Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Digest Number 632

Expand Messages
  • Steve Schaper
    ... Ok, so like what would he have inlaid? ... Mary, I don t know how it goes! :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= A
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:47:46 -0000
      > From: "Michael Martinez" <michael@...>
      > Subject: Re: Symbols and names
      >
      >
      > Daeron may very well have decorated his instruments with "runes of
      > power" (the meaning of which phrase is not explained anywhere, but it
      > is used by Tolkien in at least two distinct passages). Tolkien's
      > magic seems to be very closely associated with his music.
      >
      > The runes were apparently used by everyone in Middle-earth, and may
      > have been more widely used than the Tengwar. Even Saruman's Orcs
      > carved S-runes into their helms (or somehow put them on their helms).

      Ok, so like what would he have inlaid?

      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:06:36 EDT
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > Subject: Love song, for Hagrid
      >
      > Listening to some "goldie oldies" of the swing era today, I began to retool
      > the lyrics...
      >
      > Heaven, it's like Heaven,
      > I feel so close that I could really howl,
      > My happiness will truly be so foul
      > When we're out together, dancing cheek by jowl!
      >
      > (Play THAT on your cittern)
      >
      > Mary S
      >

      Mary, I don't know how it goes! :-)



      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      "A generation which ignores history has no past and no future."
      Robert Anson Heinlein

      http://www.users.qwest.net/~sschaper/
      sschaper@...
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    • Michael Martinez
      ... That s the twenty-dollar question, of course. Tolkien used a lot of Greek and Biblical motifs, especially for the First Age. I don t really know if the
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In mythsoc@y..., Steve Schaper <sschaper@U...> wrote:
        >
        > Ok, so like what would he have inlaid?

        That's the twenty-dollar question, of course. Tolkien used a lot of
        Greek and Biblical motifs, especially for the First Age. I don't
        really know if the ancient peoples would have decorated their musical
        instruments that way.

        It's just hard to imagine Tolkien's artistic Elves not invoking their
        sub-creational art in something like that. The Elves of Lorien told
        Pippin they put the thought of all they loved into everything they
        made. Hence, even the ropes given to the Fellowship had some
        artistic ability (what we could call magic).

        Daeron could have painted runes on his flute which would represent
        musical notes. It may be that runes of power were nothing more than
        runes with some sort of enchantment attached to them.

        Of course, there is no reason for why Daeron SHOULD have painted
        runes on a flute, except that he had invented the Cirth.

        I think there would be a simple elegance in the design of anything
        Daeron created. He would have been one of the foremost artisans in a
        high culture which was very ancient.
      • David J. Finnamore
        ... Daeron wuz here? But seriously, folks... To be of power, runes would be arranged in such a way as to have some magical significance. Likely they would
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 11, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In mythsoc@y..., Steve Schaper <sschaper@U...> wrote:
          > Ok, so like what would he have inlaid?

          Daeron wuz here?

          But seriously, folks... To be "of power," runes would be arranged in
          such a way as to have some magical significance. Likely they would
          have at least a double meaning, maybe more. They might have said
          something seemingly benign, hiding some special arrangement, such as
          every third Cirth of the alphabet, or every prime numbered Cirth, or
          some such. Or taking every other letter would reveal a deeper
          meaning, sort of like the alleged Bible code phenomenon. It would
          take some serious thought to come up with something that involved,
          though. Anyone like word puzzles?

          Think of later inscriptions of power, such as the one on the inside of
          the One Ring, or "SPEAK FRIEND AND ENTER" over the West Gates of
          Moria. Daeron lived before the ages of the Rings of Power, when the
          Silmarills were the items around which world history revolved. He was
          minstrel to King Thingol and Queen Melian. I'd suggest taking a two
          week vacation to Doriath, absorbing every detail. Something
          significant may strike you.

          David
        • Michael Martinez
          ... I don t believe Tolkien would have tried to follow any historical examples of magic runes . His magic was not magic , which would have offended his
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 11, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In mythsoc@y..., "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:
            > --- In mythsoc@y..., Steve Schaper <sschaper@U...> wrote:
            > > Ok, so like what would he have inlaid?
            >
            > Daeron wuz here?
            >
            > But seriously, folks... To be "of power," runes would be arranged
            > in such a way as to have some magical significance. Likely they
            > would have at least a double meaning, maybe more. They might have
            > said something seemingly benign, hiding some special arrangement,
            > such as every third Cirth of the alphabet, or every prime numbered
            > Cirth, or some such. Or taking every other letter would reveal a
            > deeper meaning, sort of like the alleged Bible code phenomenon. It
            > would take some serious thought to come up with something that
            > involved, though. Anyone like word puzzles?

            I don't believe Tolkien would have tried to follow any historical
            examples of "magic runes". His magic was not "magic", which would
            have offended his Christian values. Instead, his magic was something
            natural, a native talent. The runes of power would not NECESSARILY
            have to rely upon special arrangements or symbology. In fact, there
            is very little evidence or any sort of symbology or sympathy in
            Tolkien's magic (I believe there is one Elvish incantation from
            Gandalf on Caradhras which implies a sympathetic magic may be at
            work).

            That is, if Tolkien were to have given the matter some thought, he
            would not have felt compelled to impose rules of magic which followed
            any occultic traditions. He might have given a semblance of
            similarity (in terms of effects). For example, when the Fellowship
            stays in Lorien for a month, they seem to experience only 1 or 2
            weeks' worth of time. That is a very traditional "mortal visits
            Fairyland" effect, but Tolkien provides an explanation for the
            discrepancy in the time experiences (there is a Ring of Power at work
            in Lorien).

            His runes of power may have been nothing more than a passing idea
            thrown in to a couple of passages for effect. That is, they would
            have been there, a part of Middle-earth, but there would have been no
            real explanation for them (WHY are they there, HOW do they work?).
            They provided a sense of completeness, so to speak. But there would
            be no occultic associations because Tolkien was telling a story, not
            describing the occult.

            Later on he might have come back and said, "Well, if they are runes
            of power, what are they used for, and why would runes be used?"

            He seems to have questioned many things in his stories, but not
            everything. I've never found any explanation (by Tolkien) of the
            runes' magical associations. They are a black box, a concept without
            a detailed design showing how they work.

            >
            > Think of later inscriptions of power, such as the one on the inside
            > of the One Ring, or "SPEAK FRIEND AND ENTER" over the West Gates of
            > Moria.

            [snip]

            There is nothing in the text which indicates that these are
            inscriptions of power. Sauron's words in the One Ring MAY be part of
            his "spell", but Tolkien never says so (not in any writing I can
            recall). The words on the west-gate may simply be a message, an
            instruction sign as it were: "Turn knob and push while holding knob
            in turned position" would be equivalent for a modern door. The Ring
            inscription may simply be commemorative.

            We know from his various essays, written ex post facto, that Tolkien
            often went back and tried to explain elements he included in the
            stories. Hence, it's constructive to assume NOTHING when looking at
            any particular element. He may have written something with one
            intention and then applied another, but we have no way of knowing so.

            The Valar, Maiar, and Eldar were supposed to be very sophisticated.
            They understood nature much better than man. They would not be
            superstitious (as Tolkien put it). Superstition is the product of
            Men's misunderstanding nature, and trying to explain it or utilitize
            it on the basis of that misunderstanding. Hence, when Tolkien tried
            to reconcile the Silmarillion's gross inaccuracies regarding cosmic
            and natural history, Tolkien decided (or nearly decided) that Men
            must have altered the traditions, added their own mythology, or
            somehow garbled the legends in transmission.
          • Kati Hallenbeck
            Hi All, When I was studying Old English, I came across many passages that seemed to imply that in a time when Runes were used, only a select few knew their
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 11, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi All,

              When I was studying Old English, I came across many passages that seemed to
              imply that in a time when Runes were used, only a select few knew their
              meanings. Being able to read became a magical thing, not in the way we
              percieve magic, but as a child percieves a trick... knowledge was magic in
              the middle ages. That is the essence of fate, or "wierd" in Old English...
              more specifically "word." Those who had knowlege had control over their's
              and other's fate... as we can see throughout The Lord of The Rings. :)

              Kati Hallenbeck
              (A reader who rarely speaks up.) :)
              _________________________________________________________________
              Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
            • Michael Martinez
              ... Maybe it s just too early in the morning for me to be thinking, but I don t see the connection between knowledge and power in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. And I
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 12, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In mythsoc@y..., "Kati Hallenbeck" <k_hallenbeck@h...> wrote:
                > Hi All,
                >
                > When I was studying Old English, I came across many passages that
                > seemed to imply that in a time when Runes were used, only a select
                > few knew their meanings. Being able to read became a magical thing,
                > not in the way we percieve magic, but as a child percieves a
                > trick... knowledge was magic in the middle ages. That is the
                > essence of fate, or "wierd" in Old English...
                > more specifically "word." Those who had knowlege had control over
                > their's and other's fate... as we can see throughout The Lord of
                > The Rings. :)

                Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me to be thinking, but I
                don't see the connection between knowledge and power in THE LORD OF
                THE RINGS.

                And I doubt there is any association between writing systems and
                magic in Tolkien in the way you seem to be suggesting. The magical
                writing on the west-gate of Moria, for example, appears to have been
                magical because of the substance used to create it (a sort of
                invisible Elvish paint that would appear when it treated with the
                proper enchantment).

                The closest thing I can think of to a magical writing system would be
                the moon-runes on Thror's map in THE HOBBIT. And that seems to have
                been an idea Tolkien did not wish to pursue further. With THE
                HOBBIT, he really didn't care if he had to explain things, so you had
                all sorts of stuff from Celtic folklore and Anglo-Saxon literature
                cropping up across the landscape (heck, he even brought in a German
                mountain spirit, and a few other odds and ends).

                With LoTR, Tolkien seems to have felt compelled to explain as much as
                possible (for his own sake), and to make it all work. So, it is
                probably reading too much into the book to assume that his runes were
                in and of themselves associated with magic.
              • Kati Hallenbeck
                ... You misunderstood me completely. I was not implying that the runes were associated with magic at all, but the opposite. That they were representations of
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 12, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  >From: "Michael Martinez" <michael@...>
                  >Reply-To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  >Subject: [mythsoc] Tolkien's runes of power (was Re: Digest Number 632)
                  >Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:35:22 -0000
                  >
                  >--- In mythsoc@y..., "Kati Hallenbeck" <k_hallenbeck@h...> wrote:
                  > > Hi All,
                  > >
                  > > When I was studying Old English, I came across many passages that
                  > > seemed to imply that in a time when Runes were used, only a select
                  > > few knew their meanings. Being able to read became a magical thing,
                  > > not in the way we percieve magic, but as a child percieves a
                  > > trick... knowledge was magic in the middle ages. That is the
                  > > essence of fate, or "wierd" in Old English...
                  > > more specifically "word." Those who had knowlege had control over
                  > > their's and other's fate... as we can see throughout The Lord of
                  > > The Rings. :)
                  >
                  >Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me to be thinking, but I
                  >don't see the connection between knowledge and power in THE LORD OF
                  >THE RINGS.
                  >
                  >And I doubt there is any association between writing systems and
                  >magic in Tolkien in the way you seem to be suggesting. The magical
                  >writing on the west-gate of Moria, for example, appears to have been
                  >magical because of the substance used to create it (a sort of
                  >invisible Elvish paint that would appear when it treated with the
                  >proper enchantment).
                  >
                  >The closest thing I can think of to a magical writing system would be
                  >the moon-runes on Thror's map in THE HOBBIT. And that seems to have
                  >been an idea Tolkien did not wish to pursue further. With THE
                  >HOBBIT, he really didn't care if he had to explain things, so you had
                  >all sorts of stuff from Celtic folklore and Anglo-Saxon literature
                  >cropping up across the landscape (heck, he even brought in a German
                  >mountain spirit, and a few other odds and ends).
                  >
                  >With LoTR, Tolkien seems to have felt compelled to explain as much as
                  >possible (for his own sake), and to make it all work. So, it is
                  >probably reading too much into the book to assume that his runes were
                  >in and of themselves associated with magic.
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  You misunderstood me completely. I was not implying that the runes were
                  associated with magic at all, but the opposite. That they were
                  representations of knowledge and power. When we don't understand the source
                  of knowlege and power (science for example), those who wield it seem
                  mystical.

                  I do not profess to know what Tolkien did or did not have in mind, so I will
                  not venture there; even having read much of what there is on the subject.
                  What I was implying was that my "reader's response" to the novels has given
                  birth (in my mind) to the theme of knowlege and fate being intertwined.
                  Gandalf's knowlege of both the world and "magic" seemed to have a direct
                  effect on the fates of those around him... as did Sauron. That's all I was
                  saying, sorry if I caught the conversation mid stream.

                  Cheers all,

                  Kati Hallenbeck

                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
                • Michael Martinez
                  ... It s been a very long, exhausting week for me. Thanks for clarifying that. ... No need to apologize to me. I probably should have waited until the fog
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 12, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In mythsoc@y..., "Kati Hallenbeck" <k_hallenbeck@h...> wrote:
                    > You misunderstood me completely. I was not implying that the runes
                    > were associated with magic at all, but the opposite. That they
                    > were representations of knowledge and power. When we don't
                    > understand the source of knowlege and power (science for example),
                    > those who wield it seem mystical.

                    It's been a very long, exhausting week for me. Thanks for clarifying
                    that.

                    > I do not profess to know what Tolkien did or did not have in mind,
                    > so I will not venture there; even having read much of what there is
                    > on the subject. What I was implying was that my "reader's
                    > response" to the novels has given birth (in my mind) to the theme
                    > of knowlege and fate being intertwined.
                    > Gandalf's knowlege of both the world and "magic" seemed to have a
                    > direct effect on the fates of those around him... as did Sauron.
                    > That's all I was saying, sorry if I caught the conversation mid
                    > stream.

                    No need to apologize to me. I probably should have waited until the
                    fog cleared, but I had just gotten to work and was quickly checking
                    the list archive to see if anything which interested me had been
                    posted.
                  • David J. Finnamore
                    ... something ... Good point. I don t know about native talent, though. I see it more as learned skill, the mastery of lore. Elvish magic was chiefly,
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 17, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In mythsoc@y..., "Michael Martinez" <michael@x> wrote:
                      > I don't believe Tolkien would have tried to follow any historical
                      > examples of "magic runes". His magic was not "magic", which would
                      > have offended his Christian values. Instead, his magic was
                      something
                      > natural, a native talent.

                      Good point. I don't know about "native talent," though. I see it
                      more as learned skill, the mastery of lore. Elvish "magic" was
                      chiefly, in the words of Aurthur C. Clark, "sufficiently advanced
                      technology." Not technology as we think of it in the post-modern era,
                      but in the most general sense. But it was also just a little bit
                      more. (See below.)


                      > The runes of power would not NECESSARILY
                      > have to rely upon special arrangements or symbology.

                      But they might involve those sometimes. More importantly, word play,
                      layered meanings in names, and such, are important facets of Tolkien's
                      work.


                      > His runes of power may have been nothing more than a passing idea
                      > thrown in to a couple of passages for effect. That is, they would
                      > have been there, a part of Middle-earth, but there would have been
                      no
                      > real explanation for them (WHY are they there, HOW do they work?).
                      > They provided a sense of completeness, so to speak. But there would
                      > be no occultic associations because Tolkien was telling a story, not
                      > describing the occult.

                      I didn't mean to imply occult, more like Cabal or something. But
                      anyway, the man wants ideas about what to inscribe in his instrument;
                      the point here is to encourage creative thought, to raise
                      possibilities. Getting too technical in the creative stage can shut
                      down the juices.


                      > Sauron's words in the One Ring MAY be part of
                      > his "spell", but Tolkien never says so (not in any writing I can
                      > recall).

                      Consider Elrond's reaction, and Frodo's perception, when Gandalf
                      quoted them in the original Black Tongue at Rivendell.


                      > The words on the west-gate may simply be a message, an
                      > instruction sign as it were: "Turn knob and push while holding knob
                      > in turned position" would be equivalent for a modern door.

                      This claim leaves my head spinning. Was the gate not opened by, and
                      only by, the speaking of the appropriate word in the appropriate
                      language? Yes, it certainly was an instruction sign: the instruction
                      was to say the magic word!

                      In Middle-earth, words have a magnified power. There is nothing
                      anti-Christian about the idea that words have power of/over matter.
                      Genisis 1. John 1. The idea that even individual letters contain
                      some vestige of that power is very old in the Judeo-Christian
                      tradition. It was submerged for a while by the so-called
                      Enlightenment but we're getting over it, finally.

                      And there was great rejoicing. (Yea!)

                      David
                    • Michael Martinez
                      ... Tolkien wrote a great deal about magic in Middle-earth (and he changed his mind on occasion). He envisioned a sub-creational faculty (his words) which
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 18, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In mythsoc@y..., "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:
                        > --- In mythsoc@y..., "Michael Martinez" <michael@x> wrote:
                        > > I don't believe Tolkien would have tried to follow any historical
                        > > examples of "magic runes". His magic was not "magic", which
                        > > would have offended his Christian values. Instead, his magic was
                        > > something natural, a native talent.
                        >
                        > Good point. I don't know about "native talent," though. I see it
                        > more as learned skill, the mastery of lore. Elvish "magic" was
                        > chiefly, in the words of Aurthur C. Clark, "sufficiently advanced
                        > technology." Not technology as we think of it in the post-modern
                        > era, but in the most general sense. But it was also just a little
                        > bit more. (See below.)

                        Tolkien wrote a great deal about "magic" in Middle-earth (and he
                        changed his mind on occasion). He envisioned a sub-creational
                        faculty (his words) which diminished from order of being to order of
                        being.

                        That is, only Iluvatar (God) could truly create anything (bring it
                        into existence from nothing, through an act of will). The Ainur
                        (angels) entered into Ea (It is, let it be -- all of Creation, or the
                        universe as measured by Time and Space) and they had the power to
                        shape all of Ea according to their whims and desires. That is, they
                        made the stars, worlds, plants, animals, etc. Of course, the Ainur
                        were the literary successors of Tolkien's Anglo-Saxon gods (from THE
                        BOOK OF LOST TALES, which was his mythology for England). So the
                        Ainur inherited the mythical labors of shaping the universe and
                        giving its creatures function, even if they did not actually create
                        the primal universe.

                        The Elves could also give shape to their thoughts, but not to the
                        extent that the Ainur could. That is, the Elves could alter Time and
                        Space to a limited extent, and this ability was perceived as magical
                        by Men.

                        The Dwarves had a similar sub-creational ability, but Tolkien wrote
                        very little about the Dwarves (in any published writings to which I
                        have had access), so it's impossible to tell what their limitations
                        were.

                        Men (and Hobbits) are a confusing issue. They lack the sub-
                        creational talents of the Elves and Dwarves, but Tolkien ultimately
                        conceded that they had to work some kind of magic. He wrote a
                        lengthy reply to one reader (Letter 156, I believe -- I'm at work and
                        cannot check my books) in which he denied any magical abilities among
                        men, but then he noted in the margin that the Numenoreans made
                        enchanted swords, so he didn't send the draft.

                        In Letter 211, I think, he admits that Beorn (from THE HOBBIT) was "a
                        bit of a magician". And in some essays which Christopher Tolkien
                        published in MORGOTH'S RING, Tolkien stipulates that men were able to
                        practice necromancy by communicating with the spirits of faded
                        Elves. The Elven spirits could impart some ability to the men, I
                        think, but the men were at great risk of losing their bodies to
                        possession.

                        Tolkien really did not follow traditional elements of magic. Hence,
                        he has no witches flying on broomsticks or dancing naked under the
                        moon. He doesn't have pseudo-Druidic priests trying to sacrifice
                        prisoners and sacred groves, etc.

                        Where his magic has the appearance of something out of traditional
                        folklore, he seems determined to try and explain how it should work
                        within the rules of his sub-creational diarama, or at least to
                        provide it with a rational framework. So it really serves no purpose
                        to look at traditional interpretations of magic and apply them to
                        Tolkien. He may be using the facade, but he is not using the
                        substance.

                        Occult, cabal, Irish mysticism, whatever. There seems to be no place
                        for them in Tolkien's Middle-earth. The closest he seems to come to
                        such things is the very terse description of the Morgothian cult
                        in "Akallabeth", in which men were sacrificed on alters dedicated to
                        Morgoth (although it was Sauron who initiated the cult in the Second
                        Age, after Morgoth had been killed by the Valar).

                        There is also a hint of some sort of forbidden worship in the story
                        concerning the Dead Men of Dunharrow, as I believe there is a passage
                        which says they worshipped Sauron in the Second Age (which
                        contradicts what "Akallabeth" says of who men were worshipping).

                        Perhaps this discussion is getting too technical, but I think it's
                        best to apply the creative juices in less traditional directions
                        where Tolkien is concerned. Which is not to say he eschewed
                        traditional motifs. There are plenty in Middle-earth. It's just
                        that he was very innovative, and I don't believe his ingenuity has
                        been very well documented (although I have not read all the Mythlores
                        and similar journals, so I can't say for sure what innovations have
                        been documented through the years).

                        In general, most people don't look for Tolkien's innovations, and
                        therefore I believe they go largely unnoticed. But that might be the
                        way he preferred it. Perhaps he would have felt we would be too much
                        like Saruman, leaving the path of wisdom by breaking a thing (his
                        story) in order to learn of what it is made.

                        Tom Shippey might say that admonition from Gandalf was a subtle jibe
                        at Tolkien's fellow scholars (perhaps he did -- I suppose I'll need
                        to reread Shippey before the end of the year).

                        > > Sauron's words in the One Ring MAY be part of
                        > > his "spell", but Tolkien never says so (not in any writing I can
                        > > recall).
                        >
                        > Consider Elrond's reaction, and Frodo's perception, when Gandalf
                        > quoted them in the original Black Tongue at Rivendell.

                        There could be other explanations for what happened at the Council of
                        Elrond. We don't have enough information to rule out any possible
                        explanation, or to conclude that one is more likely than the others.

                        > > The words on the west-gate may simply be a message, an
                        > > instruction sign as it were: "Turn knob and push while holding
                        > > knob in turned position" would be equivalent for a modern door.
                        >
                        > This claim leaves my head spinning. Was the gate not opened by,
                        > and only by, the speaking of the appropriate word in the
                        > appropriate language? Yes, it certainly was an instruction sign:
                        > the instruction was to say the magic word!

                        There is no indication that there was anything magical about the
                        word. Gandalf refers to a "word of command" in his encounter with
                        the Balrog, so we know there are indeed "magical words", but I don't
                        believe that "mellon" ("friend" in Sindarin) is magical. People
                        would be triggering magical effects all over the place if it were.
                        Sindarin was at one time the common language of western Middle-earth,
                        spoken by Elves, Dwarves, and Men from Lindon to the Vales of
                        Anduin. It was only gradually replaced in that capacity by
                        Adunaic/Westron toward the end of the Second Age.

                        I would say it is not the spoken word which has power, but the being
                        who speaks it. The word may be given a special association through
                        special usage, but it could still be very much like an electric lamp
                        sitting in a cave without an electrical outlet to power it when
                        spoken by most people.
                      • Trudy Shaw
                        ... From: David J. Finnamore To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:40 PM Subject: [mythsoc] Tolkien s runes of power (was Re: Digest
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 19, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: David J. Finnamore
                          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:40 PM
                          Subject: [mythsoc] Tolkien's runes of power (was Re: Digest Number 632)


                          --- In mythsoc@y..., "Michael Martinez" <michael@x> wrote:
                          > I don't believe Tolkien would have tried to follow any historical
                          > examples of "magic runes". His magic was not "magic", which would
                          > have offended his Christian values. Instead, his magic was
                          something
                          > natural, a native talent.

                          Good point. I don't know about "native talent," though. I see it
                          more as learned skill, the mastery of lore. Elvish "magic" was
                          chiefly, in the words of Aurthur C. Clark, "sufficiently advanced
                          technology." Not technology as we think of it in the post-modern era,
                          but in the most general sense. But it was also just a little bit
                          more.


                          David




                          The "native talent" description is supported by Tolkien at the end of letter #155, where he says, "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 is in 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 a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'."

                          (BTW, this is the paragraph that has the written-in note reading, "But the Numenoreans used 'spells' in the making of swords?" Interesting that he has the word "spells" in quotes and has a question mark at the end of the statement--perhaps a note to himself to think more about this seeming contradiction?)

                          I can't lay my hands on an actual quote right now, but my impression has been that the power of "Elf magic" lies in the Elves' direct connection to and strong bonding with the created world, which Mortals don't have because of their destiny to pass beyond it.

                          Two questions on earlier posts--
                          In the quotation about technology (above), is Arthur C. Clarke referring specifically to Tolkien's Elves or to the (pardon the expression ) garden variety?
                          Does Gandalf's "library research" really come under the heading of magic? The knowledge helps him track down what happened to the Ring, but he doesn't seem to use it in any magical way.

                          -- Trudy



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Michael Martinez
                          ... I cited Letter 155/156 in my essay Understanding Magic in J.R.R. Tolkien s Middle-earth , the original version of which was published on the Vault s
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 19, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In mythsoc@y..., "Trudy Shaw" <tgshaw@e...> wrote:
                            > I can't lay my hands on an actual quote right now, but my
                            > impression has been that the power of "Elf magic" lies in the
                            > Elves' direct connection to and strong bonding with the created
                            > world, which Mortals don't have because of their destiny to pass
                            > beyond it.

                            I cited Letter 155/156 in my essay "Understanding Magic in J.R.R.
                            Tolkien's Middle-earth", the original version of which was published
                            on the Vault's Middle-earth site (set up for Sierra's now-defunct
                            Middle-earth Online game) and republished in Visualizing Middle-
                            earth. I'm at work and don't have the URL or time to dig it up. But
                            I may have included a few other citations (such as the Beorn-magician
                            one) showing how Tolkien changed his mind on Men's ability to use
                            magic. It was a 40-page paper and I can't remember all the details.

                            >
                            > Two questions on earlier posts--
                            > In the quotation about technology (above), is Arthur C. Clarke
                            > referring specifically to Tolkien's Elves or to the (pardon the
                            > expression ) garden variety?

                            Clarke's statement, so far as I know, is a classic: "Any sufficiently
                            advanced technology seems like magic." I have never seen it
                            specifically associated with Tolkien.

                            > Does Gandalf's "library research" really come under the heading
                            > of magic? The knowledge helps him track down what happened to the
                            > Ring, but he doesn't seem to use it in any magical way.

                            Although I agree that "knowledge is power", I don't equate "power"
                            with "magic".

                            Tolkien does not associate reading and writing with magic in his
                            Middle-earth stories. I think it's going beyond his intentions to
                            argue that a writing system or the use of written language is a
                            magical application.
                          • Sweet & Tender Hooligan
                            ... _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 19, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > I cited Letter 155/156 in my essay "Understanding Magic in J.R.R.
                              > Tolkien's Middle-earth", the original version of which was published
                              > on the Vault's Middle-earth site (set up for Sierra's now-defunct
                              > Middle-earth Online game) and republished in Visualizing Middle-
                              > earth. I'm at work and don't have the URL or time to dig it up.

                              It's at:

                              http://mevault.ign.com/features/editorials/understandingmagic.shtml

                              paul christian glenn | pcg@...

                              "And then I lost it. I kinda lost it all,
                              you know? Faith, dignity, about
                              fifteen pounds..."


















                              .


                              _________________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
                            • Michael Martinez
                              ... That s it, thanks. And I see the Beorn reference is in Letter 144, not Letter 211, which I believe I attributed it to previously.
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jul 19, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In mythsoc@y..., "Sweet & Tender Hooligan" <cirhsein@y...> wrote:
                                >
                                > It's at:
                                >
                                > http://mevault.ign.com/features/editorials/understandingmagic.shtml

                                That's it, thanks. And I see the Beorn reference is in Letter 144,
                                not Letter 211, which I believe I attributed it to previously.
                              • dianejoy@earthlink.net
                                ... From: Michael Martinez michael@xenite.org Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:27:12 -0000 To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Subject: [mythsoc] Tolkien s runes of power
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jul 20, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Original Message:
                                  -----------------
                                  From: Michael Martinez michael@...
                                  Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:27:12 -0000
                                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: [mythsoc] Tolkien's runes of power (was Re: Digest Number 632)


                                  --- In mythsoc@y..., "Sweet & Tender Hooligan" <cirhsein@y...> wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >> It's at:
                                  >>
                                  >> http://mevault.ign.com/features/editorials/understandingmagic.shtml

                                  >That's it, thanks. And I see the Beorn reference is in Letter 144,
                                  >not Letter 211, which I believe I attributed it to previously.

                                  I must congratulate you on a very detailed and perceptive piece. Haven't read it all; I have trouble reading long articles on screen; I've bookmarked it and hope to read it once I print it off. It may be a while.
                                  Have you considered sending it off to a print publication---like *Mythlore* for instance, or are there legal rammifications? ---djb

                                  The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at
                                  http://www.mail2web.com/ .
                                • Michael Martinez
                                  ... Haven t read it all; I have trouble reading long articles on screen; I ve bookmarked it and hope to read it once I print it off. It may be a while. ...
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jul 20, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In mythsoc@y..., "dianejoy@e..." <dianejoy@e...> wrote:

                                    > I must congratulate you on a very detailed and perceptive piece.
                                    Haven't read it all; I have trouble reading long articles on
                                    screen; I've bookmarked it and hope to read it once I print it off.
                                    It may be a while.
                                    > Have you considered sending it off to a print publication---like
                                    *Mythlore* for instance, or are there legal rammifications? ---djb

                                    Thank you. I included the essay in Visualizing Middle-earth. Right
                                    now I have such a backlog of writing projects that I'm not going to
                                    submit anything to anyone. I've been approving reprint requests
                                    since no one ever asks for a rewrite with those. :)
                                  • David J. Finnamore
                                    ... of letter #155, where he says, 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 is in an
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jul 22, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In mythsoc@y..., "Trudy Shaw" <tgshaw@e...> wrote:
                                      > The "native talent" description is supported by Tolkien at the end
                                      of letter #155, where he says, "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 is in 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 a pure 'Man', but at long
                                      remove one of the 'children of Luthien'."

                                      It seems to me, then, that there is a clear distinction between what
                                      he, as an "outside observer" believed about what was behind his tale,
                                      and what those who (in theory) reported the tale believed. The story
                                      itself, unless my memory is failing, makes numerous references to a
                                      relationship between magical power and the learning of lore.


                                      > In the quotation about technology (above), is Arthur C. Clarke
                                      referring specifically to Tolkien's Elves or to the (pardon the
                                      expression ) garden variety?

                                      Niether. He was not referring to Tolkien but to the fact that people
                                      with advanced technology can appear to be magical to those without it.
                                      Which seems to have happened in the case of Elves and Hobbits.

                                      David
                                    • Michael Martinez
                                      ... I cannot think of any such references. However, the paragraph cited above is the same one against which Tolkien wrote the marginal note pointing out that
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jul 22, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In mythsoc@y..., "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:
                                        > --- In mythsoc@y..., "Trudy Shaw" <tgshaw@e...> wrote:
                                        > > The "native talent" description is supported by Tolkien at the
                                        > > end of letter #155, where he says, "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 is in 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 a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of
                                        > > the 'children of Luthien'."
                                        >
                                        > It seems to me, then, that there is a clear distinction between
                                        > what he, as an "outside observer" believed about what was behind
                                        > his tale, and what those who (in theory) reported the tale
                                        > believed. The story itself, unless my memory is failing, makes
                                        > numerous references to a relationship between magical power and the
                                        > learning of lore.

                                        I cannot think of any such references. However, the paragraph cited
                                        above is the same one against which Tolkien wrote the marginal note
                                        pointing out that Numenoreans used spells in making swords.

                                        I was sure it wouldn't be long before an Anglo-Saxon-centric argument
                                        was made about Tolkien's magic, but it can be shown that his magic
                                        closely resembles nothing and vaguely resembles everything. I am
                                        sure that was his intent, but I doubt he ever confessed to doing
                                        things that way in writing.

                                        Gandalf and the wizards, for example, exhibit powers which are found
                                        in Greek mythology, from Zeus hurtling thunderbolts at people to
                                        various gods changing into animals and trees (Radagast being a master
                                        of shapes and hues, although there are people who argue endlessly
                                        and, in my opinion, pointlessly about how Gandalf's comment cannot
                                        possibly refer to anything like Radagast changing his own shape).

                                        And Tolkien made a point of calling the Rohirrim "Homeric horsemen",
                                        although there were no such horsemen in Homer (that I recall). On
                                        the other hand, Tolkien exhibited a fondness for Alexander the Great,
                                        at least to the extent that Alexander is mentioned more than once in
                                        Tolkien's letters.

                                        The Rohirrim thus appear to be loosely based on the Goths as they
                                        were perceived to be in the 1940s (at the time of their entries into
                                        the Roman Empire) as far as culture goes; their "translated" language
                                        and nomenclature are taken directly from Anglo-Saxon (Mercian,
                                        according to some people, but I don't know enough to distinguish such
                                        features of language); their ideas and values are "Homeric", even
                                        down to men forseeing their deaths and taking oaths which carry them
                                        to the far ends of the world; and they are very close to being a
                                        rewrite of the Third House of the Edain, the Marachians.

                                        Helm Hammerhand resembles Hurin in some ways, and Eorl the Young
                                        might be modelled on Hador. At the time he wrote THE LORD OF THE
                                        RINGS, Tolkien knew far more about those earlier characters than he
                                        was revealing to his Hobbit readership, so he seems to have had no
                                        qualms about borrowing from himself. And both Helm and Hurin owe a
                                        little something to Herakles, being men of great strength with
                                        tempers that get them into trouble. And they both lose their
                                        families because of their actions.
                                      • Michael Martinez
                                        ... I meant to add something about the two famous charges of the Rohirrim: Eorl s arrival at the Battle of the Field of Celebrant and Theoden s charge in the
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Jul 22, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In mythsoc@y..., "Michael Martinez" <michael@x> wrote:
                                          > --- In mythsoc@y..., "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:
                                          > The Rohirrim thus appear to be loosely based on the Goths as they
                                          > were perceived to be in the 1940s (at the time of their entries
                                          > into the Roman Empire) as far as culture goes; their "translated"
                                          > language and nomenclature are taken directly from Anglo-Saxon
                                          > (Mercian, according to some people, but I don't know enough to
                                          > distinguish such features of language); their ideas and values
                                          > are "Homeric", even down to men forseeing their deaths and taking
                                          > oaths which carry them to the far ends of the world; and they are
                                          > very close to being a rewrite of the Third House of the Edain, the
                                          > Marachians.

                                          I meant to add something about the two famous charges of the
                                          Rohirrim: Eorl's arrival at the Battle of the Field of Celebrant and
                                          Theoden's charge in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Both charges
                                          owe a little something to Alexander, who more than once led his
                                          Companion cavalry in charges against the center of enemy lines (an
                                          unusual cavalry tactic for a time centuries before the stirrup came
                                          along -- and I don't believe the high saddles used by Roman Cibinarii
                                          for similar tactics had been developed yet, either).

                                          Anyway, I was starting to get ahead of myself as I typed, as the
                                          Helm/Hurin/Herakles comparison was one I hadn't made in a long time,
                                          and it suddenly reoccurred to me.
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.