the fact that Frodo hurted the nazgul through mere words means he has magical power.

Tolkien makes it clear humans have no innate magic of their own. This is a completely different thing than using a magic object that has magical abilities that were built into it by beings that do have innate magical abilities.

I think we could continue discussing about this particular idea in Humans and the use of magical artefacts

The letter is pretty clear as to who has innate "magic" abilities -- maia and elves -- and that humans do not; excluding all mortals is a reasonable inference.

First of all, the letter doesn't reffer to maia and elves, but to Gandalf and elves. You take that paragraph to mean that only maia and elves have magic but you forget about the valar. Furthermore, of the mortal races, the dwarves have magic power.

Greenwood · Aug 7, 2005

Thorondor said:
I disagree;
- in that same paragraph he immediately makes refference to the the Men of ME, so this is not an "external" discussion (or, at least, there is no incongruence (in this case) between "external" and "internal" refferences);
- what does he rule out in that same paragraph? only the fact that Gandalf is not actually an elf (even if an elf is the closest possible being to an istar); he does not rule out the refference to the magic staff.

If we are going to take the passage "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff" as literal proof that Gandalf's staff is "magical" then we must take it as proof that Gandalf is an "elvish wight". However, we know that Gandalf is not an "elvish wight", therefore that proves we cannot take the passage as literal proof of anything. The fact that men mistakenly believe Gandalf to be elvish merely shows that a belief in his staff being "magic" could be equally mistaken.

Thorondor said:
Tolkien states that "to me a name comes first and the story follows"; how come my observation that we should give names their proper importance is at odds with Tolkien's statement?

Because you have taken the passage out of context. In its correct context, it is clear that Tolkien was talking about languages, not specifically names, as you are trying to twist it to mean.

Thorondor said:
I don't see why you bolded that part of your sentence, Tolkien reffers clearly to his "great sorcery". Anyone who uses magic is not a human. If the Mouth of Sauron and the ringwraiths can use magic, it means that either they have elven ascendence (which is not true, at least for the wraiths) either their condition is changed by Sauron's power - otherwise, as simple humans, they can't use power.

Any magic used by either the Ringwraiths or the Mouth of Sauron is clearly derived from Sauron, it is not theirs. It does not come from any power of their own. Please provide proof from Tolkien that Sauron has the power to change any living being in Middle Earth into another kind of being. In letter 153 where Tolkien agrees with a letter writer that evil is not capable of creation, Tolkien quotes Frodo speaking to Sam: "The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the Orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them." Tolkien is here specifically talking of the origin of orcs, but if Melkor did not have the ability to create new living things, then certainly Sauron, who was merely a servant of Melkor does not have that kind of power. Thus the Watchers cannot be beings, as opposed to magic objects infused with Sauron's magic, and the Ringwraiths and the Mouth of Sauron cannot have been changed from being humans. (I still have no idea what you mean by "elven ascendence".)

Thorondor said:
But "lore" or spells can't be, of themselves, sources of magic power; the fact that Frodo hurted the nazgul through mere words means he has magical power.

Frodo has no "magical power"! Frodo did not "hurt" the Nazgul in any way! The Nazgul feared the very name of Elbereth.

Thorondor said:
First of all, the letter doesn't reffer to maia and elves, but to Gandalf and elves. You take that paragraph to mean that only maia and elves have magic but you forget about the valar.

What is your point? The maiar were merely lesser valar, but were the same kinds of beings. From The Silmarillion, in chapter 1, in the section "Of the Maiar":

With the Valar came other spirits whose being also began before the World, of the same order as the Valar but of less degree. These are the Maiar, the people of the Valar, and their servants and helpers.

Thorondor said:
Furthermore, of the mortal races, the dwarves have magic power.

According to you. Saying it does not make it so.

Thorondor_ · Aug 7, 2005

The fact that men mistakenly believe Gandalf to be elvish merely shows that a belief in his staff being "magic" could be equally mistaken.

"Could be" is not much of an argument if we consider that Tolkien ruled out what he thought was mistaken about Gandalf's name (i.e. the elven origin) but left the refference to the magic staff intact. So, if he made a "clean up" and left the magic staff refference uncorrected, we must assume it is a correct refference.

In its correct context, it is clear that Tolkien was talking about languages, not specifically names, as you are trying to twist it to mean

I disagree; he was particulary talking about names "to me a name comes first and the story follows"

Please provide proof from Tolkien that Sauron has the power to change any living being in Middle Earth into another kind of being.

"Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow, his most terrible servants."
I can hardly see a shadow as being a human anymore.

I still have no idea what you mean by "elven ascendence"

I mean having an elf as an ancestor.

Frodo did not "hurt" the Nazgul in any way!

I disagree: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth". I don't see a refference to fear, but a refference to harm. How could a mere name be "deadly" to a nazgul, unless some magic is involved? But we know names, in and of themselves, have no magical power - only their wielder can have.

What is your point? The maiar were merely lesser valar, but were the same kinds of beings.

However, that quote you invoke makes no refference to maiar/valar, only to a single istar, so it cannot be interpreted as limiting the cathegory of beings who have magic abilities.

According to you. Saying it does not make it so.

Since dwarves made magic objects (their gates) then they must have magic powers - since magic cannot be learnt.

HLGStrider · Aug 7, 2005

Eledhwen said:
Wizards don't need cats because they haven't got broomsticks.

EVERYONE needs cats. ..

Ah, dang, my chocolate's gone.
This thread I created is a monster, isn't it?

AraCelebEarwen · Aug 7, 2005

*the small, squeaky voice came from under a near by rock* "Just perhaps. I don't like to get into debates that much... perhaps they forgot I was ever here... did you say chocolate? If you get more, can I have some? It would be really good about now."

Staffs. . .Symbols? Powerful relics? Which and why?

What exactly were the staffs for?

Completely symbolic, like the pointy hats.

Mostly symbolic, but they concentrate the POWER!

They are mildly powerful relics. Not essential but good to have.

They are very powerful relics, but not essential.

They are essential. A wizard without his staff is. . .well. ..staffless?

Wizards should give up the staffs and go with the power of Elgee's cats.

Well-Known Member

Bootylicious

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Cumbrian

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Well-Known Member

All Knowing Magic Cat

Part of the Shadows

Share this page

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency