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

Re: Digest Number 632

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Jul 11, 2001
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 19 , Jul 11, 2001
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 19 , Jul 11, 2001
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 19 , Jul 12, 2001
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 19 , Jul 12, 2001
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 19 , Jul 12, 2001
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 19 , Jul 17, 2001
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 19 , Jul 18, 2001
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 19 , Jul 19, 2001
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 19 , Jul 19, 2001
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 19 , Jul 19, 2001
                        View Source
                        • 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 12 of 19 , Jul 19, 2001
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 19 , Jul 20, 2001
                            View Source
                            • 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 14 of 19 , Jul 20, 2001
                              View Source
                              • 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 15 of 19 , Jul 22, 2001
                                View Source
                                • 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 16 of 19 , Jul 22, 2001
                                  View Source
                                  • 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 17 of 19 , Jul 22, 2001
                                    View Source
                                    • 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.