Why was 🧙Gandalf not able to read the runes?

[Arthur_Vandelay]

From the chapter "Roast Mutton":

"These look like good blades," said the wizard, half drawing them and looking at them curiously. "They were not made by any troll, nor by any smith among men in these parts and days; but when we can read the runes on them, we shall know more about them."

Elrond, who can read the runes, later says that they are written in the ancient tongue of Gondolin (Quenya? or Sindarin?). Why was Gandalf not able to read the runes?

 

[Confusticated]

Look at this: Runes of Gondolin. The author of the essay, Lisa Star, says:

Since Gondolin was known for the learning of the linguists who lived there, it may be that the alphabet was designed to be used for notating a variety of languages.

Which I find to be an interesting, and good idea. But whatever the case may be, this could have been such a short lived system, something used only among a select few? And maybe in such case even Gandalf had no need to know the system. On the other hand I do not know why a system with a function of being used only among select few loremasters, or that was not very widely known, would be used on swords.

...and, are the Runes as pretty as Feanor's alphabet, to be inscribed on great craftsmanship? It is puzzling. Runes in general were used for inscriptions, but even Sauron was able to detail the elvish letters on his ring... surely the smiths of Gondolin could etch them on?



I found that page linked to here, where this information is given of the Runes:

§44. Runes of Gondolin: These are the runes in which the swords of Gandalf and Thorin would have been inscribed. I believe this material was given to Paul Nolan Hyde by Christopher Tolkien and might be at the Bodleian. Published in Mythlore Issue 69, in the summer of 1992, with an analysis by Paul Nolan Hyde. There is also a very brief analysis of them with a chart, on this website, see the Runes of Gondolin.

 

[Walter]

Saying that Gandalf was not yet an Istar won't suffice as an answer, I presume?

 

[Eledhwen]

Gandalf never travelled to Gondolin, as far as I know. His knowledge of Entish, Elvish and the tongues of Men was vast, but not limitless. I get the impression he did not study for the love of studying, but out of necessity. Thus it was that, although he had been to Gondor many times before and studied the manuscripts therein; it was not until he needed to know about Isildur's bane that he even bothered to research about the Ring; and this even though Sauron was the reason he was sent to Middle-earth in the first place. Elrond had personal reasons for knowing about Gondolin, and so know how to read the code set in runes on the two great swords. Elrond's knowledge too was limited. "What, then is Durin's Day?" he asked. A major Dwarf feast day, I would have thought; though knowledge of it had escaped him.

 

[baragund]

Also, Gandalf and the other Istari didn't show up until around T.A. 1000. He would not have had any direct knowledge of any special system of writing unique to Gondolin. And it makes perfect sense that Elrond would be familiar with this writing since his family is from Gondolin.

Also, the passage as written in The Hobbit really sets up Elrond as someone important in the story and it gives greater relevance to Rivendell.

 

[Walter]

According to UT the Istari appeared first in Middle-earth about ThA 1000 (though from HoMeXII we get a slightly different account), thus it is almost certain, that "Gandalf" never saw Gondolin.

What I meant in my previous post was, that Gandalf in The Hobbit was not yet an Istar, but merely a wizard (and even that only with luck because he might as well have ended up as the dwarf he originally was intended to be ).

Interestingly enough Tolkien seems to have realized the problem with the runes, since he changed "if we can read the runes" (as in the version of 1937), meaning it is uncertain whether they can be decyphered, to "when we can read the runes" (from 1966 on) and thus suggesting that decyphering the runes would be just a matter of time (or occasion, musing, whatever)...

----

I say "only with luck", since Gandalf - like the other dwarven names - is originally a name from the "dvergatal" of the Voluspá (part of the Elder or Poetic Edda) and there belongs to a dwarf. And indeed in the manuscript Gandalf was the leader of the dwarven party whereas Bladorthin was the name of the wizard. Were it not for Tolkien's philological diligence, he might not have come to realize gandr describing a 'staff' or 'wand' - and thus connected to some sort of magic - and eventually to interpret gand-alfr as an "Elf with a wand"...

 

[JPMaximilian]

Do you mean that Tolkien had not yet decided upon the backstory of Gandalf?

 

[baragund]

Absolutely, JP. Tolkien's view of Gandalf evolved a lot from the time he wrote The Hobbit in 1936-37 to the publishing of LOTR in 1954. In some of the initial drafts of The Hobbit, Gandalf was a dwarf. This evolution of characters and even races of being is not uncommon to Tolkien. Dwarves at one time were pretty rotten people, almost orc-like. The Elves of Nargothrond started out as a rustic people. People and events were always being shifted around as Tolkien tinkered with his stories.

 

[Walter]

Do you mean that Tolkien had not yet decided upon the backstory of Gandalf?

Yes, that is about what I mean. Hadn't Sir Stanley Unwin asked for a sequel of The Hobbit there would probably be no "Lord of the Rings" and Gandalf's character would most probably not have developed beyond what it had been in The Hobbit as per 1936-7: A wizard, in some aspects reminding of the wizards - especially the Man-in-the-Moon - of Roverandom and still resembling his Northern/Germanic roots as a dwarf or maybe an elf involvend in some sorts of magic.

In some of the initial drafts of The Hobbit, Gandalf was a dwarf. This evolution of characters and even races of being is not uncommon to Tolkien. Dwarves at one time were pretty rotten people, almost orc-like.

This certain lack of distinction is something that - IMO - was also "inherited" from the "Eddic" roots, where the distinction between dwarfs (dvergar) and dark-elfs (dökâlfar) - the latter representing most probably the roots of Tolkien's Orcs - is not always clear...

 

[Gil-Galad]

Well,I read all the posts so far and a kind of mixture of ideas came to mind.

I agree that Gandalf did not see Gondolin.As UT says he was sent to ME around 1000 ThA that is almost 4000 years after Gondolin was destroyed.If we presume that after the destruction of Gondolin nothing was saved,we could find a reason for this problem.Gandalf just did not have the chance to learn this language,but having in mind that it was based on the Quenya or some of the languages he knew,he was able to decipher it after some time.

That could be also supported by the fact that Tolkien changed the word "if" to "when" in the later edition of The Hobbit.



Or maybe even Tolkien did not know what to do with this problem?

 

[Ithrynluin]

To say that Gandalf did not see Gondolin would be somewhat misleading, since Tolkien hints that it was possible that Olórin journeyed to Middle-earth before his mission as an Istar in the Third Age:

The History of Middle-earth XII: The Peoples of Middle-earth; Last Writings
That Olorin, as was possible for one of the Maiar, had already visited Middle-earth and had become acquainted not only with the Sindarin Elves and others deeper in Middle-earth, but also with Men, is likely, but nothing is [> has yet been] said of this.

Thus, it is very likely that Gandalf-Olórin had set foot on Middle-earth already, much before becoming the grey wizard of the well known tales. Indeed, this is not to say with any certainty that he had visited Gondolin, it being a hidden city both to friend and foe, but I'd still leave the possibility open, the idea of it being reinforced in my mind by the 'had become acquainted not only with the Sindarin Elves and others deeper in Middle-earth' part of the quote.

 

[Tarlanc]

Perhps Gandalf forgot the writing of Gondolin or never was interested in it. It is said that the Istari lost some power and memories when they got their human shapes. Even during the reincarantion after the Balrog, Gandalf loses some knowledge he had before. He says that he has forgotten things and learned new ones.
He didn't even seem to recognize the name 'Gandalf' in the beginning, when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli found him. He has to learn Things. In spite of his being an Ainu.

 

[Ithrynluin]

Tarlanc, it is of course very possible and plausible that Gandalf would have lost the knowledge of the writing on account of his being incarnated. Furthermore, it is possible, like Eledhwen says, that he wasn't especially interested in languages either. It is said of him that he had a great love of the Children of Ilúvatar so these must have been his main 'specialization' and area of concern and interest - unlike the Maiar of Aulë, for example, some of whom were interested in the matters and materials of the earth, and with their shaping and forging, while others with languages and lore and such, NOT with people themselves.

 

[GollemSmeagol]

I think that Tolkien hadn't developed Gandalf so good. At the time of the Hobbit he was just a wizard. Later he became famous. Maybe was the Gandalf of the Hobbbit less powerfull and wise as Gandalf in the Lord Of The Rings.

 

[MichaelMartinez]

I think that Tolkien hadn't developed Gandalf so good. At the time of the Hobbit he was just a wizard. Later he became famous. Maybe was the Gandalf of the Hobbbit less powerfull and wise as Gandalf in the Lord Of The Rings.

There are many curious things in The Hobbit which are not wholly consistent with The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. They must simply be accepted as inconsistencies because there is no reliable way to rationalize everything into a Unified Middle-earth Theory.

 

[Eledhwen]

Accepting the inconsistencies

And not only that; those of us who enjoy living in the story awhile, don't want to analyse the development of Gandalf's character, we want to explain away the inconsistency in a way that leaves no ripples on the magical mirror through which we view Middle-earth.

 

[Elthir]

And not only that; those of us who enjoy living in the story awhile, don't want to analyse the development of Gandalf's character, we want to explain away the inconsistency in a way that leaves no ripples on the magical mirror through which we view Middle-earth.

Huzzah Eledhwen!

But yet, you might want to skip to the end of this post . . . or skip it entirely (highly recommended in general) . . .

. . . as here I go, saying something external: if I recall correctly (I cant lay my hands on Parma E. 15 at the moment), it's not certain that these "Gondolinic Runes" survived into the internal scenario.
After treating these runes as if they do exist in Middle-earth, under "Other Versions" for example, Tolkien Gateway adds:

This system is an early invention by Tolkien. Its existence is not explicitly stated in the known later texts, but the reference of the swords' inscriptions in The Hobbit is evidence that indeed a different kind of runes was used in Gondolin.

Still, there's nothing explicitly (at least) said about a different kind of runic system in Gondolin in The Hobbit.

It seems that Tolkien did not consider the existence of this script in the later years. In 1960, while rewriting The Hobbit, he found another explanation of why Gandalf could not read the runes: Glamdring was covered in dark blood when Gandalf found it, explaining why the runes were unreadable until cleaned by Elrond.

And if so, these runes never existed internally. Wikipedia seems to treat these runes as internal too:

Not all the runes mentioned in The Hobbit are Dwarf-runes. The swords found in the Troll's cave (which were from the ancient kingdom of Gondolin) bore runes that Gandalf allegedly could not read. In fact, the swords Galamdring and Orcrist, forged in Gondolin, bore a type of letters known as Gondolinic runes. They seem to have been obsoleted and forgotten by the Third Age , and this is supported by the fact that Tolkien writes that only Elrond could still read the inscriptions of the swords.

Hmm. But.

Tolkien devised this runic alphabet in a very early stage of his shaping of Middle-earth. Nevertheless, they are known to us from a slip of paper written by J.R.R. Tolkien, a photocopy of which Christopher Tolkien sent to Paul Nolan Hyde in February 1992. Hyde then published it, together with an extensive analysis, in the 1992 Summer issue of Mythlore, no. 69. The system provides sounds not found in any of the known Elven languages of the First Age, but perhaps it was designed for a variety of languages.

So we know these runes exist in the "Real World," but again, if this system existed within Middle-earth, I would guess that Tolkien would not have thunk up the idea to put blood on the swords, which seems to me to be a Tolkienian attempt to further explain why Gandalf didn't read the runes (or couldn't) at the time.

In any case, unless I'm forgetting something here, or am just wrong . . . so far, this runic system does not exist in my Middle-earth -- and (internally) for whatever reason, Gandalf didn't attempt to read the runes at the time :cough: and being polite, let Elrond shine as a loremaster in his own house.


🐾

 

[Olorgando]

I find it very nice of you, E(A), answering your own question about inconsistencies in "The Hobbit" in another thread. 😁

 

[Elthir]

I find it very nice of you, E(A), answering your own question about inconsistencies in "The Hobbit" in another thread. 😁

In the other thread (the one now without the question you can add to your list) the matter of "inconsistencies" was raised after a Lego video showing a dinosaur and a bicycle.

And thus I asked . . . as for example, the reference to the bicycle in the first edition Hobbit, in my opinion, is not an inconsistency. Nor is the simile referring to a train in The Lord of the Rings.

An inconsistency to me would be, for instance, Gimli seemingly forgetting about the goblins he tried to hew at the time of the breaking of the Fellowship.

But even Dwarves forget!

 

[Olorgando]

In the other thread (the one now without the question you can add to your list) the matter of "inconsistencies" was raised after a Lego video showing a dinosaur and a bicycle.

Oh ...
I didn't watch all of the Lego videos ...