Chapter of the Week LOTR Bk4 Ch5 The Window on the West
Christopher Kreuzer
Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
To read previous Chapter of the Week discussions, or to sign up to
introduce a future chapter, go to http://parasha.maoltuile.org
Sam wakes to find Frodo being interrogated by Faramir, Captain of
Gondor. After a brief interruption by Sam, we learn that Faramir is the
brother of Boromir and believes him to be dead. As they journey to a
secret refuge, Faramir continues to question Frodo about Isildur's Bane.
At the secret refuge (Henneth Annun), Sam and Frodo eat with the Men of
Gondor. Afterwards, Faramir talks about the history of Gondor and the
Numenoreans. The talk turns to Elves and Lorien, and Sam inadvertently
mentions the Ring. Faramir is true to his words about Isildur's Bane,
and assures the hobbits that they need not fear that he will try to take
the Ring. Frodo and Sam sleep safely that night in Henneth Annun.
Chapter Summary
===============
[Sam wakes up]
At the end of the previous chapter, Sam had fallen asleep after seeing
the battle between the Rangers of Ithilien and the Southrons. This
chapter begins as he wakes up and finds that it is now late afternoon.
[Faramir interrogates Frodo]
Sam sees Frodo being questioned by Faramir in front of a semicircle of
200-300 men. These are the surviving rangers that fought under Faramir's
command in the recent battle. Faramir has learnt from his first
encounter with Frodo and Sam that they travelled with Boromir and know
the words of Boromir's dream concerning Isildur's Bane. As Sam listens,
he realises that Faramir wants to know more about Isildur's Bane and is
aware that Frodo is hiding the full truth from him. Further questioning
from Faramir leads Frodo to reveal the lineage of Aragorn, and that he
bears Elendil's sword. This provokes amazement from the gathered men:
"The sword of Elendil! The sword of Elendil comes to Minas Tirith! Great
tidings!"
Faramir and Frodo debate Boromir's reaction to Aragorn's claim. Then
Frodo tells Faramir to let him carry out his appointed errand, and asks
Faramir to return to Minas Tirith to speak with Boromir when he returns.
Faramir finds this strange, and questions Frodo further about Boromir.
Both Frodo and Faramir choose their words carefully, but Frodo falters
when Faramir implies that Boromir is dead. Frodo and Faramir trade a few
more suggestive questions and evasive answers, until Sam can take no
more.
[1-3]
[Sam interrupts]
Sam bursts into the conversation and cuts through the carefully chosen
words of Frodo and Faramir, putting the matter plainly and simply:
Faramir is accusing Frodo of murdering Boromir. Faramir shows restraint
and calmly tells Sam that the questioning is needed to judge fairly
whether he should slay them, as the law demands. He tells Sam that Frodo
has greater wit than Sam, and that Sam should sit in silence and listen.
[Vision of Boromir dead]
Sam sits down with a red face. Faramir then tells the hobbits that
Boromir was his brother, and proceeds to tell them the tale of why he
believes Boromir to be dead. He heard the horn of Boromir blowing 11
days ago. Three nights later he was watching the shores of Anduin:
"But that night all the world slept at the midnight hour. Then I saw, or
it seemed that I saw, a boat floating on the water [...] An awe fell on
me, for a pale light was round it. [...] the boat turned towards me, and
stayed its pace, and floated slowly by [...] it seemed to me as it
passed under my gaze that it was almost filled with clear water, from
which came the light; and lapped in the water a warrior lay asleep."
Faramir recognised this warrior, pierced with many wounds, as Boromir,
his brother. He cried out after him, but the boat passed on into the
night. Frodo recognises the golden belt of Lorien that Faramir described
on Boromir's body, and says that the boat is also from Lorien. Faramir
laments that Boromir went ever to that Hidden Land:
"Boromir, O Boromir! What did she say to you, the Lady that dies not?
What did she see? What woke in your heart then? Why went you ever to
Laurelindórenan, and came not by your own road, upon the horses of Rohan
riding home in the morning?"
Faramir adds that the cloven horn also returned on the River.
[4-5]
[Journey to Henneth Annun]
Frodo reacts to the news of Boromir's death with dismay, fearing that
the rest of the Fellowship were also slain. Once more he implores
Faramir to let him go:
"Go back, Faramir, valiant Captain of Gondor, and defend your city while
you may, and let me go where my doom takes me."
Faramir attempts to reassure Frodo, and further says that he no longer
doubts Frodo's story. Nevertheless, he defers his full decision until he
can think and question them some more. Frodo and Sam travel with Faramir
and his guards to a secret refuge. During the journey, Faramir and Frodo
talk at length once more.
[Faramir on Isildur's Bane]
Faramir reveals that he avoided questioning Frodo closely about
Isildur's Bane in front of so many men. He then hazards a guess that it
is a mighty heirloom that caused conflict within the Fellowship. Faramir
recounts what he knows of Numenorean lore, straying often into other
matters. He learns from Frodo that Gandalf fell in Moria, and Frodo
learns that Boromir was displeased that the Ruling Stewards still
awaited the return of the King. We hear that Faramir knows of "the Great
Battle that was fought upon Dagorlad in the beginning of Gondor", and
that Isildur took something from the hand of Sauron. Faramir speculates
once more, surmising that Boromir may have been allured by the power of
this Thing. Faramir declares that he does not desire to use the devices
of the Enemy:
"I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas
Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon
of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory."
Following more eloquence from Faramir, Frodo is tempted to trust him
fully and reveal all to "this grave young man, whose words seemed so
wise and fair". But the thought that he and Sam might be all that is
left of the Fellowship holds him back, as well as the memory of Boromir:
"unlike they were, and yet also much akin."
[Blindfolded arrival at Henneth Annun]
They walk on in silence for a while, and the beauty of the surrounding
land is described in detail. Sam has not forgotten Gollum, and once,
looking back quickly, catches a glimpse of him following them. It is
near sunset when they near their destination. Sam and Frodo are
blindfolded and guided to the hidden refuge. Their blindfolds are
removed and they see a waterfall before them, lit up by the rays of the
setting sun. They have come to Henneth Annūn, the Window of the Sunset,
fairest of all the falls of Ithilien.
[Sam and Frodo eat with Faramir]
The hobbits find themselves in a cave in a cliff behind the waterfall.
They rest for a while, and hear Faramir receive a report of skulking
creature that is obviously Gollum. Faramir seems to associate this
creature with the hobbits, but nothing more is said. Frodo falls fast
asleep, but Sam remains awake until they join Faramir for the evening
meal. After a ritual moment of silence, looking westwards, they begin a
meal that they enjoy greatly.
[Faramir talks about Numenoreans and Gondor]
After the meal, Faramir once again talks to the hobbits. The
conversation starts off with tales of the Fellowship's journey,
including tales of Boromir that move Faramir, but soon moves back to the
history of Gondor and the Numenorean realms. Faramir speaks at great
length about the decline of the Numenoreans, their mingling with lesser
men of the mountains and of the North. He talks of the origins of Rohan
and the friendship between Gondor and the Rohirrim. He also speaks of
Men:
"For so we reckon Men in our lore, calling them the High, or Men of the
West, which were Numenoreans; and the Middle Peoples, Men of the
Twilight, such as are the Rohirrim and their kin that dwell still far in
the North; and the Wild, the Men of Darkness."
Faramir's verdict on the Gondorian Numenoreans:
"We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other
things."
[Sam is indiscreet about the Ring]
Sam is impressed by Faramir's lore, and asks him if he knows anything
about Elves. This provokes another lament from Faramir:
"But in Middle-earth Men and Elves became estranged in the days of
darkness, by the arts of the Enemy, and by the slow changes of time in
which each kind walked further down their sundered roads."
[6]
The conversation turn to Lorien, and Sam, whose tongue has probably been
loosened by the food and drink, eagerly attempts a description of
Galadriel. Faramir observes that she must be lovely, but perilously
fair. Sam agrees, and starts to describe Boromir and the peril of
Lorien, but stops. Faramir prompts him to continue, and Sam, heedless of
the danger, says that he believes:
"...that in Lórien [Boromir] first saw clearly what I guessed sooner:
what he wanted. From the moment he first saw it he wanted the Enemy's
Ring!"
Frodo, who had not been paying attention, is startled and aghast by
Sam's indiscretion. Sam has revealed the nature of Isildur's Bane to
Faramir, who says:
"So that is the answer to all the riddles! The One Ring that was thought
to have perished from the world. [...] here in the wild I have you: two
halflings, and a host of men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty
stroke of fortune! A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his
quality! Ha!"
[Faramir rejects the Ring]
Faramir stands up, briefly appearing threatening, but then sits down and
laughs. The moment of peril has passed and Faramir reflects that the
trial was too much for Boromir, and then explains that he spoke truly
earlier, that he does not desire the Ring or that he is "wise enough to
know that there are some perils from which a man must flee." Faramir
then goes on to express his admiration for Frodo and Sam. Faramir then
says that he must think about how to help them, and asks one final
question: what do they intend to do with the Ring? Frodo, following the
intensity of the brief danger, is overcome with weariness and resists no
longer, placing full trust in Faramir:
"'I was going to find a way into Mordor,' he said faintly. 'I was going
to Gorgoroth. I must find the Mountain of Fire and cast the thing into
the gulf of Doom. Gandalf said so. I do not think I shall ever get
there.'"
[7-8]
[Frodo falls asleep]
Faramir looks at Frodo in "grave astonishment", and then catches him as
he swoons. Frodo is laid in bed and immediately falls into another deep
sleep. Sam bows low to Faramir and praises him for taking the chance and
showing his quality: "the very highest". Faramir returns the compliment,
saying that: "the praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards."
After a few more eloquent compliments, they bid each other good night.
[9]
Comments and thoughts
=====================
A) Comments referenced to summary text
[1] Is this the first time that Sam and Frodo have seen so many Men all
together? The array of men around Frodo and Faramir is 200-300 strong.
This is the first time they have had so many others around them since
Lorien.
[2] Sam listening uninvited to this interrogation reminds me of his
sitting in on the Council of Elrond.
[3] This interruption by Sam, and his plain speech, is a classic Sam
moment.
[4] Boromir in the boat seems like a passage taken directly from myth
and legend. Can anyone think of an example?
[5] The cried aloud rhetorical questions from Faramir to his brother are
quite striking. Offset from the rest of the text, they have great drama
and have a great impact on those watching and reading.
[6] Sam asking after the Elves. Another 'Sam' moment!
[7] Compare Faramir's: "In the morning we must each go swiftly on the
ways appointed to us." to Galadriel's comments in Lothlorien: "In the
morning you must depart for now we have chosen, and the tides of fate
are flowing."
In both cases the person tested tells Frodo and Sam (and both are
present in the two tableaux) that they must leave in the morning, and
that after this brief meeting, they must continue on their 'appointed'
or 'fated' paths.
[8] Also compare the description of Faramir's reaction to the Ring and
subsequent rejection: "A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show
his quality! Ha!' He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes
glinting. [...] But Faramir sat down again in his chair and began to
laugh quietly, and then suddenly became grave again." to Galadriel's:
"She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and
beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her
hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo!
she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose
gentle voice was soft and sad."
In both cases the person tested appears or is tall, a threatening
appearance is seen, and then they laugh and return to normal. There are
differences, but these stem rather from the nature of Faramir as a man,
and Galadriel as an elf.
[9] Frodo's reaction is moving for both us and Faramir, and we are
impressed by Faramir's reaction to Frodo's weariness.
B) General comments
We learn much about Faramir in this chapter (and the next). What is
people's reaction to this character, the brother of Boromir? "...unlike
they were, and yet also much akin".
Note that Faramir, like his brother, has an archiac style of speech that
uses words like 'durst' and 'tis' and 'aught' and 'oft' and 'ere'.
Faramir says that maybe the journey of Boromir was 'doomed'. This use of
'doom' seems to mean 'fate'. What do you think?
We see much interaction between Frodo and Faramir and Sam and Faramir,
and this allows us to get to know the characters even better. The whole
chapter is dominated by the words of Faramir and his conversations with
Frodo and Sam.
This chapter has a heavy emphasis on the Ring and the Numenoreans.
Through the words of Faramir, we hear more of the history and lore of
the Numenoreans. We also learn more of the Ring and the effect it has on
Faramir, and probably had on Boromir.
Quite a lot of proverbs in this chapter: "Night oft brings news to near
kindred"; "murder will out"; "near, but not in the gold"; "fair speech
may hide a foul heart"; "if you are short of sleep, cold water on the
neck is like rain on a wilted lettuce"; "whenever you open your big
mouth you put your foot in it"; handsome is as handsome does"; "the
praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards".
Frodo and Sam are afraid that the rest of the Fellowship are dead. This
must have had quite an impact on them, even though Faramir tries to
reassure them, and might have preyed on their minds in the days to
follow. Do we see any evidence of this in their actions and speech in
the days that follow?
Finally, I have picked out many of my favourite quotes from this chapter
(including the one at the very end of the post), but I have had to leave
out many wonderful bits of speech, especially those of Faramir. Please
talk about anything else in this chapter that you like or find
interesting!
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
"...in front a thin veil of water was hung, so near that Frodo could
have put an outstretched arm into it. It faced westward. The level
shafts of the setting sun behind beat upon it, and the red light was
broken into many flickering beams of ever-changing colour. It was as if
they stood at the window of some elven-tower, curtained with threaded
jewels of silver and gold, and ruby, sapphire and amethyst, all kindled
with an unconsuming fire." (The Window of the Sunset - Henneth Annūn -
'The Window on the West')
Odysseus
>
> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
>
>
> [4] Boromir in the boat seems like a passage taken directly from myth
> and legend. Can anyone think of an example?
>
I must be thinking of the barge carrying the mortally wounded king to
sleep in Avalon. I'm also reminded of Tennyson's "Lady of Shalott":
"Lying, robed in snowy white
That loosely flew to left and right--
The leaves upon her falling light--
Thro' the noises of the night
She floated down to Camelot ..."
--
Odysseus
Richard Williams
Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
>> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> [4] Boromir in the boat seems like a passage taken directly from myth
>> and legend. Can anyone think of an example?
>>
>For me it has more of an Arthurian feel than much of Tolkien's work:
>I must be thinking of the barge carrying the mortally wounded king to
>sleep in Avalon. I'm also reminded of Tennyson's "Lady of Shalott":
And in Malory:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/c/cme/cme-idx?type=HTML&rgn=DIV1&byte=25794118
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/c/cme/cme-idx?type=HTML&rgn=DIV1&byte=25993057
(not much like Faramir's vision, but presumably Tolkien knew these
versions).
Richard.
Richard Williams
Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
>Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
>Faramir recognised this warrior, pierced with many wounds, as Boromir,
>his brother. He cried out after him, but the boat passed on into the
>night. Frodo recognises the golden belt of Lorien that Faramir described
>on Boromir's body, and says that the boat is also from Lorien.
I wonder if the Sutton Hoo ship burial (excavated in 1939) might have been
a minor influence here? One of the most impressive artefacts from this
site is a magnificent gold belt buckle (now in the British Museum):
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ3924
Richard.
Yuk Tang
news:7S_cd.11219$xb.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> Comments and thoughts
> =====================
>
> A) Comments referenced to summary text
>
> [1] Is this the first time that Sam and Frodo have seen so many
> Men all together? The array of men around Frodo and Faramir is
> 200-300 strong. This is the first time they have had so many
> others around them since Lorien.
Apart from the Black Gate. The main congregation points on their
journey thus far would have been:
1. Bree (village, mixture of little and big folk)
2. Rivendell (Elves)
3. Moria (Orcs and whatnot)
4. Lothlorien (Elves)
5. Black Gate (Men, maybe Orcs).
> [7] Compare Faramir's: "In the morning we must each go swiftly on
> the ways appointed to us." to Galadriel's comments in Lothlorien:
> "In the morning you must depart for now we have chosen, and the
> tides of fate are flowing."
>
> In both cases the person tested tells Frodo and Sam (and both are
> present in the two tableaux) that they must leave in the morning,
> and that after this brief meeting, they must continue on their
> 'appointed' or 'fated' paths.
Doesn't seem unusual; people normally set off on journeys after a
good night's sleep.
> [8] Also compare the description of Faramir's reaction to the Ring
> and subsequent rejection: "A chance for Faramir, Captain of
> Gondor, to show his quality! Ha!' He stood up, very tall and
> stern, his grey eyes glinting. [...] But Faramir sat down again in
> his chair and began to laugh quietly, and then suddenly became
> grave again." to Galadriel's: "She stood before Frodo seeming now
> tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible
> and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded,
> and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a
> slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was
> soft and sad."
>
> In both cases the person tested appears or is tall, a threatening
> appearance is seen, and then they laugh and return to normal.
> There are differences, but these stem rather from the nature of
> Faramir as a man, and Galadriel as an elf.
Might want to include Gandalf upon Bilbo's denial of him at the start
of FotR, and Frodo's domineering of Gollum. Might have something to
do with the appearance of command, as enhanced by the proximity of
the One.
> [9] Frodo's reaction is moving for both us and Faramir, and we are
> impressed by Faramir's reaction to Frodo's weariness.
>
> B) General comments
>
> We learn much about Faramir in this chapter (and the next). What
> is people's reaction to this character, the brother of Boromir?
> "...unlike they were, and yet also much akin".
Until Sean Bean's portrayal in the film, I failed to see the
resemblance between the two.
> Note that Faramir, like his brother, has an archiac style of
> speech that uses words like 'durst' and 'tis' and 'aught' and
> 'oft' and 'ere'.
I wonder how much of that survives in t'broad acres?
--
Cheers, ymt.
Christopher Kreuzer
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> news:7S_cd.11219$xb.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>> Comments and thoughts
>> =====================
>>
>> A) Comments referenced to summary text
<snip>
>> [7] Compare Faramir's: "In the morning we must each go swiftly on
>> the ways appointed to us." to Galadriel's comments in Lothlorien:
>> "In the morning you must depart for now we have chosen, and the
>> tides of fate are flowing."
>>
>> In both cases the person tested tells Frodo and Sam (and both are
>> present in the two tableaux) that they must leave in the morning,
>> and that after this brief meeting, they must continue on their
>> 'appointed' or 'fated' paths.
>
> Doesn't seem unusual; people normally set off on journeys after a
> good night's sleep.
Really? I see it more as a "getting rid of temptation" thing ( or at
least a recognition that the crucial moment has passed, so there is no
point in hanging around any more, either in Lorien or in Ithilien.
Remember that Faramir says (just before he says they must go their
separate ways in the morning):
"I do not wish to see it, or touch it, or know more of it than I know
(which is enough), lest peril perchance waylay me and I fall lower in
the test than Frodo son of Drogo."
Is it possible that Faramir wants to avoid succumbing to the Ring? He
also says, elsewhere in this chapter:
"I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man
must flee."
Which would explain why, even having learnt of the importance of the
quest that Frodo is undertaking, that he does not give them more help,
such as going with them. That and his short-term obligations to Gondor.
>> [8] Also compare the description of Faramir's reaction to the Ring
>> and subsequent rejection: "A chance for Faramir, Captain of
>> Gondor, to show his quality! Ha!' He stood up, very tall and
>> stern, his grey eyes glinting. [...] But Faramir sat down again in
>> his chair and began to laugh quietly, and then suddenly became
>> grave again." to Galadriel's: "She stood before Frodo seeming now
>> tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible
>> and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded,
>> and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a
>> slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was
>> soft and sad."
>>
>> In both cases the person tested appears or is tall, a threatening
>> appearance is seen, and then they laugh and return to normal.
>> There are differences, but these stem rather from the nature of
>> Faramir as a man, and Galadriel as an elf.
>
> Might want to include Gandalf upon Bilbo's denial of him at the start
> of FotR, and Frodo's domineering of Gollum. Might have something to
> do with the appearance of command, as enhanced by the proximity of
> the One.
The bit missing from those is the laugh. I do agree that Gandalf and
Frodo seem to grow in size, but this is something different from these
"threat and then rejection" scenes.
Returning to the "growing in size" bit, maybe we can even include the
"Strider stood up and appeared taller" bit from Bree? :-)
>> B) General comments
<snip>
>> Note that Faramir, like his brother, has an archiac style of
>> speech that uses words like 'durst' and 'tis' and 'aught' and
>> 'oft' and 'ere'.
>
> I wonder how much of that survives in t'broad acres?
Which area of England are you talking about?
Faramir's archaisms, like Boromir's and Denethor's, is most likely
designed to distinguish the Numenoreans from the rustic hobbits of the
Shire.
Yuk Tang
Fair enough. I missed the 'fated'/'appointed' in the original
passage.
>>> [8] Also compare the description of Faramir's reaction to the
>>> Ring and subsequent rejection: "A chance for Faramir, Captain of
>>> Gondor, to show his quality! Ha!' He stood up, very tall and
>>> stern, his grey eyes glinting. [...] But Faramir sat down again
>>> in his chair and began to laugh quietly, and then suddenly
>>> became grave again." to Galadriel's: "She stood before Frodo
>>> seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond
>>> enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall,
>>> and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she
>>> was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose
>>> gentle voice was soft and sad."
>>>
>>> In both cases the person tested appears or is tall, a
>>> threatening appearance is seen, and then they laugh and return
>>> to normal. There are differences, but these stem rather from the
>>> nature of Faramir as a man, and Galadriel as an elf.
>>
>> Might want to include Gandalf upon Bilbo's denial of him at the
>> start of FotR, and Frodo's domineering of Gollum. Might have
>> something to do with the appearance of command, as enhanced by
>> the proximity of the One.
>
> The bit missing from those is the laugh. I do agree that Gandalf
> and Frodo seem to grow in size, but this is something different
> from these "threat and then rejection" scenes.
>
> Returning to the "growing in size" bit, maybe we can even include
> the "Strider stood up and appeared taller" bit from Bree? :-)
As pointed out a couple of years back, anyone would appear taller if
they stood up. But apart from that, it's a standard thang to
emphasise perceived threat by increasing the perceived size. Just
watch two cats fighting.
>>> B) General comments
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Note that Faramir, like his brother, has an archiac style of
>>> speech that uses words like 'durst' and 'tis' and 'aught' and
>>> 'oft' and 'ere'.
>>
>> I wonder how much of that survives in t'broad acres?
>
> Which area of England are you talking about?
The People's Republic of Yorkshire. Just listen to Fred Trueman or
Geoff Boycott (or Ray Illingworth, Brian Close or any of that ilk)
and you'll hear 'tha', 'thi' and such used in ordinary dia(mono?)
logue.
> Faramir's archaisms, like Boromir's and Denethor's, is most likely
> designed to distinguish the Numenoreans from the rustic hobbits of
> the Shire.
Echoes of the King James, which is probably the most baneful
influence on fantasy fic (along with the Fellowship) I know of.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Christopher Kreuzer
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> Faramir's archaisms, like Boromir's and Denethor's, is most likely
>> designed to distinguish the Numenoreans from the rustic hobbits of
>> the Shire.
>
> Echoes of the King James, which is probably the most baneful
> influence on fantasy fic (along with the Fellowship) I know of.
Are you saying that the King James Bible also tries this little trick?
Which peoples are distinguished this way? And how does the King James
Bible have a baneful influence on fantasy? And by Fellowship, do you
mean FotR? And do you mean that the King James Bible influenced FotR? Or
do you mean that FotR had a baneful influence on fantasy?
<deep breath> I think I've run out of questions! :-)
Yuk Tang
>> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Faramir's archaisms, like Boromir's and Denethor's, is most
>>> likely designed to distinguish the Numenoreans from the rustic
>>> hobbits of the Shire.
>>
>> Echoes of the King James, which is probably the most baneful
>> influence on fantasy fic (along with the Fellowship) I know of.
>
> Are you saying that the King James Bible also tries this little
> trick? Which peoples are distinguished this way? And how does the
> King James Bible have a baneful influence on fantasy? And by
> Fellowship, do you mean FotR? And do you mean that the King James
> Bible influenced FotR? Or do you mean that FotR had a baneful
> influence on fantasy?
The King James Bible, via LotR, has made what were supposed to be the
second person informal seem formal. Outside the Yorkshire brigade
(and I've heard other members of said Republic use them) who uses
'thee' and 'thou' correctly? And even when they're grammatically
correct, their usage is still wrong.
FotR has made the band of misfits (different races, different types)
standard.
--
Cheers, ymt.
John Jones
news:7S_cd.11219$xb.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
>
> kindred"; "murder will out"; "near, but not in the gold";
This last is not so much a proverb as a reference to archery. Faramir says,
"Do I not hit near the mark?"
"Near", said Frodo, "but not in the gold."
During the Middle Ages, men shot at 'the mark', which was a piece of cloth
or card pinned to a bank (hence the expression 'wide of the mark' and so
on). 'The gold' is the centre of the modern archery target (nowadays yellow
for easier printing!) which was devised by the Prince of Wales, son of King
George III. Tolkien said that he would have liked to be able to shoot with
the bow; I wonder how much he knew of the subject?
Christopher Kreuzer
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
>>
>> Quite a lot of proverbs in this chapter: "Night oft brings news to
>> near kindred"; "murder will out"; "near, but not in the gold";
>
> This last is not so much a proverb as a reference to archery.
> Faramir says, "Do I not hit near the mark?"
> "Near", said Frodo, "but not in the gold."
Thanks for that. I had assumed it was a reference to gold as a precious
metal (like hitting the jackpot) but didn't stop to think about it in
any detail. As you say, the "near the mark" bit gives it away.
<snip explanation>
> Tolkien said that he would have liked to be able to shoot with the
> bow; I wonder how much he knew of the subject?
Would be nice to know. Presumably he didn't get the chance to go to
evening archery classes, or anything! He did use archery in his stories
though: Bard the Bowman, Beleg Strongbow, Legolas and his bow, the
description of the bow of Lothlorien that Galadriel gave to Legolas, the
Rangers of Ithilien have longbows, he talks of mounted bowmen when
describing miltary tactics, and using bowmen to assail the mumaks, he
also describes bows of wood and bows of horn, the hobbits of the Shire
have hunting bows, there is the Red Arrow used to summon aid from Rohan,
the Black Arrow used by Bard to slay Smaug, and Beleg's bow gets a name:
Belthronding.
Prai Jei
message <7S_cd.11219$xb.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> they see a waterfall before them, lit up by the rays of the
> setting sun. They have come to Henneth Annûn, the Window of the Sunset,
> fairest of all the falls of Ithilien.
>
> [Sam and Frodo eat with Faramir]
>
> The hobbits find themselves in a cave in a cliff behind the waterfall.
An actual example of such a waterfall, where you can walk behind the cascade
of water (not much of a cave though) can be found at Pont Nedd Fechan in
the Neath valley in South Wales. Well worth a visit for anybody interested
in what Henneth Annûn looked like.
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Prai Jei
<4174BEA5...@yahoo-dot.ca>:
Sounds more like "shipping the dead" as narrated by Gervase of Tilbury in
the 12th century.
Christopher Kreuzer
>> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>>
>>> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
>>> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> [4] Boromir in the boat seems like a passage taken directly from
>>> myth and legend. Can anyone think of an example?
> Sounds more like "shipping the dead" as narrated by Gervase of
> Tilbury in the 12th century.
Any more details? If not an actual quote or description of what he was
narrating, maybe just a bit of background on Gervase, who he was and
where he was?
Christopher Kreuzer
I've reinserted RABT.
Christopher Kreuzer
> An actual example of such a waterfall, where you can walk behind the
> cascade of water (not much of a cave though) can be found at Pont
> Nedd Fechan in the Neath valley in South Wales. Well worth a visit
> for anybody interested in what Henneth Annûn looked like.
You did ask to be reminded about this...
I knew I'd forgotten _something_ !!
I have another example of going behind a waterfall, though I am afraid
it is from the Enid Blyton books, where I believe a groups of children
had an adventure in Wales, or maybe not...
Does anyone know whether caves, or at least ledges, behind waterfalls
are that common? I would have thought they would be, but can't say for
sure.
Shanahan
> > > A) Comments referenced to summary text
> <snip>
>
> > > [7] Compare Faramir's: "In the morning we must each go
> > > swiftly on the ways appointed to us." to Galadriel's
> > > comments in Lothlorien: "In the morning you must depart for
> > > now we have chosen, and the tides of fate are flowing."
<snip>
> > Doesn't seem unusual; people normally set off on journeys
> > after a good night's sleep.
>
> Really? I see it more as a "getting rid of temptation" thing (
> or at least a recognition that the crucial moment has passed, so
> there is no point in hanging around any more, either in Lorien
> or in Ithilien.
In terms of the tension in the story arc, I think you're dead on
here, that's exactly what's going on. Once you've resolved a moment
of tension, you've got to get the story moving again.
> Remember that Faramir says (just before he says they must go
> their separate ways in the morning):
> "I do not wish to see it, or touch it, or know more of it than I
> know (which is enough), lest peril perchance waylay me and I
> fall lower in the test than Frodo son of Drogo."
Definitely avoiding temptation. He knows enough as a scholar to be
wise; but mostly, I think, it is his heart that's wise here. And
maybe he feels a little pride as well: he can't let a halfling be
more noble than a descendant of Numenoreans! <g>
<snip>
> The bit missing from those is the laugh. I do agree that Gandalf
> and Frodo seem to grow in size, but this is something different
> from these "threat and then rejection" scenes.
> Returning to the "growing in size" bit, maybe we can even
> include the "Strider stood up and appeared taller" bit from
> Bree? :-)
One thing strikes me here: each of these three moments is followed
by a moment of pain, confessed by the character. Strider
acknowledges "with a queer laugh, 'that I hoped you would take to
me for my own sake. A hunted man sometimes wearies of distrust.'"
Galadriel laughs and then "was shrunken, a slender elf-woman, clad
in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad. 'I pass the
test,' she said, 'I will diminish, and pass into the West...'"
After his laugh, Faramir says "Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a
trial! ... How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange
wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men!"
So the sequence is threat, rejection of temptation, laugh,
acknowledgement of sorrow. The laugh may be a brief moment of joy
following the rejection of evil; the sorrow, a sigh for all that is
lost.
> > > B) General comments
> <snip>
>
> > > Note that Faramir, like his brother, has an archiac style of
> > > speech that uses words like 'durst' and 'tis' and 'aught' and
> > > 'oft' and 'ere'.
He also uses the old name for Lothlorien (Laurelindorinan), which
we only hear from Treebeard, otherwise. While Boromir's speech also
tends towards the old-fashioned -- he tends to use inverted
constructions -- I believe these archaisms of Faramir's are meant
to show his learning. He has spent many hours in the archives of
Minas Tirith with Gandalf! It also, perhaps, links him to the
Elves more strongly.
Ciaran S.
--
Coulrophobia. It's nothing to clown about.
Shanahan
There are many of them in the Finger Lakes region of upstate New
York. Watkins Glen has a couple, and there are many small ones in
the little ravines that cut through the hills that separate the
long lakes. Swimming in these little waterfall pools is absolutely
wonderful (although I keep being tempted to mutter "rocks and pool
/ so wet and cool / so nice for feet").
Ciaran S.
--
It's a grand life, if you don't tire.
- gaelic proverb
AC
Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [8] Also compare the description of Faramir's reaction to the Ring and
> subsequent rejection: "A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show
> his quality! Ha!' He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes
> glinting. [...] But Faramir sat down again in his chair and began to
> laugh quietly, and then suddenly became grave again." to Galadriel's:
> "She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and
> beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her
> hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo!
> she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose
> gentle voice was soft and sad."
>
> In both cases the person tested appears or is tall, a threatening
> appearance is seen, and then they laugh and return to normal. There are
> differences, but these stem rather from the nature of Faramir as a man,
> and Galadriel as an elf.
I believe it was Carpenter who noted that height was important in Tolkien's
writings. I think this is probably more of an archetype than anything
specific to, say, Northern European myth.
>
> [9] Frodo's reaction is moving for both us and Faramir, and we are
> impressed by Faramir's reaction to Frodo's weariness.
It's what makes Faramir one of my favorite characters.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
Prai Jei
For a more modern setting of such a scene, try "Planet of Treachery" by
Stefan Goldin, part of a continuation of the "Family d'Alembert" series
begun by Doc Smith. In the opening chapter, our hero chooses such a
location - on a distant planet - as a refuge from the baddie (a robot
double) who's persuing him. The baddie tracks him down, but much of the
energy in his blaster beam goes into boiling the cascading water with the
result that our hero lives to fight another day, expose the double as an
impostor and go on (three books later) to save the Empire of Earth from the
evil machinations of an enemy known only as C.
I can't recall any behind-the-waterfall location in Enid Blyton. The only
book I know of with a Welsh setting is "Five Get Into a Fix" but that book
contains no such scene.
Prai Jei
message <woCdd.12411$xb.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
It's a fairly long article, which you would really need to read through in
full to appreciate the analogies with Boromir. I shall transcribe the story
offline and post to the group later. Watch this space.
Prai Jei
message <woCdd.12411$xb.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Any more details? If not an actual quote or description of what he was
> narrating, maybe just a bit of background on Gervase, who he was and
> where he was?
The attached article is taken from "Rennes-le-Chateau, its Mysteries and
Secrets" by Lionel and Patricia Fanthorpe.
GERVASE OF TILBURY'S ACCOUNT OF
"SHIPPING THE DEAD" TO ARLES (CIRCA 1210)
The Anglo-Latin writer, priest, scholar and adventurer, Gervase of
Tilbury, was related to Patrick, Earl of Salisbury. Before 1177 Gervase
taught Law in Bologna. Later he worked for Henry fitz Henry in England, for
William of Champagne (the Cardinal Archbishop of Rheims) and William II of
Sicily. Shortly before 1200 he was employed by Emperor Otto IV, who
promoted him to be Marshall of the Kingdom of Arles, where, despite being
in holy orders, he married a rich and beautiful young heiress.
His Otia Imperialia trilogy was written for the Emperor in 1211. It is a
fascinating mixture of political theory, geography, history and folklore.
Cathars, Templars and the Knights of St. John were all flourishing in the
vicinity of Arles at the time. The famous Venus of Arles was discovered in
the remains of the Roman Theatre there in 1651 during the period when
Poussin was painting. Marie de Negre's tombstone records her as "Dame
d'Arles".
What Gervase says about floating corpses and treasure could be linked to
M. Fatin's ideas about Rennes-le-Chateau being laid out to resemble a "ship
of the dead" bearing a giant warrior.
Gervase's text (Otia Imperialia, Decisio iii, c.90) follows, in both the
original Latin and in an English translation. The authors wish to thank
Father Martin I. Williams, Vicar of the parish of St German, Roath, for
advice on the mediaeval Latin.
[Latin text snipped, available on request]
Most Sacred Prince, let me tell you of a remarkable wonder and miracle of
divine power. The capital of the kingdom of Burgundy (known as the Arlesian
kingdom) is the city of Arles, the recipient of ancient privilege. It was
Trophimus, who had been ordained by the Apostles Peter and Paul, who . . .
determined to set aside a proper cemetery in the central part of the city,
in which the bodies of all the faithful could be brought for burial, that
as the whole of Gaul received the faith initially from the church of Arles,
so also the dead in Christ by being brought there from all over the country
might have the benefit of a common burial ground. The solemn consecration
was therefore performed at the hands of the most holy bishops at the East
Gate, where the church consecrated by them in honour of the Blessed Virgin
now stands. To them Christ himself appeared, as of old he was intimately
recognisable in human flesh; he lavished his blessing on their work,
granting to the cemetery and to its occupants that whoever might be buried
there should suffer in their corpse no mockery of the devil. As a result,
therefore, of this gift of the Lord's benediction, it was borne in upon all
the principal rulers and clergy of Gaul that the great majority of those to
whom they had access had right of burial there. And so some in wagons,
others in chariots, a number on horse back, but the majority borne
downstream on the River Rhone, were brought to the cemetery of the Elysian
Field. It is quite astonishing that no dead person placed in a coffin ever
overshot the outer boundary of the City of Arles (which they call Rocheta),
driven by whatever force of wind or tempest, but remaining close to the
shore, the coffin circles in the water until it lands, or else is borne
into the sacred cemetery by the direct current of the river. Marvels
succeed to marvels which we have seen with our own eyes in the case of
innumerable multitudes of people of either sex. As we have said, the dead
are usually sent in vessels of bitumen and in coffins from distant reaches
of the river Rhone, with figured coinage, which is offered as alms to so
sacred a cemetery. On one occasion, less than ten years ago, a vessel with
its corpse came downstream into that strait which is overlooked on one side
by the camp of the Tarasconians and on the other by that of the
Belliquadri. Some youths of Belliquadri jumped out and dragged the vessel
to shore, and, leaving the dead body, seized the money laid within it. The
vessel having been pushed out again into the river stood still amidst its
fierce currents, and neither the force of the headlong flood nor the
thrusts of the young men could make it go downstream. Turning and turning
about on itself, it circled those same waves of the stream . . . At last,
when the whole sum of money was restored, the body forthwith pursued its
way without the help of anyone impelling it, and within a short space of
time, landing at Arles, was given an honourable burial.
Christopher Kreuzer
[about waterfalls in 'literature' - and a stupid robot...]
<snip>
> I can't recall any behind-the-waterfall location in Enid Blyton. The
> only book I know of with a Welsh setting is "Five Get Into a Fix" but
> that book contains no such scene.
Um. I think I meant that "Secret Valley" book. I'm not even going to try
and remember the plots of all the different Enid Blyton books. I kept a
few books from my childhood, but threw all the Enid Blyton books away
pretty quickly. The only one I remember clearly is the first amd most
magical one, 'The Faraway Tree' series... :-)
More seriously, I remember a genuine use of a waterfall as a plot
device: Tintin and his companions enter the Temple of the Sun through a
waterfall, in the book 'Prisoners of the Sun'.
Christopher Kreuzer
Prai Jei <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly
> in message <woCdd.12411$xb.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
>> Any more details? If not an actual quote or description of what he
>> was narrating, maybe just a bit of background on Gervase, who he was
>> and where he was?
>
> The attached article is taken from "Rennes-le-Chateau, its Mysteries
> and Secrets" by Lionel and Patricia Fanthorpe.
>
> GERVASE OF TILBURY'S ACCOUNT OF
> "SHIPPING THE DEAD" TO ARLES (CIRCA 1210)
<snip>
Thanks for that. I never for a moment thought that anything like that
would have happened in the real world!
I see what you mean about the similarities. I was hoping you meant a
direct reference to a boat with a pale light all about it and a body
inside lying in water from which the light seems to come (as is
described for Boromir).
But the bit in the Gervase text does contain the idea of a boat with a
dead person in it being sent down a river (in that case to a cemetary,
in Boromir's case to the Sea). And there is the mention, in both cases,
of the boats moving under their own volition. Were these bits what made
you see a similarity between the two stories?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> creatively typed:
<snip>
[about Ring 'temptation' scenes]
>> The bit missing from those is the laugh. I do agree that Gandalf
>> and Frodo seem to grow in size, but this is something different
>> from these "threat and then rejection" scenes.
>> Returning to the "growing in size" bit, maybe we can even
>> include the "Strider stood up and appeared taller" bit from
>> Bree? :-)
>
> One thing strikes me here: each of these three moments is followed
> by a moment of pain, confessed by the character. Strider
> acknowledges "with a queer laugh, 'that I hoped you would take to
> me for my own sake. A hunted man sometimes wearies of distrust.'"
Ooh. Another laugh. Good point. Pity it is in the wrong place. The bit
where he appears taller and threatens the hobbits is this:
"'If I was after the Ring, I could have it - NOW!' He stood up, and
seemed suddenly to grow taller. In his eyes gleamed a light, keen and
commanding. [...] 'But I am the real Strider, fortunately,' he said,
looking down at them with his face softened by a sudden smile..."
(Strider)
That smile might be the 'laugh'? In all the cases, the laugh or smile is
a way to resolve the tension, to reveal your true intentions and
reassure those who have been 'threatened'. As such, it may not have any
significance beyond being a repeated literary device.
> Galadriel laughs and then "was shrunken, a slender elf-woman, clad
> in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad. 'I pass the
> test,' she said, 'I will diminish, and pass into the West...'"
> After his laugh, Faramir says "Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a
> trial! ... How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange
> wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men!"
I had noticed Faramir's response, but couldn't quite tie it in with
Galadriel's reponse. You are right: sorrow is the common factor, though
the reasons for the sorrow are different in each case.
> So the sequence is threat, rejection of temptation, laugh,
> acknowledgement of sorrow. The laugh may be a brief moment of joy
> following the rejection of evil; the sorrow, a sigh for all that is
> lost.
I wouldn't say the laughs are joy. They all seem to be a sad kind of
laugh. There are many kinds of laughs, and we have to look at the
context to see which type we have here. Galadriel's laugh, like
Faramir's laugh, seems to both relieve the tension, and precede the
sorrowful comment that follows. The best way I can describe how I see
these laughs is that they are _wry_ laughter, almost sorrowful, a bit
like:
<wry chuckle> "Yeah, right! Me be a Ring Lord!"
Self-deprecating might be another way to describe them.
This talk of growing in size and laughter got me thinking, and I had a
quick look at the Bombadil scene:
"It seemed to grow larger as it lay for a moment on his big
brown-skinned hand. Then suddenly he put it to his eye and laughed. For
a second the hobbits had a vision, both comical and alarming, of his
bright blue eye gleaming through a circle of gold. " (In the House of
Tom Bombadil)
We still get the same themes here: apparent growth (though funnily
enough it is the Ring itself growing, as if the effect is reflected from
Tom back to the Ring, because the Ring _truly_ cannot affect Tom); a
threat scene (the hobbits are alarmed by Tom's eye) that is mixed with
comedy; and Bombadil laughing (though admittedly Tom does that a lot -
and here it comes over as genuine comical laughter, not wry laughter).
Sadly (pun intended) there is no 'sorrow' bit, unless I am missing
something.
However, this does seem to be the tension-resolving bit of the chapter
that leads to the talk of "departing the next morning".
Troels Forchhammer
"Shanahan" <pog...@bluefrog.com> enriched us with:
>
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> creatively typed:
>>
>> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> news:7S_cd.11219$xb.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>>>
Once more reinserting snipped parts of the conversation ;-)
>>>> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
>>>> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
<snip>
>>>> Chapter Summary
And an excellent one at that ;-)
>>>> [Sam wakes up]
I very much like the idea of these tags -- I think I'll borrow it for
'The Stairs of Cirith Ungol' (along with all the other stuff I clutter
my chapter introductions with <G>)
<snip>
>>>> [Sam interrupts]
>>>>
>>>> Sam bursts into the conversation and cuts through the carefully
>>>> chosen words of Frodo and Faramir, putting the matter plainly and
>>>> simply: Faramir is accusing Frodo of murdering Boromir.
I'm very fond of the description of Sam's posture here:
" He planted himself squarely in front of Faramir his hands
on his hips, and a look on his face as if he was addressing
a young hobbit who had offered him what he called `sauce'
when questioned about visits to the orchard."
And it seems that the proud rangers of Ithilien also found it amusing:
"There was some murmuring, but also some grins on the faces
of the men looking on: the sight of their Captain sitting
on the ground and eye to eye with a young hobbit, legs well
apart, bristling with wrath, was one beyond their experience."
Knowing well the hoard of paternal 'advice' Sam has stored away, I
don't think we have to look too far for a source of Sam's posture ;-)
Very much a "Sam moment", as you note.
<snip>
>>>> [Vision of Boromir dead]
>>>>
>>>> Sam sits down with a red face. Faramir then tells the hobbits
>>>> that Boromir was his brother, and proceeds to tell them the tale
>>>> of why he believes Boromir to be dead. He heard the horn of
>>>> Boromir blowing 11 days ago.
"That horn the eldest son of our house has borne for many
generations; and it is said that if it be blown at need
anywhere within the bounds of Gondor, as the realm was of
old, its voice will not pass unheeded."
And it didn't!
What happened? Boromir did blown the horn at need "within the bounds
of Gondor, as the realm was of old", and the voice of the horn did
indeed not pass unheeded -- neither at Amon Hen (where both Aragorn
as well as Legolas and Gimli hurried to come to his aid, though they
failed) nor in Gondor itself, it seems.
So how did Faramir hear the horn (or did he? "as if it were but an
echo in the mind," he says).
I believe that there is some modern research that shows some strange
connections between close kin: was the horn just a way for Faramir's
mind to 'formulate' an anxiety he felt for his brother, or was there
something else at work? The latter would almost have to be something
supernatural, but would it be divine interference (I think that most
believe that the two brothers where sent their dream by Ainur) or was
it some property of the horn itself (Art or magic, I don't know)?
This is one of the cases where I think that the 'mundane' (insofar as
it is even accepted) explanation and the supernatural explanation are
equally likely. Elsewhere in this chapter Tolkien formulates the idea
that close kin will know when something happens ("/Tidings of death
have many wings. Night oft brings news to near kindred, 'tis said./"),
but Faramir's words about the horn imply, to me, a more fantastic
explanation.
Both in this case and when Faramir (and Boromir) had their 'prophetic'
dream, another aspect may have influenced Tolkien is the role of
dreams in Faërie
"It is true that Dream is not unconnected with Faërie. In
dreams strange powers of the mind may be unlocked. In some
of them a man may for a space wield the power of Faërie,
that power which, even as it conceives the story, causes it
to take living form and colour before the eyes."
(OFS, 'Fairy-story')
>>>> Three nights later he was watching the shores of Anduin:
>>>>
>>>> "But that night all the world slept at the midnight
>>>> hour. Then I saw, or it seemed that I saw, a boat
>>>> floating on the water [...] An awe fell on me, for a
>>>> pale light was round it. [...] the boat turned towards
>>>> me, and stayed its pace, and floated slowly by [...]
>>>> under my gaze that it was almost filled with clear water,
>>>> it seemed to me as it passed from which came the light;
>>>> and lapped in the water a warrior lay asleep."
>>>>
>>>> Faramir recognised this warrior, pierced with many wounds, as
>>>> Boromir, his brother. He cried out after him, but the boat passed
>>>> on into the night.
Though it doesn't belong here, chronologically, I'll bring it out
anyway. Faramir has later a startling revelation about this 'vision'
of Boromir in his funeral boat:
" Whether he erred or no, of this I am sure: he died well,
achieving some good thing. His face was more beautiful even
than in life."
We have discussed it earlier, but still: I think this should be read
in connection with both his death (his smile in death coming after
what can, IMO, best be likened to an absolution by Aragorn) and
Gandalf's later statement that "It was not in vain that the young
hobbits came with us, if only for Boromir's sake."
I am quite sure that to Tolkien these descriptions are meant to
demonstrate that Boromir did find redemption for his attempt to rob
Frodo of the Ring (and the faults that this implied to his character).
>>>> Frodo recognises the golden belt of Lorien that Faramir described
>>>> on Boromir's body, and says that the boat is also from Lorien.
>>>> Faramir laments that Boromir went ever to that Hidden Land:
>>>>
>>>> "Boromir, O Boromir! What did she say to you, the Lady
>>>> that dies not? What did she see? What woke in your heart
>>>> then? Why went you ever to Laurelindórenan, and came not
>>>> by your own road, upon the horses of Rohan riding home in
>>>> the morning?"
As Faramir later opines:
"For I deem it perilous now for mortal man wilfully to seek
out the Elder People."
But Faramir also regrets that this is so, "Yet I envy you that have
spoken with the White Lady." Well, at least Boromir didn't "wilfully"
seek out Lórien and its inhabitants.
>>>> Faramir adds that the cloven horn also returned on the River.
"Murder will out."
Were the pieces of the horn 'guided' to return to Gondor, or was it
random chance?
Personally I prefer the 'guided' explanation; in particular as it also
seems to fit the funaral boat's behaviour as it passed Faramir ("the
boat turned towards me, and stayed its pace, and floated slowly by.")
It has earlier been suggested that it was Ulmo that sent the dream to
Faramir and Boromir (he is known to have done that before -- Tuor
comes to mind) and that would, IMO, seem to fit well with the arrival
of the pieces of the horn and the guiding of the funeral boat.
Another explanation, both here and elsewhere (for instance both
Faramir 'hearing' Boromir's horn and Sam's Elven rope), might of
course be that these things are a natural part of Faërie, that land of
the fairy story of which Tolkien has such a lot to say in /On
Fairy-stories/:
"the nature of Faërie: the Perilous Realm itself, and the
air that blows in that country. I will not attempt to
define that, nor to describe it directly. It cannot be
done. Faërie cannot be caught in a net of words; for it is
one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not
imperceptible. It has many ingredients, but analysis will
not necessarily discover the secret of the whole."
(OFS, 'Fairy-story')
Or perhaps such an approach is doomed to fail ;-)
"The magic of Faërie is not an end in itself, its virtue is
in its operations: among these are the satisfaction of
certain primordial human desires. One of these desires is
to survey the depths of space and time. Another is (as will
be seen) to hold communion with other living things. A
story may thus deal with the satisfaction of these desires,
with or without the operation of either machine or magic,
and in proportion as it succeeds it will approach the
quality and have the flavour of fairy-story."
(OFS, 'Fairy-story')
So, magic is not /necessarily/ a part of a fairy-story, but it is
still essential in Faërie:
"Even fairy-stories as a whole have three faces: the
Mystical towards the Supernatural; the Magical towards
Nature; and the Mirror of scorn and pity towards Man. The
essential face of Faërie is the middle one, the Magical.
But the degree in which the others appear (if at all) is
variable, and may be decided by the individual
story-teller. The Magical, the fairy-story, may be used as
a Mirour de I'Omme; and it may (but not so easily) be made
a vehicle of Mystery. This at least is what George
Mac-Donald attempted, achieving stories of power and beauty
when he succeeded, as in The Golden Key (which he called a
fairy-tale); and even when he partly failed, as in Lilith
(which he called a romance)."
(OFS, 'Origins')
>>>> [Journey to Henneth Annun]
[...]
>>>> Faramir attempts to reassure Frodo, and further says that he no
>>>> longer doubts Frodo's story.
So, what convinced him?
Is this because of Faramir's own 'nobility' within the story that he
recognises the nobility of Frodo (like Éomer said, "Yet you speak the
truth, that is plain: the Men of the Mark do not lie, and therefore
they are not easily deceived.")?
>>>> Nevertheless, he defers his full decision until he can think and
>>>> question them some more.
Why?
His obligations towards Gondor? He is, after all, bidden to kill all
he meets in Ithilien who go there without leave from the Steward.
<snip>
>>>> [Faramir on Isildur's Bane]
[...]
>>>> We hear that Faramir knows of "the Great Battle that was fought
>>>> upon Dagorlad in the beginning of Gondor", and that Isildur took
>>>> something from the hand of Sauron.
"Here I thought was the answer to Mithrandir's questioning."
Now that is a pretty darn intelligent guess!
And he is about to learn why this was not, as he thought, "a matter
that concerned only the seekers after ancient learning." He is already
very close to the truth.
<snip>
>>>> [Faramir talks about Numenoreans and Gondor]
[...]
>>>> Faramir's verdict on the Gondorian Numenoreans:
>>>>
>>>> "We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with
>>>> memory of other things."
Another archaism?
I'm confused by the temporal sense of this statement: how would it
relate, temporally, to more modern phrases such as "we have become"
(the change is already done -- possibly a while ago, but not ages ago)
and "we are becoming" (the change is still going on)?
>>>> [Sam is indiscreet about the Ring]
[...]
>>>> The conversation turn to Lorien, and Sam, whose tongue has
>>>> probably been loosened by the food and drink,
And tiredness!
I know he slept a bit during the battle with the Southrons, but how
much has that watchful Hobbit slept since they took up with Gollum?
He must be exhausted.
[Sam]
>>>> eagerly attempts a description of Galadriel. Faramir observes
>>>> that she must be lovely, but perilously fair.
Compare to Tolkien's description of Faërie, the land of the
Fairy-stories as "the Perilous Realm".
>>>> Sam agrees, and starts to describe Boromir and the peril of
>>>> Lorien, but stops. Faramir prompts him to continue, and Sam,
>>>> heedless of the danger, says that he believes:
>>>>
>>>> "...that in Lórien [Boromir] first saw clearly what I
>>>> guessed sooner: what he wanted. From the moment he first
>>>> saw it he wanted the Enemy's Ring!"
"From the moment he first saw it [...]"!
There has been some recent discussion about Boromir's reaction to the
Ring, but I think that we are supposed to believe Sam here. Whether
Boromir was, at that early date, influenced by the Ring itself is, I
think, impossible to say -- he was certainly, according to Sam,
influenced by the thought of the Ring.
<snip>
>>>> [1] Is this the first time that Sam and Frodo have seen so many
>>>> Men all together? The array of men around Frodo and Faramir
>>>> is 200-300 strong. This is the first time they have had so
>>>> many others around them since Lorien.
>>>
>>> Apart from the Black Gate.
I had the same thought. Though there the Men weren't really 'around
them', they did see a lot of Men together. I wonder how many people
watched them leave Bree? Probably not as many as 200-300.
>>> The main congregation points on their journey thus far would have
>>> been:
>>>
>>> 1. Bree (village, mixture of little and big folk)
>>> 2. Rivendell (Elves)
>>> 3. Moria (Orcs and whatnot)
>>> 4. Lothlorien (Elves)
>>> 5. Black Gate (Men, maybe Orcs).
And continuing the story (after this chapter):
7. The Morgul army (Nazgûl, mostly Orcs, some Trolls, maybe Southrons)
8. Cirith Ungol (Orcs)
9. Orc company
10. The field of Cormallen
(I'll stop there)
>>>> [2] Sam listening uninvited to this interrogation reminds me of
>>>> his sitting in on the Council of Elrond.
Nice observation. Tagging along to Galadriel's Mirror has some of the
same sense of 'just being there' until Galadriel and Frodo
acknowledges his presence.
<snip>
>>>> [4] Boromir in the boat seems like a passage taken directly from
>>>> myth and legend. Can anyone think of an example?
Not directly.
I believe that there were some use of funeral ships among the vikings,
but IIRC they torched the ship before putting it out to sea.
I also seem to recall funeral ships in other cultures (other than the
cultures of the North-western part of Middle-earth -- errr -- Europe
<G>) Egypt?
>>>> [5] The cried aloud rhetorical questions from Faramir to his
>>>> brother are quite striking. Offset from the rest of the text,
>>>> they have great drama and have a great impact on those
>>>> watching and reading.
Agreed.
>>>>
>>>> [6] Sam asking after the Elves. Another 'Sam' moment!
I can easily imagine Sam listening eagerly to old Bilbo for 'more
about the Elves, sir' ;-)
>>>> [7] Compare Faramir's: "In the morning we must each go swiftly
>>>> on the ways appointed to us." to Galadriel's comments in
>>>> Lothlorien: "In the morning you must depart for now we have
>>>> chosen, and the tides of fate are flowing."
>>>>
>>>> In both cases the person tested tells Frodo and Sam (and both
>>>> are present in the two tableaux) that they must leave in the
>>>> morning, and that after this brief meeting, they must continue
>>>> on their 'appointed' or 'fated' paths.
>>>
>>> Doesn't seem unusual; people normally set off on journeys after a
>>> good night's sleep.
>>
>> Really? I see it more as a "getting rid of temptation" thing ( or
>> at least a recognition that the crucial moment has passed, so there
>> is no point in hanging around any more, either in Lorien or in
>> Ithilien.
>
> In terms of the tension in the story arc, I think you're dead on
> here, that's exactly what's going on. Once you've resolved a moment
> of tension, you've got to get the story moving again.
Seconded.
Rejecting the Ring and the desire for / promise of power (should that
have been 'Power') that it represents is of crucial all-importance in
the story -- I don't think it can be stressed too much.
This is Faramir rejecting 'the Machine' -- it is his greatest moment.
>> Remember that Faramir says (just before he says they must go their
>> separate ways in the morning):
>>
>> "I do not wish to see it, or touch it, or know more of it
>> than I know (which is enough), lest peril perchance waylay
>> me and I fall lower in the test than Frodo son of Drogo."
>
> Definitely avoiding temptation. He knows enough as a scholar to be
> wise; but mostly, I think, it is his heart that's wise here. And
> maybe he feels a little pride as well: he can't let a halfling be
> more noble than a descendant of Numenoreans! <g>
;-)
>> Is it possible that Faramir wants to avoid succumbing to the Ring?
>> He also says, elsewhere in this chapter:
>>
>> "I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from
>> which a man must flee."
Would he have fallen?
Had he not so forcefully rejected it and deliberately distanced
himself from it ("I do not wish [...]" as you quoted above), would he
then have fallen like his brother did? And in that connection: was it
a mistake by Gandalf to have Frodo show the Ring at the Council, or
was it a calculated risk; the only way to convince everyone present of
the severity of the matter?
<snip>
>>>> [8] Also compare the description of Faramir's reaction to the
>>>> Ring and subsequent rejection: "A chance for Faramir,
>>>> Captain of Gondor, to show his quality!"
[...]
>>>> to Galadriel's: "She stood before Frodo seeming now tall
>>>> beyond measurement,
[...]
>>>> In both cases the person tested appears or is tall, a
>>>> threatening appearance is seen, and then they laugh and
>>>> return to normal.
Yes.
>>>> There are differences, but these stem rather from the nature of
>>>> Faramir as a man, and Galadriel as an elf.
And Galadriel's far greater power.
I think she gives us a glimpse of what she would be like as a
Ring-lady -- far more terrible than most others who are tempted by the
Ring (except, of course, for Sauron). I think that she would be even
more terrible than Saruman who had become deluded with ideas of his
own greatness -- Galadriel knew how powerful she would be.
>>> Might want to include Gandalf upon Bilbo's denial of him at the
>>> start of FotR, and Frodo's domineering of Gollum. Might have
>>> something to do with the appearance of command, as enhanced by the
>>> proximity of the One.
>>
>> The bit missing from those is the laugh. I do agree that Gandalf
>> and Frodo seem to grow in size, but this is something different
>> from these "threat and then rejection" scenes.
Where is Gandalf's moment of rejecting the Ring?
Is it in I,2 'The Shadow of the Past':
" 'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that
power I should have power too great and terrible. And over
me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more
deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire
within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like
the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart
is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to
do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to
keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too
great, for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great
perils lie before me.'"
It lacks the sense of threat, though he did that with Bilbo in the
first chapter, and there is again no laugh.
>> Returning to the "growing in size" bit, maybe we can even include
>> the "Strider stood up and appeared taller" bit from Bree? :-)
>
> One thing strikes me here: each of these three moments is followed
> by a moment of pain, confessed by the character. Strider
> acknowledges "with a queer laugh, 'that I hoped you would take to me
> for my own sake. A hunted man sometimes wearies of distrust.'"
Is this the moment when Aragorn rejects the Ring?
This scene is begun by his cry of, "If I was after the Ring, I could
have it - NOW!"
[...]
> So the sequence is threat, rejection of temptation, laugh,
> acknowledgement of sorrow.
Something like that, yes.
> The laugh may be a brief moment of joy following the rejection of
> evil;
Or at the dumbfounded Hobbits ;-)
My impression is that of a 'mirthless' laugh -- it is not amusement or
joy, but only a way to release the tension of the situation: "you see,
I laugh, and therefore I cannot be dangerous."
> the sorrow, a sigh for all that is lost.
Yes, I don't think that there is supposed to be any regret of the
things that will not be (because of having rejected the Ring).
>>>> [9] Frodo's reaction is moving for both us and Faramir, and we
>>>> are impressed by Faramir's reaction to Frodo's weariness.
>>>>
>>>> B) General comments
>>>>
>>>> We learn much about Faramir in this chapter (and the next). What
>>>> is people's reaction to this character, the brother of Boromir?
>>>> "...unlike they were, and yet also much akin".
>>>
>>> Until Sean Bean's portrayal in the film, I failed to see the
>>> resemblance between the two.
>>>
>>>> Note that Faramir, like his brother, has an archiac style of
>>>> speech that uses words like 'durst' and 'tis' and 'aught' and
>>>> 'oft' and 'ere'.
Does the archaic linguistic style of the Gondorians help convey as
sense of the age and depth of the Dúnedain culture?
> He also uses the old name for Lothlorien (Laurelindorinan), which we
> only hear from Treebeard, otherwise. While Boromir's speech also
> tends towards the old-fashioned -- he tends to use inverted
> constructions -- I believe these archaisms of Faramir's are meant to
> show his learning.
Good point.
<snip>
>> Faramir's archaisms, like Boromir's and Denethor's, is most likely
>> designed to distinguish the Numenoreans from the rustic hobbits of
>> the Shire.
I have seen it suggested that the age of the language people speak in
LotR is related to the 'nobility' of the person -- one of the best
pieces of monologue I have come across in Tolkien's writings is Ulmo's
speech to Tuor at the beach of Nevrast, and that would seem to fit
this idea quite well, as far as I can tell.
"Arise, Tuor, son of Huor!" said Ulmo. "Fear not my
wrath, though long have I called to thee unheard; and
setting out at last thou hast tarried on thy journey
hither. In the Spring thou shouldst have stood here; but
now a fell winter cometh soon from the land of the Enemy.
Haste thou must learn, and the pleasant road that I
designed for thee must be changed. For my counsels have
been scorned, and a great evil creeps upon the Valley of
Sirion, and already a host of foes is come between and thy
goal."
etc. ;-)
>>>> Faramir says that maybe the journey of Boromir was 'doomed'. This
>>>> use of 'doom' seems to mean 'fate'. What do you think?
Yes, he is suggesting that the outcome of Boromir's journey had been
decided even before he set out, I think.
>>>> This chapter has a heavy emphasis on the Ring and the
>>>> Numenoreans. Through the words of Faramir, we hear more of the
>>>> history and lore of the Numenoreans.
To a large extent also preparing us for Pippin's arrival in Minas
Tirith. At that point we already know these people and are thus no
longer surprised by their mode of speech or their wisdom. We can then,
when we meet Denethor concentrate on how he compares to his sons (and
they to him).
--
Troels Forchhammer
It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal nothing.
- Frodo Baggins, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Dirk Thierbach
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Quite a lot of proverbs in this chapter: "Night oft brings news to near
>> kindred"; "murder will out"; "near, but not in the gold";
> This last is not so much a proverb as a reference to archery. Faramir says,
> "Do I not hit near the mark?"
> "Near", said Frodo, "but not in the gold."
> During the Middle Ages, men shot at 'the mark', which was a piece of cloth
> or card pinned to a bank (hence the expression 'wide of the mark' and so
> on). 'The gold' is the centre of the modern archery target (nowadays yellow
> for easier printing!) which was devised by the Prince of Wales, son of King
> George III.
Interesting. The corresponding german proverb is literally translated
"to hit into the black", so I guess the center must have been painted
black here (and not gold) at some time. (BTW, since there is only this
single idiom, the translation has to cheat when translating the two
expressions "hit the mark" and "hit in the gold").
- Dirk
Jim Deutch
wrote:
>Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> creatively typed:
>> Prai Jei <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> > An actual example of such a waterfall, where you can walk
>> > behind the cascade of water (not much of a cave though) can be
>> > found at Pont Nedd Fechan in the Neath valley in South Wales.
>> > Well worth a visit for anybody interested in what Henneth
>> > Annūn looked like.
>>
>> You did ask to be reminded about this...
>> I knew I'd forgotten _something_ !!
>> I have another example of going behind a waterfall, though I am
>> afraid it is from the Enid Blyton books, where I believe a
>> groups of children had an adventure in Wales, or maybe not...
>> Does anyone know whether caves, or at least ledges, behind
>> waterfalls are that common? I would have thought they would be,
>> but can't say for sure.
>
>There are many of them in the Finger Lakes region of upstate New
>York. Watkins Glen has a couple, and there are many small ones in
>the little ravines that cut through the hills that separate the
>long lakes. Swimming in these little waterfall pools is absolutely
>wonderful (although I keep being tempted to mutter "rocks and pool
>/ so wet and cool / so nice for feet").
There must be hundreds or even thousands that a person can crouch
behind. Many fewer that will fit several people and keep them dry. I
don't know of *any* in the area with an actual cave into which a
couple hundred warriors could hide away.
My favorite is in Labrador Hollow, halfway between Fabius and Truxton,
called Tinker's Falls. The waterfall is (wildly guessing) about 30
feet high, ten feet across, with a semi-circular chamber cut out of
the wall behind: a couple dozen people could stand there easily. You
can't touch the water from behind it because of the slope (the
standing room is almost halfway between the bottom and top of the
falls, and a good fifteen feet behind the falling water), but it faces
the West!
Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
Raven
news:3d6ed.28457$g4.5...@news2.nokia.com...
> >>>> "We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with
> >>>> memory of other things."
> Another archaism?
> I'm confused by the temporal sense of this statement: how would it
> relate, temporally, to more modern phrases such as "we have become"
> (the change is already done -- possibly a while ago, but not ages ago)
> and "we are becoming" (the change is still going on)?
I read "We are become" as synonymous with "We have become", but the
former is more archaic. Compare with German "Ich bin gewesen " and "Ich
habe getan". One auxiliary verb, the present tense of "to be", is used with
some verbs, while another, the present tense of "to have", is used with
others. And it's the same in Norwegian and, I believe, in Danish: I may say
both "Jeg er kommet" (= "I am come") and "Jeg har kommet" (="I have come"),
but the former has the ancietry, and the latter also feels slightly wrong to
me. In my own dialect I would say "Eg e' komt". I may say "Jeg har gjort
det" (="I have done it"), but "Jeg er gjort det" (="I am done it") is plain
weird. It would appear that the auxiliary "to be" is used with verbs of
motion, while "to have" is used with other verbs.
Hrafn.
Christopher Kreuzer
>>>> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
>>>>> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
<lots of snipping>
>>>>> Chapter Summary
>>>>> [Sam wakes up]
>
> I very much like the idea of these tags -- I think I'll borrow it for
> 'The Stairs of Cirith Ungol' (along with all the other stuff I clutter
> my chapter introductions with <G>)
You may call them sub-headings (TM)
Or chapters within a chapter... :-)
> <snip>
>>>>> [Sam interrupts]
> I'm very fond of the description of Sam's posture here:
> Knowing well the hoard of paternal 'advice' Sam has stored away, I
> don't think we have to look too far for a source of Sam's posture ;-)
Indeed. Like father, like son. :-)
>>>>> [Vision of Boromir dead]
[Boromir's horn]
> So how did Faramir hear the horn (or did he? "as if it were but an
> echo in the mind," he says).
I think this "echo in the mind bit" is merely intended to suggest great
distance to Faramir, that the horn is being blown a long way to the
North. I would say he does actually hear the horn.
> I believe that there is some modern research that shows some strange
> connections between close kin
Surely this is just because we think more about those who are close kin,
and so imagine we were 'strangely' thinking of them at times of great
crisis for them? I've never taken much notice of those stories where
people insist they 'knew' that a close relative had just died. Just a
combination of retrospective significance becoming memory of actual
significance, and forgetting the times when you worried about someone
but they were OK after all.
> was it some property of the horn itself (Art or magic, I don't know)?
I would be happy with this being a Faerie part of the story. A bit like
the horn that Merry blows to rouse the Shire.
> Though it doesn't belong here, chronologically, I'll bring it out
> anyway. Faramir has later a startling revelation about this 'vision'
> of Boromir in his funeral boat:
<snip>
> I am quite sure that to Tolkien these descriptions are meant to
> demonstrate that Boromir did find redemption for his attempt to rob
> Frodo of the Ring (and the faults that this implied to his character).
Absolutely.
>>>>> Faramir laments that Boromir went ever to that Hidden Land:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Boromir, O Boromir! What did she say to you, the Lady
>>>>> that dies not? What did she see? What woke in your heart
>>>>> then? Why went you ever to Laurelindórenan, and came not
>>>>> by your own road, upon the horses of Rohan riding home in
>>>>> the morning?"
I forgot to add here that I find this cry of "Boromir, O Boromir" is
very similar to the heart-rending cries in the laments for Boromir that
are sung by Legolas and Aragorn at Rauros. It is repeated in Faramir's
vision of the dead Boromir in the boat, Faramir cries out after the boat
as it drifts off, but he is powerless to prevent Death claiming Boromir.
Also, Faramir's description of Galadriel is a reminder, not seen very
often in LotR, at least not this overtly, that there is indeed a wide
gulf between Men and Elves, that the two kindreds are estranged by their
differing fates and the mortality and immortality that they suffer:
"..the Lady that dies not..."
Imagine the dread and awe that can be inspired by beings that do not
die, living figures from distant history, remote but present. A reminder
of your own mortality AND the fact that others do not die. How much
harder would it be to come to terms with mortality in the presence of
beings that die not!
This is even more powerful when placed together with a devastating
reminder of mortality, the death of a loved one: "Boromir was my
brother. A shadow of sorrow passed over [Faramir's] face."
> As Faramir later opines:
>
> "For I deem it perilous now for mortal man wilfully to seek
> out the Elder People."
I didn't quote it or mention it, but Faramir mentions (in Henneth Annun)
that every now and again, some people do seek out the Hidden Land
(Lorien) and do not return (sounds similar to the hobbits that leave the
Shire and don't return). Do these wonderers get caught in the
(metaphorical) nets of Faerie?
>>>>> Faramir adds that the cloven horn also returned on the River.
>
> "Murder will out."
>
> Were the pieces of the horn 'guided' to return to Gondor, or was it
> random chance?
>
> Personally I prefer the 'guided' explanation
Whatever, it is a beautifully constructed story, and sometimes I am just
happy to leave it at that and not seek futher answers! If something
feels 'right', I won't always question it further.
> Another explanation, both here and elsewhere (for instance both
> Faramir 'hearing' Boromir's horn and Sam's Elven rope), might of
> course be that these things are a natural part of Faërie, that land of
> the fairy story
Which seems to be another way of saying what I said above. It feels like
a natural thing to happen in a fairy-story.
> "the nature of Faërie: the Perilous Realm itself, and the
> air that blows in that country. I will not attempt to
> define that, nor to describe it directly. It cannot be
> done. Faërie cannot be caught in a net of words; for it is
> one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not
> imperceptible. It has many ingredients, but analysis will
> not necessarily discover the secret of the whole."
> (OFS, 'Fairy-story')
Either deeply profound, or ducking the issue...
> Or perhaps such an approach is doomed to fail ;-)
:-)
I think it does depend a LOT on the individual. Different people react
in different ways to this concept of Faerie, and the stories that
contain that quality of Faerie. It might be the different reactions and
the differences in people that defeats an analytical approach? Despite
Tolkien's best efforts in OFS, which do make a lot of sense.
<snip>
>>>>> [Journey to Henneth Annun]
> [...]
>>>>> Faramir attempts to reassure Frodo, and further says that he no
>>>>> longer doubts Frodo's story.
>
> So, what convinced him?
>
> Is this because of Faramir's own 'nobility' within the story that he
> recognises the nobility of Frodo (like Éomer said, "Yet you speak the
> truth, that is plain: the Men of the Mark do not lie, and therefore
> they are not easily deceived.")?
Quite possibly. Faramir also says:
"'But whatever befell on the North March, you, Frodo, I doubt no longer.
If hard days have made me any judge of Men's words and faces, then I may
make a guess at Halflings! Though,' and now he smiled, 'there is
something strange about you, Frodo, an elvish air, maybe. But more lies
upon our words together than I thought at first.'"
So Faramir trusts his experience at judging men's words. Frodo has
demonstrated that he did know Boromir (the Isildur's Bane rhyme, the
description of the horn). The elvish air bit is a bit fanciful, but
nice, and is echoed at the end of the chapter when Sam says that Faramir
reminds him of wizards, and Faramir says: "Maybe you discern from far
away the air of Numenor."
>>>>> Nevertheless, he defers his full decision until he can think and
>>>>> question them some more.
>
> Why?
See above. The "more lies upon our words together than I thought at
first." quote and the subsequent desire of Faramir to question Frodo
away from the gaze and hearing of the 200-300 men around them.
>>>>> [Faramir talks about Numenoreans and Gondor]
> [...]
>>>>> Faramir's verdict on the Gondorian Numenoreans:
>>>>>
>>>>> "We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with
>>>>> memory of other things."
>
> Another archaism?
Don't think so. The word 'become' is a normal modern word, and can be
used in this sense: 'We have become like them...' Maybe the use of 'are'
instead of 'have' is slightly archaic. Oops. I see you mention this
below. Must read more carefully... :-)
> I'm confused by the temporal sense of this statement: how would it
> relate, temporally, to more modern phrases such as "we have become"
> (the change is already done -- possibly a while ago, but not ages ago)
> and "we are becoming" (the change is still going on)?
You might be even more confused by the full quote:
"Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us,
enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them,
and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle
Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things."
Faramir switches from "have become" to "are become". I don't really know
what is going on here (other than that the two constructions mean the
same thing), but Faramir also says "are grown" instead of "have grown".
Possibly Tolkien's usage of such archaic style was not 100% consistent,
and he slipped up. Or maybe he only changed some of the sentence
constructions to give a flavour of the style?
More interesting, IMO, is the phrase: "but with memory of other things."
I don't think Faramir is referring JUST to the lore of the Numenoreans
(like the herb lore and historical lore), but to something more subtle:
"'It reminds me of Numenor [...] of the land of Westernesse that
foundered and of the great dark wave climbing over the green lands and
above the hills, and coming on, darkness unescapable. I often dream of
it." (Faramir talking to Eowyn, The Steward and the King)
>>>>> [2] Sam listening uninvited to this interrogation reminds me of
>>>>> his sitting in on the Council of Elrond.
>
> Nice observation. Tagging along to Galadriel's Mirror has some of the
> same sense of 'just being there' until Galadriel and Frodo
> acknowledges his presence.
Um. Galadriel invites them both along. A place where I get more of a
sense of Sam tagging along is when Gimli invites Frodo to come with him
and look in Mirrormere. Another place where Sam eavesdrops, is of course
the time in Bag-end when Gandalf tells Frodo about the Ring.
> <snip>
>
>>>>> [4] Boromir in the boat seems like a passage taken directly from
>>>>> myth and legend. Can anyone think of an example?
>
> Not directly.
Pity. The imagery of the light shining around the boat and coming from
the water in the boat, is so powerful that I was sure that it must have
been used before. That and the image of the boat full of water, and the
body immersed in the water.
>>> Is it possible that Faramir wants to avoid succumbing to the Ring?
>>> He also says, elsewhere in this chapter:
>>>
>>> "I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from
>>> which a man must flee."
>
> Would he have fallen?
I think so. Imagine Faramir accompanying Frodo into Mordor. Even Faramir
would have fallen in the end, and probably long before the hobbits from
the Shire had succumbed to the Ring.
> Had he not so forcefully rejected it and deliberately distanced
> himself from it ("I do not wish [...]" as you quoted above), would he
> then have fallen like his brother did? And in that connection: was it
> a mistake by Gandalf to have Frodo show the Ring at the Council, or
> was it a calculated risk; the only way to convince everyone present of
> the severity of the matter?
Hmm. Interesting. I hadn't thought that Boromir might not have fallen to
temptation if the Ring had not been revealed at the Council. Maybe it is
not so much the sight of the Ring (though maybe, as it provokes a gleam
in Boromir's eyes much like the gleam in Saruman's eyes when he spoke of
the Ring to Gandalf in Orthanc), but the knowledge (from Elrond and
Gandalf's lore) that the Ring is so powerful.
<snip>
[Faramir and Galadriel's laughs]
> My impression is that of a 'mirthless' laugh -- it is not amusement or
> joy, but only a way to release the tension of the situation: "you see,
> I laugh, and therefore I cannot be dangerous."
Yes. Not totally mirthless, IMO, more a wry laughter - which implies
some sorrow mixed with ironic mirth. This really is in the imagination
of the reader, and is very hard to pin down.
I said previously that there are many different types of laughs. I've
looked into this a bit further. Tolkien does describe laughter in very
striking terms in some places in the tale (Frodo in that chapter you'll
be writing about soon - The Stairs of Cirith Ungol: "a long clear laugh
from his heart", and Gandalf both in Minas Tirith: "a fountain of mirth
enough to set a kingdom laughing, were it to gush forth"; and after
victory has been won: "the sound was like music, or like water in a
parched land [...] It fell upon [Sam's] ears like the echo of all the
joys he had ever known."
Laughter is described in so many different ways in LotR. Bitter, fey,
relief, mirth, sorrow, laughing at despair, grim, shamefaced, for
heart's ease, cruel, deadly, mockery, delight, joy, and so on.
Pippin says of Gandalf after the victory: "He's not so close as he used
to be, though he laughs now more than he talks."
I wonder if laughter has any special significance? Is it mentioned
anywhere in OFS or anything similar?
>>> Faramir's archaisms, like Boromir's and Denethor's, is most likely
>>> designed to distinguish the Numenoreans from the rustic hobbits of
>>> the Shire.
>
> I have seen it suggested that the age of the language people speak in
> LotR is related to the 'nobility' of the person -- one of the best
> pieces of monologue I have come across in Tolkien's writings is Ulmo's
> speech to Tuor at the beach of Nevrast, and that would seem to fit
> this idea quite well, as far as I can tell.
Thanks for this. Not so much for the archiac style (though that is
there), but I reread this passage for the rest of the archaic style and
to recall the description of Ulmo for the "embodying of the Ainur"
thread, and found some absolutely amazing stuff about Doom and Fate and
the Music.
I'll stick that in another thread.
Getting back to the archaic style, the logical extension to the 'more
archiac is more noble' theory is looking at Eru's speeches in the
Ainulindale. Not too suprising to get the same feel there: "I will now
that ye make in harmony together a Great Music."
Prai Jei
<kdhhn059hqj4g84o4...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:27:05 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Prai Jei <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> An actual example of such a waterfall, where you can walk behind the
>>> cascade of water (not much of a cave though) can be found at Pont
>>> Nedd Fechan in the Neath valley in South Wales. Well worth a visit
>>> for anybody interested in what Henneth Annûn looked like.
>>
>>You did ask to be reminded about this...
>>I knew I'd forgotten _something_ !!
>>
>>I have another example of going behind a waterfall, though I am afraid
>>it is from the Enid Blyton books, where I believe a groups of children
>>had an adventure in Wales, or maybe not...
>
> I think the book you mean is called either The Island of Adventure or
> The Valley of Adventure. I have vague memories of finding it at my
> grandparents' house and reading it there. I suppose it must have
> belonged to my mother or her sisters.
Definitely not "The Island of Adventure". I have not read the "Valley".
Yuk Tang
news:417945db....@news.compuserve.com:
> <pog...@bluefrog.com> wrote:
>>Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> creatively typed:
>>> Prai Jei <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> > An actual example of such a waterfall, where you can walk
>>> > behind the cascade of water (not much of a cave though) can be
>>> > found at Pont Nedd Fechan in the Neath valley in South Wales.
>>> > Well worth a visit for anybody interested in what Henneth
>>>
>>> You did ask to be reminded about this...
>>> I knew I'd forgotten _something_ !!
>>> I have another example of going behind a waterfall, though I am
>>> afraid it is from the Enid Blyton books, where I believe a
>>> groups of children had an adventure in Wales, or maybe not...
>>> Does anyone know whether caves, or at least ledges, behind
>>> waterfalls are that common? I would have thought they would be,
>>> but can't say for sure.
>>
>>There are many of them in the Finger Lakes region of upstate New
>>York. Watkins Glen has a couple, and there are many small ones in
>>the little ravines that cut through the hills that separate the
>>long lakes. Swimming in these little waterfall pools is absolutely
>>wonderful (although I keep being tempted to mutter "rocks and pool
>>/ so wet and cool / so nice for feet").
>
> There must be hundreds or even thousands that a person can crouch
> behind. Many fewer that will fit several people and keep them
> dry. I don't know of *any* in the area with an actual cave into
> which a couple hundred warriors could hide away.
Wasb't there a cave of that sort in (the film) Last of the Mohicans?
--
Cheers, ymt.
TeaLady (Mari C.)
news:Xns958BB31CFBB80...@130.133.1.4:
> 10313...@compuserve.com (Jim Deutch) wrote in
> news:417945db....@news.compuserve.com:
snipt
>> There must be hundreds or even thousands that a person can
>> crouch behind. Many fewer that will fit several people and
>> keep them dry. I don't know of *any* in the area with an
>> actual cave into which a couple hundred warriors could hide
>> away.
>
> Wasb't there a cave of that sort in (the film) Last of the
> Mohicans?
>
>
There are a few that might hold a fair number of warriors, but
most seem to be smaller caves/cave systems, at least in a few
moments google-ing
http://www.geocities.com/cccgrotto/Wolfs.htm
http://www.softwareartist.com/andrews-waterfalls.htm (scroll
down until you find Ash Cave)(Further down you'll find Old Man's
Cave, also in Ohio - I was there in 1977, tho I don't recall
going into the cave)
<http://ulink.ourfamily.com/city/cityguides/guiyang.htm#huangguo
shu>
http://www.scottwightman.com/africa/malawi.htm (Manchewe Falls)
http://kapp.intrasun.tcnj.edu/Europe99/nice.html (about 1/3 of
the way down)
http://www.la-tierra.com/djskhalsa/sea/misolha.htm
--
TeaLady (mari)
"I keep telling you, chew with your mouth closed!" Kell the
coach offers advice on keeping that elusive prey caught.
Troels Forchhammer
<jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> enriched us with:
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i en
> meddelelse news:3d6ed.28457$g4.5...@news2.nokia.com...
>>
[Faramir's use of "We are become":]
>> I'm confused by the temporal sense of this statement: how would
>> it relate, temporally, to more modern phrases such as "we have
>> become" (the change is already done -- possibly a while ago, but
>> not ages ago) and "we are becoming" (the change is still going
>> on)?
>
> I read "We are become" as synonymous with "We have become", but
> the former is more archaic.
That's the way I've understood it as well, but I got to thinking that
possibly there was more to it than just that ;-)
> And it's the same in Norwegian and, I believe, in Danish: I may say
> both "Jeg er kommet" (= "I am come") and "Jeg har kommet" (="I have
> come"), but the former has the ancietry, and the latter also feels
> slightly wrong to me.
I have never heard the latter in Danish (which is, of course, not the
same as saying that it isn't used) -- the standard would be the
equivalent of 'we are become' ("vi er blevet"). It would work with
'walk', I think. "Vi er gået" and "vi har gået", but here the
translations, though the same tense of 'walk' is used in both cases in
Danish, would be "we are walking" (or possibly immediately after
stopping to walk) and "we have walked". If you've only just arrived at
the destination you could use both (in Danish) to describe the trip.
It was this, I believe, that prompted my question. If the comparison
holds, I thought that Faramir's usage might imply a process that was
just finished, or in the finishing stages (or something that he had
only just realised).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking with which we created them.
- Albert Einstein
Christopher Kreuzer
> [Faramir's use of "We are become":]
>
> I thought that Faramir's usage might imply a process that was
> just finished, or in the finishing stages (or something that he had
> only just realised).
If that was so, why, in the previous sentences, does he say "we too have
become"?
"...we too have become more like to [the Rohirrim], and can scarce claim
any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight,
but with memory of other things."
[cue rambling thoughts on tenses, all IMO, and all showing the lack of a
formal education in grammar!]
I think that the 'tense' distinction you are drawing between "have
become" (past tense) and "are become" (present tense) is confused by the
fact that become has some kind of tense as well (present). It is also a
word that describes a process, so the tenses can be confusing.
"we have become"
"we are become"
"we became"
[has happened in the past]
"we are becoming"
[happening now - present tense]
"we had become"
"we were becoming"
[was happening, but no longer happening]
I still see your point that "are become" seems slightly different, in
that it can imply that what has happened is still present, or has just
happened, but in all the cases above, I would say it is the context, the
words before and after the phrase, that determines what the intended
sense is. The phrase does restrict the context though:
"Yesterday, we became..."
"Today, we became..."
"Today, we are become..." [can't say 'yesterday' here]
"Now, we are become..."
"Now, we have become..."
"Then, we were become..."
"Then we are become..."
In these last two cases, 'then' takes a different meaning. In the first
case 'then' refers to the past moment when 'we were become', but the
second use of 'then' is to introduce a statement, a conclusion. The
comma is needed to separate the two cases, which can be made clearer:
"Back then, we were become like them..."
"Then you are right, we are become like them..."
Christopher Kreuzer
> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
<snip>
> After the meal, Faramir once again talks to the hobbits. [...] Faramir
> speaks at great length about the decline of the Numenoreans,
I forgot a question I had about this. I'll quote what Faramir says:
"The Men of Numenor were settled far and wide on the shores and seaward
regions of the Great Lands, but for the most part they fell into evils
and follies. Many became enamoured of the Darkness and the black arts;
some were given over wholly to idleness and ease, and some fought among
themselves, until they were conquered in their weakness by the wild
men."
I was wondering whether Faramir is talking about more than just the men
of Umbar, and whether he is also talking about Arnor? Or maybe is
referring to yet other events? Can you think of specific examples of
those Men who used black arts, those who became idle, and those who
fought among themselves?
Pete Gray
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > [Faramir's use of "We are become":]
> >
> > I thought that Faramir's usage might imply a process that was
> > just finished, or in the finishing stages (or something that he had
> > only just realised).
>
> If that was so, why, in the previous sentences, does he say "we too have
> become"?
>
> "...we too have become more like to [the Rohirrim], and can scarce claim
> any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight,
> but with memory of other things."
>
This usage does have a deliberately archaic ring to it. One is
reminded of Robert Oppenheimer at the first A-bomb test:
"I am become death, shatterer of worlds."
<http://www.ag.wastholm.net/aphorism/A-1949>
...and it occurs frquently in the King James bible:
"Think not that I am come to destroy." --Matt. v.17.
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." -- 1
Corinthians 13
Interesting to note what it says here:
<http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/come>
"Am come, is come, etc., are frequently used instead of have come, has
come, etc., esp. in poetry. The verb to be gives a clearer adjectival
significance to the participle as expressing a state or condition of
the subject, while the auxiliary have expresses simply the completion
of the action signified by the verb."
--
Pete Gray
while ($cat!="home"){$mice=="play";}
Odysseus
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > [Faramir's use of "We are become":]
> >
> > I thought that Faramir's usage might imply a process that was
> > just finished, or in the finishing stages (or something that he had
> > only just realised).
>
> If that was so, why, in the previous sentences, does he say "we too have
> become"?
>
> "...we too have become more like to [the Rohirrim], and can scarce claim
> any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight,
> but with memory of other things."
>
> [cue rambling thoughts on tenses, all IMO, and all showing the lack of a
> formal education in grammar!]
>
> I think that the 'tense' distinction you are drawing between "have
> become" (past tense) and "are become" (present tense) is confused by the
> fact that become has some kind of tense as well (present). It is also a
> word that describes a process, so the tenses can be confusing.
>
> "we have become"
> "we are become"
> "we became"
>
> [has happened in the past]
>
> "we are becoming"
And, of course, "we become".
>
> [happening now - present tense]
>
> "we had become"
> "we were becoming"
And "we were become".
>
> [was happening, but no longer happening]
>
You can't always distinguish this last group from the first.
[snip]
The choice of auxiliary verb is to a degree separate from that of
tense, and is governed more by idiom than grammar as such. The verb
"to be" used with a past participle generally indicates a passive or
reflexive relation of the subject to the verb, which is usually
transitive. It's hard to generalize about how the meaning of those
intransitive verbs that idiom allows in such constructions will
differ from the form with the present participle.
To illustrate, start with a transitive verb, like "to kick": compare
"we are kicked" to "we have kicked" and "we are kicking". The latter
two forms are both active (with different temporal aspects) but the
first is passive, i.e. the subjects are the patients of the kicking
rather than its agents. Notice also that "we are kicked" can stand
alone, but the others require an object. Likewise, taking "to do" for
another example, compare "we are done" to "we have done" and "we are doing".
Now let's have a look at some intransitive verbs. "To speak": while
"we have spoken" and "we are speaking" are perfectly natural, one
just doesn't say "we are spoken". Likewise for "we are been", "we are
run", ... -- the same applies to the majority of intransitives, but
there certainly are exceptions, mostly verbs of motion, I think,
whether literal or figurative. "To go": comparing "we are gone" to
"we have gone" and "we are going", it seems that the past participle
in effect becomes an adjective, describing "our" state or condition
more than saying how or when "we" arrived at it. "To fall": unlike
"we have fallen" and "we are falling", "we are fallen" is very rare
in the literal sense, almost always describing (from a Catholic
viewpoint) a condition of sinfulness, alluding to "the Fall".
Anyway, without further rambling, I think the best model for "we are
(be)come" _vs_ "we have (be)come" is "we are gone" _vs_ "we have
gone": describing a state of being rather than the action of getting
there. The usage has at least a whiff of 'elevated' archaism; cf. the
famous line from Vedic scripture, "I am become Death, the destroyer
of worlds."
--
Odysseus
Emma Pease
> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns958BB31CFBB80...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> 10313...@compuserve.com (Jim Deutch) wrote in
>> news:417945db....@news.compuserve.com:
>
> snipt
>
>>> There must be hundreds or even thousands that a person can
>>> crouch behind. Many fewer that will fit several people and
>>> keep them dry. I don't know of *any* in the area with an
>>> actual cave into which a couple hundred warriors could hide
>>> away.
>>
>> Wasb't there a cave of that sort in (the film) Last of the
>> Mohicans?
>>
>>
>
> There are a few that might hold a fair number of warriors, but
> most seem to be smaller caves/cave systems, at least in a few
> moments google-ing
IIRC Henneth Annun was partly artificial which could explain the size
of the cave behind.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
the softrat
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:y%fed.5416$g54....@news.get2net.dk> "Raven"
><jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> enriched us with:
>
>> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i en
>> meddelelse news:3d6ed.28457$g4.5...@news2.nokia.com...
>>>
>
>[Faramir's use of "We are become":]
>
>>> I'm confused by the temporal sense of this statement: how would
>>> it relate, temporally, to more modern phrases such as "we have
>>> become" (the change is already done -- possibly a while ago, but
>>> not ages ago) and "we are becoming" (the change is still going
>>> on)?
>>
>> I read "We are become" as synonymous with "We have become", but
>> the former is more archaic.
>
>That's the way I've understood it as well, but I got to thinking that
>possibly there was more to it than just that ;-)
>
"We are become" is an attempt to form, a true perfect tense in
English, denoting a current state based on past action. "We have
become" is the normal English perfect which is really not a perfect,
but denotes a past completed action. (The simple past in English, "We
became", denotes only past without noting whether the action was
completed or not.) Most of these subtleties are difficult to express
in all of the Germanic languages. Tolkien probably called upon his
knowledge of Attic Greek.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"Hear the pulse, and vibration, and the rumblin' force;
someone is out there, beating on a dead horse."
--bob
Dirk Thierbach
> In article <IqMed.14130$xb....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>> > [Faramir's use of "We are become":]
> This usage does have a deliberately archaic ring to it. One is
> reminded of Robert Oppenheimer at the first A-bomb test:
>
> "I am become death, shatterer of worlds."
> <http://www.ag.wastholm.net/aphorism/A-1949>
That might also just be a "Germanism": "Ich bin der Tod geworden".
> ...and it occurs frquently in the King James bible:
> "Think not that I am come to destroy." --Matt. v.17.
> "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
> charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." -- 1
> Corinthians 13
So maybe the old usage "are" was similar to the German (or Anglo-Saxon?)
usage, and later changed to "have"? Any linguist here? What's the
corresponding Anglo-Saxon expression?
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> enriched us with:
>
. . . an explanation of 'We are become'.
And so did Odysseus.
To both of you: thanks.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Men, said the Devil,
are good to their brothers:
they don't want to mend
their own ways, but each other's.
- Piet Hein, /Mankind/
Pete Gray
sof...@pobox.com says...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:18:06 +0000 (UTC), Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In message <news:y%fed.5416$g54....@news.get2net.dk> "Raven"
> ><jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> enriched us with:
> >
> >> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i en
> >> meddelelse news:3d6ed.28457$g4.5...@news2.nokia.com...
> >>>
> >
> >[Faramir's use of "We are become":]
> >
> >>> I'm confused by the temporal sense of this statement: how would
> >>> it relate, temporally, to more modern phrases such as "we have
> >>> become" (the change is already done -- possibly a while ago, but
> >>> not ages ago) and "we are becoming" (the change is still going
> >>> on)?
> >>
> >> I read "We are become" as synonymous with "We have become", but
> >> the former is more archaic.
> >
> >That's the way I've understood it as well, but I got to thinking that
> >possibly there was more to it than just that ;-)
> >
> "We are become" is an attempt to form, a true perfect tense in
> English, denoting a current state based on past action. "We have
> become" is the normal English perfect which is really not a perfect,
> but denotes a past completed action. (The simple past in English, "We
> became", denotes only past without noting whether the action was
> completed or not.) Most of these subtleties are difficult to express
> in all of the Germanic languages. Tolkien probably called upon his
> knowledge of Attic Greek.
>
Since it was common enough in English texts which would have been
well-known to Tolkien, not just the Bible, I don't think he needed to
call on any knowledge of Greek. I think your analysis of the implied
meaning is spot on though.
Some other examples, which I think indicate that, while it is a
relatively rare construction, it is by no means unheard of in standard
English:
"I assure you I am become quite a grave old matron"
'Agnes Grey' by Anne Bronte
"In a short time I shall make my assertion good that I
am become suddenly as I was at first..."
A letter of William Blake, 1804
"And here, to do you service, am become
As new into the world, strange, unacquainted"
Troilus & Cressida, Shakespeare
"When you read these, I, that was visible, am become invisible"
Walt Whitman 'Full of Life, Now'
"I am become a sort of writing automaton"
Walter Scott
"I am become most deeply interested in the way facts fall into groups"
Charles Darwin, letter to his cousin.
"I should rather choose, did it admit of a choice, to sleep in some of
the caves of the rocks, for I am become better reconciled to them
since I climbed their craggy sides last night"
Mary Wollstonecraft, 'Letters written during a short residence in
Sweden, Norway and Denmark'
"Oh, Colonel, I am become so used to troubles, so used to failures,
disappointments, hard luck of all kinds, that a little good news
breaks me right down."
Mark Twain, 'The Gilded Age'
"...you are become the object of her bitterest scorn by now."
Jeffrey Farnol, 'My Lady Caprice'
" they have no other place to go, as all Nations else are become the
subjects of Great Britain."
George Croghan, Journal, 1760.
"they have landed at New Orleans and are become subjects of the French
King"
A petition from the citizens of Baltimore, 1767
The meaning is similar perhaps to the Stative in Ancient Egyptian (in
which 'we are become' would be _xpr=wyn_ AFAICR)
Christopher Kreuzer
> TeaLady (Mari C.) wrote:
[about other 'cave behind waterfall' systems]
>> There are a few that might hold a fair number of warriors, but
>> most seem to be smaller caves/cave systems, at least in a few
>> moments google-ing
>
> IIRC Henneth Annun was partly artificial which could explain the size
> of the cave behind.
That's sounds reasonable, though I don't think Faramir says precisely
that, only saying that "workmen of old" redirected the flow of the water
and sealed the "grot" (presumably an old word for cave) to prevent any
water from getting in.
Christopher Kreuzer
<nice explanation of 'we are become'>
> Most of these subtleties are difficult to express
> in all of the Germanic languages.
Why? And what do other languages have instead?
> Tolkien probably called upon his
> knowledge of Attic Greek.
This is the first of three cryptic references in this subthread that
shows my lack of a Classical or Egyptian education:
1) "his knowledge of Attic Greek" {softrat}
2) "and so did Odysseus" {Troels Forchhammer}
3) "similar perhaps to the Stative in Ancient Egyptian" {Pete Grey}
What are you all on about?!? :-)
Christopher Kreuzer
[snip grammar lesson, thanks]
[reinserting Faramir's quote on Middle Men]
"Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us,
enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them,
and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle
Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things."
> [...] it seems that the past participle
> in effect becomes an adjective, describing "our" state or condition
> more than saying how or when "we" arrived at it. "To fall": unlike
> "we have fallen" and "we are falling", "we are fallen" is very rare
> in the literal sense, almost always describing (from a Catholic
> viewpoint) a condition of sinfulness, alluding to "the Fall".
This would seem particularly relevant to Faramir talking about the
'Fall' of the Numenoreans from being High Men to being Middle Men.
<snip>
> The usage has at least a whiff of 'elevated' archaism; cf. the
> famous line from Vedic scripture, "I am become Death, the destroyer
> of worlds."
Maybe Faramir's use of "are become" here is meant to imply a dramatic
declaration, almost a sermonising. You can almost imagine the dramatic
pause and intake of breath after the mundane language of the explanation
(we _have_ become), leading to the elevated language of the concluding
flourish: "We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of
other things."
That at least would explain the lapse back into "have become", which is,
as far as I can see, describing the same thing. I see no reason at all
as to why Tolkien should not have written:
"Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us,
enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too are become more like to them,
and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle
Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things."
[I changed 'have' to 'are' about halfway through]
All the explanations of "are become" don't quite explain the switches
between the styles. Or maybe I've failed to understand what people are
going on about?
Troels Forchhammer
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> This is the first of three cryptic references in this subthread that
> shows my lack of a Classical or Egyptian education:
I hesitate to speak on behalf of the other two, very learned gentlemen
who has helped here, but I can attest to my own meaning and my
assumptions regarding theirs (giving me a chance to be corrected <G>)
> 1) "his knowledge of Attic Greek" {softrat}
I assumed that this referred to a tense used in Attic Greek. This made
me look at Helge Fauskanger's Quenya course where he describes the
Quenya aorist and the Quenya perfect tenses:
"The Quenya aorist, like the Greek one, can be used to express
'general truths'."
[...]
"It seems, however, that the Quenya aorist is not only used to
describe "timeless truths". In some cases Tolkien himself
seems to waver in the choice between the aorist and the present
tense, the latter more typically describing an ongoing here-and-
now situation."
(Lesson 7, 'Future tense and Aorist')
"Linguistically speaking, English has no perfect tense, just
as English has no future tense. However, just as the language
quite regularly expresses the idea of futurity by involving
extra verbs like 'shall' or 'will', so the meaning of a true
perfect tense is typically achieved by means of a circumlocution
involving the verb 'have'. For instance, some typical English
constructions doing the job of a perfect tense are seen in
these sentences: 'Peter has left', 'the guests have eaten' (as
opposed to a mere past tense: 'Peter left', 'the guests ate').
The perfect tense thus describes an action that itself is past,
but by using the perfect tense one emphasizes that this past
action is somehow still directly relevant for the present
moment: 'Peter has left [and he is still gone]', 'the guests
have eaten [and they are hopefully still satiated as we speak]',
etc. - In English at least, such constructions may also be used
to describe an action that started in the past and still goes on
in the present moment: 'The king has ruled (or, has been ruling)
for many years.'
(Lesson 8 'Perfect tense. Pronominal endings . . .')
The course is available from Helge's Ardalambion site:
<http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/qcourse.htm>
I can highly recommend this course also for people with a very
rudimentary knowledge of grammar (though an interest in grammar is
needed) -- I have learned a lot not only about Quenya (enough to know
that there is far, far more to learn), but especially about English and
general Germannic grammar.
The relevant parts for this discussion are in lessons 7 and eight,
which can be found in .rtf format in this document:
<http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/less-b.rtf>
> 2) "and so did Odysseus" {Troels Forchhammer}
The poster who uses 'Odysseus' as his 'screen name' also posted an
explanation ;-)
> 3) "similar perhaps to the Stative in Ancient Egyptian" {Pete Grey}
I have no idea what this might be.
> What are you all on about?!? :-)
Nothing cryptic about my own reference at least ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
I USHERED SOULS INTO THE NEXT WORLD. I WAS THE GRAVE OF ALL HOPE. I WAS
THE ULTIMATE REALITY. I WAS THE ASSASSIN AGAINST WHOM NO LOCK WOULD
HOLD.
"Yes, point taken, but do you have any particular skills?"
- Death consults a job broker (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
Christopher Kreuzer
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> 2) "and so did Odysseus" {Troels Forchhammer}
>
> The poster who uses 'Odysseus' as his 'screen name' also posted an
> explanation ;-)
Oops! I thought that was a reference to Homer's Odyssey! :-)
Emma Pease
My feeling is that the stream originally ran through the cave (making
a nice long cave) but that workmen redirected it to run over the top
and closed the original entrance of the river.
Original (= and | are the water, * is stone)
=========upstream
*****=
******* ===
* ====
======
|*
|*
pool***
After work is done
===== =========upstream
====== *****
|*******
|* cave
| window
|*
|*
pool***
Tolkien did seem to have a liking for underground rivers. Sirion also
went underground part of its length IIRC.
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>>>>> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
<more snipping>
> [Boromir's horn]
>
>> So how did Faramir hear the horn (or did he? "as if it were but an
>> echo in the mind," he says).
>
> I think this "echo in the mind bit" is merely intended to suggest
> great distance to Faramir, that the horn is being blown a long way to
> the North. I would say he does actually hear the horn.
Across 160 miles?
(The approximate distance between Minas Tirith and Amon Hen.)
I think that it's rather unlikely that Boromir was blowing that hard ;-)
>> I believe that there is some modern research that shows some strange
>> connections between close kin
>
> Surely this is just because we think more about those who are close
> kin, and so imagine we were 'strangely' thinking of them at times of
> great crisis for them?
I've heard of some experiment involving separating a chicken from its
mother and measuring the brain activity on the mother, which should,
according to the report I heard, display a significant fluctuations at
the time when the chicken was killed.
After a little googling I can't find anything that resembles this, so it
might have been just a 'good story' (to put it politely -- I was told by
a teacher I'd normally trust, so I haven't bothered to check it until
now, more than twenty years later, making 'modern' a bit of an
exaggeration anyway).
>> was it some property of the horn itself (Art or magic, I don't know)?
>
> I would be happy with this being a Faerie part of the story. A bit
> like the horn that Merry blows to rouse the Shire.
<snip and rearrange>
>> Another explanation, both here and elsewhere (for instance both
>> Faramir 'hearing' Boromir's horn and Sam's Elven rope), might of
>> course be that these things are a natural part of Faërie, that land
>> of the fairy story
>
> Which seems to be another way of saying what I said above. It feels
> like a natural thing to happen in a fairy-story.
Right, I do agree -- it's only . . .
I blame my education, but I can't help thinking that there has to be some
explanation -- some means by which these things can happen ;-)
I've got a suspicion, however, that I am asking for more than Tolkien had
answers for.
>> "the nature of Faërie: the Perilous Realm itself, and the
>> air that blows in that country. I will not attempt to
>> define that, nor to describe it directly. It cannot be
>> done. Faërie cannot be caught in a net of words; for it is
>> one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not
>> imperceptible. It has many ingredients, but analysis will
>> not necessarily discover the secret of the whole."
>> (OFS, 'Fairy-story')
>
> Either deeply profound, or ducking the issue...
;-)
Possibly a bit of both.
I think he's right in saying that Faërie ultimately must escape analysis,
but one might approach it that way -- giving people an idea of what he
thought it /might/ be and what he definitely thought it was not.
>> Or perhaps such an approach is doomed to fail ;-)
>
> :-)
>
> I think it does depend a LOT on the individual. Different people react
> in different ways to this concept of Faerie, and the stories that
> contain that quality of Faerie. It might be the different reactions
> and the differences in people that defeats an analytical approach?
> Despite Tolkien's best efforts in OFS, which do make a lot of sense.
There is, of course, that to consider as well.
I do think that there are some elements of Faërie that are, if not
universal, then very common. The supernatural element would apply here:
that some things can happen in Faërie that are impossible in the real
world -- something that goes beyond the other intelligent creatures who
inhabit the realm of Faërie and functions, for the teller of the story
and the audience, as symbols or metaphors of human desires, longings etc.
(whether moral, immoral or neutral).
He actually does touch on this to some extent elsewhere in OFS -- even in
relation to that undefinable remainder of strange events that don't seem
to be magic in the usual understanding of that word, but still works to
make real in the material world of Faërie the wishes, will or fantasy of
the story-teller or the characters with whom he populates that land.
Sam wanted the rope to come to him and it came. Does this mean that the
rope is magical? Not necessarily, IMO, for it exists in Faërie where the
power of the wish to make itself come true is much stronger. Does this,
then, make Sam a user of magic? Again I don't think this is necessarily
so: it is, I think, a quality of the Perilous Realm itself that the
difference between the desire and the actuality is blurred, and therein
lies part of its peril! (The rope is, however, of Elven make, which may
well make it more susceptible to this aspect of Faërie -- more amenable
to the wishes of its owner.)
This also works on a story-external level: Tolkien wanted Boromir's
funeral boat to come to Faramir because it was /Right/ that it did so,
and consequently, it did.
The strength of this kind of explanation is, unfortunately, also its
weakness: it defies analysis. We are so used to the will working through
some kind of intermediary that when there is no discernible intermediary
we can only call it magic, which, since we have learned that all forces
must have a cause, means that we go searching for the cause. I know that
I am subject to this kind of thinking: I find it extremely difficult,
despite of the above, not to think, "but there has to be some source for
the energy, anyway . . . " ;-/
>> Were the pieces of the horn 'guided' to return to Gondor, or was it
>> random chance?
>>
>> Personally I prefer the 'guided' explanation
>
> Whatever, it is a beautifully constructed story, and sometimes I am
> just happy to leave it at that and not seek futher answers! If
> something feels 'right', I won't always question it further.
I suppose that I could, or even should, extend the idea of 'guided' to
the strange workings of Faërie as discussed above. The boat did not turn
to Faramir and slow down by random chance, and neither did the horn
return to Denethor by random chance, but these events may have happened
in Faërie just because it is /right/ that they do -- how it is achieved
is (unfortunately) probably not a question that can be answered; or one
that can only be answered by "Faërie did it" ;-)
<snip>
> Imagine the dread and awe that can be inspired by beings that do not
> die, living figures from distant history, remote but present. A
> reminder of your own mortality AND the fact that others do not die.
Cue a discussion of Athrabeth . . .
Unfortunately I don't have the time right now.
> How much harder would it be to come to terms with mortality in the
> presence of beings that die not!
And here the Akallabêth, and Aragorn's last words -- not to mention
Arwen's words at Aragorn's death bed:
"But I say to you, King of the Númenoreans, not till now have I
understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked
fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is
indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men, it is
bitter to receive."
(LotR App. A,I,(v) 'Here Follows a Part of the Tale of Aragorn and
Arwen')
<snip>
>> As Faramir later opines:
>>
>> "For I deem it perilous now for mortal man wilfully to seek
>> out the Elder People."
>
> I didn't quote it or mention it, but Faramir mentions (in Henneth
> Annun) that every now and again, some people do seek out the Hidden
> Land (Lorien) and do not return (sounds similar to the hobbits that
> leave the Shire and don't return). Do these wonderers get caught in
> the (metaphorical) nets of Faerie?
Do they even reach the borders of Lórien, much less enter it?
If they ever got there, they'd be likely to stay for a while, and the
sojourn of the Fellowship there should quickly tell what would happen in
that case. I do, however, doubt that they would be allowed to enter (not
that I think that the Elves would kill them, but they have evidently more
subtle ways of turning the occasional wanderer away). Wither those
wanderers would then turn, I do not know; perhaps they'd turn north and
try for Rivendell, possibly disappearing in the Misty Mountains.
[What made Faramir trust Frodo?]
>> Is this because of Faramir's own 'nobility' within the story that he
>> recognises the nobility of Frodo (like Éomer said, "Yet you speak the
>> truth, that is plain: the Men of the Mark do not lie, and therefore
>> they are not easily deceived.")?
>
> Quite possibly. Faramir also says:
>
> "'But whatever befell on the North March, you, Frodo, I doubt no
> longer. If hard days have made me any judge of Men's words and faces,
> then I may make a guess at Halflings!
This has some of the same air as Éomer's statement, though offering
experience rather than own truthfulness as the argument. I can't help
feeling that Éomer's attitude is a bit naive, though it also feels like
something that could be true in Middle-earth (being, as it is, a part of
Faërie).
> Though,' and now he smiled, 'there is something strange about you,
> Frodo, an elvish air, maybe.
"He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes
to see that can."
(Gandalf about Frodo in LotR II,1 'Many Meetings')
> But more lies upon our words together than I thought at first.'"
Like e.g. the Ring of Doom . . .
(I feel doomed to bring out doom whenever possible <G>)
> So Faramir trusts his experience at judging men's words. Frodo has
> demonstrated that he did know Boromir (the Isildur's Bane rhyme, the
> description of the horn). The elvish air bit is a bit fanciful, but
> nice, and is echoed at the end of the chapter when Sam says that
> Faramir reminds him of wizards, and Faramir says: "Maybe you discern
> from far away the air of Numenor."
I dare say that we all do.
<snip "we are become">
>>>>>> [2] Sam listening uninvited to this interrogation reminds me of
>>>>>> his sitting in on the Council of Elrond.
>>
>> Nice observation. Tagging along to Galadriel's Mirror has some of the
>> same sense of 'just being there' until Galadriel and Frodo
>> acknowledges his presence.
>
> Um. Galadriel invites them both along.
So she does -- don't tell me it's movieism; I might start agreeing with
Louis Epstein.
> A place where I get more of a sense of Sam tagging along is when Gimli
> invites Frodo to come with him and look in Mirrormere. Another place
> where Sam eavesdrops, is of course the time in Bag-end when Gandalf
> tells Frodo about the Ring.
Quite. Sam is actually rather good at tagging along with little or no
invitation: the perfect servant in that way; unseen and unheard ;-)
Christopher:
>>>> Is it possible that Faramir wants to avoid succumbing to the Ring?
[...]
>>
>> Would he have fallen?
>
> I think so. Imagine Faramir accompanying Frodo into Mordor. Even
> Faramir would have fallen in the end, and probably long before the
> hobbits from the Shire had succumbed to the Ring.
"a person of greater native power could probably never have
resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less
power could not hope to resist it in the final decision."
(Letter #181, To Michael Straight [drafts] (probably January or February
1956))
I dare say that Faramir would have fallen quicker -- makes me wonder
about Aragorn had he found it necessary for him to take up the Ring.
>> Had he not so forcefully rejected it and deliberately distanced
>> himself from it ("I do not wish [...]" as you quoted above), would he
>> then have fallen like his brother did? And in that connection: was it
>> a mistake by Gandalf to have Frodo show the Ring at the Council, or
>> was it a calculated risk; the only way to convince everyone present
>> of the severity of the matter?
>
> Hmm. Interesting. I hadn't thought that Boromir might not have fallen
> to temptation if the Ring had not been revealed at the Council.
I was thinking also of Sam's position, "From the moment he first saw it
he wanted the Enemy's Ring!"
> Maybe it is not so much the sight of the Ring (though maybe, as it
> provokes a gleam in Boromir's eyes much like the gleam in Saruman's
> eyes when he spoke of the Ring to Gandalf in Orthanc), but the
> knowledge (from Elrond and Gandalf's lore) that the Ring is so
> powerful.
There are several places where the Ring is described as beautiful beyond
what could be expected of a plain gold ring -- it does seem to me that
actually seeing the Ring matters.
I don't know where that would take us, except that it seems to fit with a
number of observations -- Sam about Boromir, Isildur on Mount Doom, Bilbo
. . .
> [Faramir and Galadriel's laughs]
>
>> My impression is that of a 'mirthless' laugh -- it is not amusement
>> or joy, but only a way to release the tension of the situation: "you
>> see, I laugh, and therefore I cannot be dangerous."
>
> Yes. Not totally mirthless, IMO, more a wry laughter - which implies
> some sorrow mixed with ironic mirth. This really is in the imagination
> of the reader, and is very hard to pin down.
That's a good description of what I was thinking of, anyway.
(I don't really want to discuss mirth vs. 'appreciation of irony')
[...]
> I wonder if laughter has any special significance? Is it mentioned
> anywhere in OFS or anything similar?
" The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high and
filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are
found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that
is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and
sorrow as sharp as swords."
(OFS, The Introduction)
The closest thing I could find, but I do think that laughter has a
special significance.
>> I have seen it suggested that the age of the language people speak in
>> LotR is related to the 'nobility' of the person -- one of the best
>> pieces of monologue I have come across in Tolkien's writings is
>> Ulmo's speech to Tuor at the beach of Nevrast, and that would seem
>> to fit this idea quite well, as far as I can tell.
[...]
> Getting back to the archaic style, the logical extension to the 'more
> archiac is more noble' theory is looking at Eru's speeches in the
> Ainulindale. Not too suprising to get the same feel there: "I will now
> that ye make in harmony together a Great Music."
Good point.
I believe that there's some people here who know a lot about ancient
English; I wonder what they would say of this suggestion? Is it true?
Perhaps not a direct, one-to-one relation, but a significant correlation.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Michelle J. Haines
Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid says...
>
> I've heard of some experiment involving separating a chicken from its
> mother and measuring the brain activity on the mother, which should,
> according to the report I heard, display a significant fluctuations at
> the time when the chicken was killed.
>
> After a little googling I can't find anything that resembles this, so it
> might have been just a 'good story' (to put it politely -- I was told by
> a teacher I'd normally trust, so I haven't bothered to check it until
> now, more than twenty years later, making 'modern' a bit of an
> exaggeration anyway).
*polite snicker*
As someone who has regular contact with chickens, let me say that
chickens just aren't that bright. They barely know when their own
brains have separated from their bodies, let alone psychic
connections with their offspring.
Michelle
Flutist
--
Drift on a river, That flows through my arms
Drift as I'm singing to you
I see you smiling, So peaceful and calm
And holding you, I'm smiling, too
Here in my arms, Safe from all harm
Holding you, I'm smiling, too
-- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<various bits snipped>
[Boromir's horn]
>>> So how did Faramir hear the horn (or did he? "as if it were but an
>>> echo in the mind," he says).
>>
>> I think this "echo in the mind bit" is merely intended to suggest
>> great distance to Faramir, that the horn is being blown a long way to
>> the North. I would say he does actually hear the horn.
>
> Across 160 miles?
> I think that it's rather unlikely that Boromir was blowing that hard
> ;-)
<ahem> We are in Faërie...
I am not denying that normal 'hearing' and 'normal' horns would not
explain this, but I am saying that if Faramir heard the horn loudly,
then he might have looked round the corner to see if someone there was
blowing a horn. The 'echo in the mind' bit (dreamlike) about the horn is
needed to tell Faramir that this is no ordinary horn call. See also my
'dreaming' comments below, and note that Faramir thought that he was
dreaming when he saw Boromir:
"Dreamlike it was, and yet no dream, for there was no waking."
That would be, for me, a nice description of Faërie.
<snip>
[Faërie]
> I do think that there are some elements of Faërie that are, if not
> universal, then very common. The supernatural element would apply
> here: that some things can happen in Faërie that are impossible in
> the real world
I agree. The best way I can describe my feeling about this is to say
that unlike in the real world you know that strange things can happen,
and in some ways _expect_ them to happen. It is a bit like being in a
dream. You know that ropes don't really come when you call them, but you
don't always question it until you wake from the dream. Because you are
dreaming, you are in a way part-author of the dream or story, and can
make up the rules about what can happen. Similarly, the author of a
fairy-tale can suspend the rules at will (but not too often).
<snip>
> He actually does touch on this to some extent elsewhere in OFS --
> even in relation to that undefinable remainder of strange events that
> don't seem to be magic in the usual understanding of that word, but
> still works to make real in the material world of Faërie the wishes,
> will or fantasy of the story-teller or the characters with whom he
> populates that land.
That last bit is what prompted my dreamer/author comment above.
> Sam wanted the rope to come to him and it came. Does this mean that
> the rope is magical? Not necessarily, IMO, for it exists in Faërie
> where the power of the wish to make itself come true is much
> stronger. Does this, then, make Sam a user of magic?
Maybe he is a powerful dreamer? :-)
> Again I don't
> think this is necessarily so: it is, I think, a quality of the
> Perilous Realm itself that the difference between the desire and the
> actuality is blurred and therein lies part of its peril!
Again, this sounds like a dreamworld, literally! When you want something
to happen in a dream, sometimes it does just happen. I am now reminded
of the dreamworld of the Australian Aborigines. Very strongly reminded.
Hmm.
<snip>
[Mortality]
>> Imagine the dread and awe that can be inspired by beings that do not
>> die, living figures from distant history, remote but present. A
>> reminder of your own mortality AND the fact that others do not die.
>
> Cue a discussion of Athrabeth . . .
Which I must read...
[Wanderers at the borders of Lorien]
> I do, however, doubt that they would be allowed to
> enter (not that I think that the Elves would kill them, but they have
> evidently more subtle ways of turning the occasional wanderer away).
I agree. Hence the legends among Men concerning the Golden Wood.
[What made Faramir trust Frodo?]
>> Though,' and now he smiled, 'there is something strange about you,
>> Frodo, an elvish air, maybe.
I thought this was just a consequence of Bilbo's teachings or a
description of Frodo's sensitivity, but I like your suggestion:
> "He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes
> to see that can."
> (Gandalf about Frodo in LotR II,1 'Many Meetings')
Since no-one really picked up on it when I mentioned it in the 'Of Herbs
and Stewed Rabbits' chapter discussion, I'll bring up this point again
about the "clear light" that Gandalf foresees appearing in Frodo. First,
there are at least two cases of what I believe to be similar lights:
"I thought that I saw a white figure that shone and did not grow dim
like the others. Was that Glorfindel then?" (Frodo, Many Meetings)
"Before him stooped the old figure, white; shining now as if with some
light kindled within, bent, laden with years, but holding a power beyond
the strength of kings." (Gandalf compared to Aragorn, The White Rider)
And there are other references to Gandalf and light (usually white).
Sam sees Frodo shining with light at least twice:
"He was reminded suddenly of Frodo as he had lain, asleep in the house
of Elrond, after his deadly wound. Then as he had kept watch Sam had
noticed that at times a light seemed to be shining faintly within; but
now the light was even clearer and stronger." (Of Herbs and Stewed
Rabbits)
And now we have Faramir's reference to an 'elvish air', though this is
not definitely a reference to Faramir seeing Frodo shining with light
(for example, how does Faramir know what an elf should look like).
But getting back to Sam seeing Frodo shining with light, I wonder HOW he
can see this? Remember that Gandalf says:
"He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see
that can." (Many Meetings)
Is Gandalf saying that only certain people will see this light? I
thought that Frodo could only see Glorfindel shining because Frodo was
wearing the Ring, but then we do hear that Legolas and Gimli can see the
light shining in Gandalf, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised that Sam
can see the light shining in Frodo.
But I think that we are meant to take Gandalf's comment "for eyes to see
that can" to mean that not everyone could see the light shining in
Frodo. And if so, what significance is there that _Sam_ can see this
light?
And can Gollum see it?
"Gollum returned quietly and peered over Sam's shoulder. Looking at
Frodo, he shut his eyes and crawled away without a sound."
[Sam plays tag] :-)
>>>>>>> [2] Sam listening uninvited to this interrogation reminds me of
>>>>>>> his sitting in on the Council of Elrond.
>>>
>>> Nice observation. Tagging along to Galadriel's Mirror has some of
>>> the same sense of 'just being there' until Galadriel and Frodo
>>> acknowledges his presence.
>>
>> Um. Galadriel invites them both along.
>
> So she does -- don't tell me it's movieism; I might start agreeing
> with Louis Epstein.
It does sound like a movieism. If it is any consolation, when I was
listing places where Sam tags along behind Frodo, I thought one of them
was the scene where Sam bursts in upon Frodo and Aragorn in the inn at
Bree. But that only happens in the movie. In the book, Sam and Frodo and
Pippin all enter the room together and find Strider there.
>> A place where I get more of a sense of Sam tagging along is when
>> Gimli invites Frodo to come with him and look in Mirrormere. Another
>> place where Sam eavesdrops, is of course the time in Bag-end when
>> Gandalf tells Frodo about the Ring.
>
> Quite. Sam is actually rather good at tagging along with little or no
> invitation: the perfect servant in that way; unseen and unheard ;-)
And one more, in the 'Forbidden Pool' chapter, now under discussion, Sam
wakes up and follows Frodo and Faramir up to the lookout over the
Forbidden Pool. Uninvited. Unacknowledged.
[the lure of the Ring]
> There are several places where the Ring is described as beautiful
> beyond what could be expected of a plain gold ring -- it does seem to
> me that actually seeing the Ring matters.
<dreams of making list of all visual Ring lures> :-)
[Forms of laughter]
> (I don't really want to discuss mirth vs. 'appreciation of irony')
Any reason why not? Just wondering.
>> I wonder if laughter has any special significance? Is it mentioned
>> anywhere in OFS or anything similar?
Thanks for this quote:
> " The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high and
> filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are
> found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that
> is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and
> sorrow as sharp as swords."
> (OFS, The Introduction)
>
> The closest thing I could find, but I do think that laughter has a
> special significance.
Indeed. I think that a special kind of laughter could be one that mixes
joy and sorrow. It would be specially appropriate to the Perilous Realm.
More and more, I begin to see another meaning to the Perilous Realm, as
truly a realm of language, where a rich vocabulary and experience of the
world and history can produce a synergy between language and imagination
that is the hallmark of great literature, but in the case of Faërie
there is a rich sense of time and landscape and _undiscovered_ things.
(Probably best to say that this is my developing viewpoint, maybe
diverging from Tolkien's, and I don't claim to understand OFS).
Dirk Thierbach
> Since no-one really picked up on it when I mentioned it in the 'Of Herbs
> and Stewed Rabbits' chapter discussion, I'll bring up this point again
> about the "clear light" that Gandalf foresees appearing in Frodo.
[Quotes snipped]
> "He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see
> that can." (Many Meetings)
> Is Gandalf saying that only certain people will see this light? I
> thought that Frodo could only see Glorfindel shining because Frodo
> was wearing the Ring,
So did I. The "clear light" seems to be some "visible part" of the
soul, which is even more prominent and easier to see in the
"otherworld" (or the "wraith world"). I assumed that Tolkien meant
those who "live in both worlds" with "eyes to see that can", but maybe
close friends like Sam can perceive this even in the "normal" world?
Sometimes even the normal world can be "magical" (though maybe not
"magical" in the sense Troels seems to use the word).
BTW, I also have sometimes a picture in my head that people's
consciousness (or "souls", if you like) are like little sparks in a
big darkness, each on his own, moving around as the person moves. I
think this picture developed with no influence from Tolkien, but maybe
it's based on a similar idea.
> And can Gollum see it?
>
> "Gollum returned quietly and peered over Sam's shoulder. Looking at
> Frodo, he shut his eyes and crawled away without a sound."
I'd say this is likely because of a different reason -- he sees Frodo
lying there, very peacefully, and turns away. That's enough, no need
to add extra "magical" ingredients.
- Dirk
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
> reminded of Robert Oppenheimer at the first A-bomb test:
> "I am become death, shatterer of worlds."
> <http://www.ag.wastholm.net/aphorism/A-1949>
IIRC Oppenheimer was quoting from a Hindu gita, or rather
from some translation of it into English. I think the speaker
was Shiva. No doubt the translator employed the archaic
construction in order to suggest the age and stature of the
original writing.
--Jamie. (a Dover edition designed for years of use!)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
the softrat
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
>I think that it's rather unlikely that Boromir was blowing that hard ;-)
>
He was blowing his brains out! Imminent threat of death will do that
to you.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Some of my colleagues think that the chemicals we are
experimenting with could potentially cause brain damage, however
I think that fish crunchy bits of salami my new red hippie
noodle. Naked pool frogs?
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>> I think this "echo in the mind bit" is merely intended to suggest
>>> great distance to Faramir, that the horn is being blown a long way
>>> to the North. I would say he does actually hear the horn.
>>
>> Across 160 miles?
>
>> I think that it's rather unlikely that Boromir was blowing that hard
>> ;-)
>
> <ahem> We are in Faërie...
Sorry, 'twas your use of "actually hear" that made think that you
referred to conventional methods of hearing and travelling of sound.
I can agree with what you say.
> See also my 'dreaming' comments below, and note that Faramir thought
> that he was dreaming when he saw Boromir:
>
> "Dreamlike it was, and yet no dream, for there was no waking."
>
> That would be, for me, a nice description of Faërie.
Indeed.
> [Faërie]
<snip>
> Again, this sounds like a dreamworld, literally! When you want
> something to happen in a dream, sometimes it does just happen.
I like your dreamrealm comparison -- though of course in Faërie one
doesn't get the seemingly random absurdities of dreams: rather it seems
to me that there things happen because there is a strong wish for it or
because they are /Right/ (or, for that matter, /Wrong/). But the sense of
the dream is, IMO, very apt.
I'll give a fuller quotation from OFS about Faërie and dream:
"It is true that Dream is not unconnected with Faërie. In
dreams strange powers of the mind may be unlocked. In some of
them a man may for a space wield the power of Faërie, that
power which, even as it conceives the story, causes it to take
living form and colour before the eyes. A real dream may
indeed sometimes be a fairy-story of almost elvish ease and
skill- while it is being dreamed. But if a waking writer tells
you that his tale is only a thing imagined in his sleep, he
cheats deliberately the primal desire at the heart of Faërie:
the realization, independent of the conceiving mind, of
imagined wonder. It is often reported of fairies (truly or
lyingly, I do not know) that they are workers of illusion,
that they are cheaters of men by 'fantasy'; but that is quite
another matter. That is their affair. Such trickeries happen,
at any rate, inside tales in which the fairies are not
themselves illusions; behind the fantasy real wills and powers
exist, independent of the minds and purposes of men."
(OFS 'Fairy-story')
But then there is also
" Fantasy, of course, starts out with an advantage: arresting
strangeness. But that advantage has been turned against it,
and has contributed to its disrepute. Many people dislike
being 'arrested.' They dislike any meddling with the Primary
World, or such small glimpses of it as are familiar to them.
They, therefore, stupidly and even maliciously confound
Fantasy with Dreaming, in which there is no Art[29]; and with
mental disorders, in which there is not even control: with
delusion and hallucination."
[29] "This is not true of all dreams. In some Fantasy seems to
take a part. But this is exceptional. Fantasy is a rational,
not an irrational, activity."
[...]
"If you are present at a Faërian drama you yourself are, or
think that you are, bodily inside its Secondary World. The
experience may be very similar to Dreaming and has (it would
seem) sometimes (by men) been confounded with it. But in
Faërian drama you are in a dream that some other mind is
weaving, and the knowledge of that alarming fact may slip
from your grasp."
(OFS 'Fantasy')
So, according to Tolkien himself Faërie could be like a rational dream:
rational as 'having a reason': where the events have a cause, even, IMO,
if that cause must be sought in things that may not usually directly
cause such events.
> I am now reminded of the dreamworld of the Australian Aborigines.
> Very strongly reminded. Hmm.
I'm afraid that my knowledge of that particular subject doesn't extend
beyond its name, so I couldn't possibly comment on any similarities.
> [Mortality]
>
>>> Imagine the dread and awe that can be inspired by beings that do not
>>> die, living figures from distant history, remote but present. A
>>> reminder of your own mortality AND the fact that others do not die.
>>
>> Cue a discussion of Athrabeth . . .
>
> Which I must read...
?!?!
Get thou to thy books at once!
;-)
<snip>
> [What made Faramir trust Frodo?]
>
>>> Though,' and now he smiled, 'there is something strange about you,
>>> Frodo, an elvish air, maybe.
>
> I thought this was just a consequence of Bilbo's teachings or a
> description of Frodo's sensitivity, but I like your suggestion:
>
>> "He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes
>> to see that can."
>> (Gandalf about Frodo in LotR II,1 'Many Meetings')
I completely forgot to mention the obvious similarity between this
description and Galadriel's gift to Frodo 'a glass filled with a clear
light' indeed!
> Since no-one really picked up on it when I mentioned it in the 'Of
> Herbs and Stewed Rabbits' chapter discussion, I'll bring up this
> point again
Sorry, but I'll pick it up here, then ;-)
> about the "clear light" that Gandalf foresees appearing in Frodo.
> First, there are at least two cases of what I believe to be similar
> lights:
I thought of searching for other cases, but that'll have to be some other
day.
> "I thought that I saw a white figure that shone and did not grow dim
> like the others. Was that Glorfindel then?" (Frodo, Many Meetings)
"Yes, you saw him for a moment as he is upon the other side:"
Something one would have to see with 'other sight' ;-)
The suggestion here is, IMO, that this sight is not normally visible for
mortals. At another level it might be speculated that Frodo saw mainly
the light because he was so close to the Unseen (or 'the other side').
What Sam sees in Frodo is (developing this speculation) much weaker
because he is more fully in the material world -- he sees a weak image of
the 'figure that shone' superimposed on the usual, material, image of
Frodo, while for Frodo the material image of Glorfindel was, as the
others', grown dim, causing the shining figure to dominate (also the
image of light would probably have grown stronger in itself, just as the
material images were dimmed).
> "Before him stooped the old figure, white; shining now as if with some
> light kindled within, bent, laden with years, but holding a power
> beyond the strength of kings." (Gandalf compared to Aragorn, The
> White Rider)
>
> And there are other references to Gandalf and light (usually white).
And in particular Pippin sees the light ("[...] he caught a flash of
white and silver [...] It seemed to Pippin that a pale light was spread
about it and the heavy shadows gave way before it [...]") when Gandalf
rode to save Faramir.
It is very cleverly disguised when he appears over the ridge at dawn in
Helm's Deep: "[t]here suddenly upon a ridge appeared a rider, clad in
white, shining in the rising sun", but if we allow that this is an
example of the same (though I admit that it is debatable), then it would,
to me, appear that the implication is that the light is visible to all.
> Sam sees Frodo shining with light at least twice:
>
> "He was reminded suddenly of Frodo as he had lain, asleep in the house
> of Elrond, after his deadly wound. Then as he had kept watch Sam had
> noticed that at times a light seemed to be shining faintly within; but
> now the light was even clearer and stronger." (Of Herbs and Stewed
> Rabbits)
. . .
How could one add anything to that?
> And now we have Faramir's reference to an 'elvish air', though this is
> not definitely a reference to Faramir seeing Frodo shining with light
> (for example, how does Faramir know what an elf should look like).
I don't think that Faramir actually sees the 'light' from Frodo, but I
think that the two things are nevertheless connected. Faramir somehow
perceives, I believe, the same quality in Frodo that others (with "eyes
to see") sees as a clear light, and associates it with Elves.
> But getting back to Sam seeing Frodo shining with light, I wonder HOW
> he can see this? Remember that Gandalf says:
>
> "He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see
> that can." (Many Meetings)
>
> Is Gandalf saying that only certain people will see this light?
I would certainly say so, yes.
> I thought that Frodo could only see Glorfindel shining because Frodo
> was wearing the Ring,
He wasn't wearing the Ring -- it was due to the Morgul wound 'shifting'
him gradually into the Unseen world (or 'wraith world' as it has also
been called -- the world, I believe, of the Fëar).
> but then we do hear that Legolas and Gimli can see the light shining
> in Gandalf,
As well as others. Pippin for certain, and, depending on reading, perhaps
many others as well.
> so maybe we shouldn't be surprised that Sam can see the light shining
> in Frodo.
Maybe and maybe not . . .
Sam is in some ways the more prosaic of the Hobbits, but there appears to
be a more poetic person underneath.
> But I think that we are meant to take Gandalf's comment "for eyes to
> see that can" to mean that not everyone could see the light shining in
> Frodo.
I definitely agree. The light that shines from Gandalf seems to be a
little different in nature -- to be more generally visible -- though
possibly (probably?) that is just because his Fëa (after his enhancement
by Eru) is that much clearer/stronger/whatever, but anyhow I don't think
that his and Frodo's light is directly comparable.
> And if so, what significance is there that _Sam_ can see this light?
His poetic soul?
Had he only been able to see it here in book 4 I might have referred more
strongly to his ennoblement, but while he certainly grows during the
journey from the Hill to Rivendell, I'm not sure that I'd call it
'ennoblement' at that point.
> And can Gollum see it?
>
> "Gollum returned quietly and peered over Sam's shoulder. Looking at
> Frodo, he shut his eyes and crawled away without a sound."
As an aftereffect of his long association with the Ring?
It's possible, though I think there's something different in that
particular quotation -- this feels more like a forshadowing of the
situation at the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, or perhaps rather as leading up
to that opportunity for redemption that Sméagol almost took.
<snip>
> [the lure of the Ring]
[...]
> <dreams of making list of all visual Ring lures> :-)
Listmaniac ;-))
> [Forms of laughter]
>
>> (I don't really want to discuss mirth vs. 'appreciation of irony')
>
> Any reason why not? Just wondering.
Mainly because I think it depends too strongly on individual reactions. I
might laugh in recognition of the irony, but there would be no real
amusement or mirth in that laughter -- it would rather be a laughter to
mock myself.
But I don't think it's important in this connection -- the point is, IMO,
that the laughter is because of the irony of the situation.
<snip>
>> (OFS, The Introduction)
>>
>> The closest thing I could find, but I do think that laughter has a
>> special significance.
>
> Indeed. I think that a special kind of laughter could be one that
> mixes joy and sorrow.
Aren't they antitheses? Do they mix?
On a more serious note, though, that would be a very special laughter. I
can imagine tears as a mix of joy and sorrow, but laughter? Maybe it's
just me, though.
I'm the kind of person who cry at Théoden's death every time -- it is one
of these situations in LotR that mix sorrow and joy: sorrow at his death,
bhut also joy at his own pride in his achievement; his arising out of the
dark and doubt. It is heart-rendingly beautiful.
> It would be specially appropriate to the Perilous Realm.
That it would.
> More and more, I begin to see another meaning to the Perilous Realm,
> as truly a realm of language, where a rich vocabulary and experience
> of the world and history can produce a synergy between language and
> imagination that is the hallmark of great literature,
Well . . . yes . . . and yet . . .
Fairy-stories, the land of Faërie, works, IMO, best in literature -- the
visual arts don't prompt the imagination, or fantasy (to stay true to
OFS) in the same way the written word does (at least not for me). In the
Perilous Realm I like better to be left to my own devices: there can be
no Balrog more scaring to me than the one I see before my inner eye, nor
can any artist capture the timeless beauty of Cerin Amroth better than my
fantasy.
The language is an aid, I think, to entering Faërie, but not, I should
say, /of/ Faërie. "Faërie cannot be caught in a net of words; for it is
one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not imperceptible."
> but in the case of Faërie there is a rich sense of time and landscape
> and _undiscovered_ things.
Aye.
> (Probably best to say that this is my developing viewpoint, maybe
> diverging from Tolkien's, and I don't claim to understand OFS).
Understanding OFS would be an exaggeration, I agree ;-)
But then I'm not sure that Tolkien would have claimed that he understood
Faërie, or Fairy-story, perfectly himself; "Yet I hope that what I have
later to say about the other questions will give some glimpses of my own
imperfect vision of it."
I see that my .sig chooser has again come up with something apt. We're
picking LotR apart in little pieces, trying to understand it better and
to understand our own appreciation of it, and I do think that we succeed,
so I guess that I don't really agree all that much with Gandalf :-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of
wisdom.
- Gandalf, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Christopher Kreuzer
> In alt.fan.tolkien Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Since no-one really picked up on it when I mentioned it in the 'Of
>> Herbs and Stewed Rabbits' chapter discussion, I'll bring up this
>> point again about the "clear light" that Gandalf foresees appearing
>> in Frodo.
>
> [Quotes snipped]
>
>> "He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see
>> that can." (Many Meetings)
>
>> Is Gandalf saying that only certain people will see this light? I
>> thought that Frodo could only see Glorfindel shining because Frodo
>> was wearing the Ring,
Oops. I've made this mistake before, sorry. Frodo isn't wearing the Ring
at the Ford of Bruinen. It is the effect of the Morgul wound that allows
him to see Glorfindel as a white light.
> So did I. The "clear light" seems to be some "visible part" of the
> soul, which is even more prominent and easier to see in the
> "otherworld" (or the "wraith world"). I assumed that Tolkien meant
> those who "live in both worlds" with "eyes to see that can",
As did I, though the revelation in 'Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbits' that
Sam can see this light has forced me to reassess this viewpoint. Maybe
the Ring is also playing a part in allowing this light to be seen.
Here is a good question. If Frodo finished this process and fully became
"like a glass filled with a clear light", would the Ring be able to hide
this light? This depends of course on what the light is. I think that
the light is Frodo's spirit shining through a clear (sort of invisible)
body, as something like the wraithification process caused by the Rings.
Which is not surprising, as the process acting on Frodo was caused by a
Morgul wound that was intended to wraithify him.
So if the light becomes visible to people like Sam in the physical
world, then maybe the Ring would not hide it, much like it failed to
quench the light of the Elendilmir on Isildur's brow (in Unfinished
Tales).
> but maybe
> close friends like Sam can perceive this even in the "normal" world?
Still seems strange. Maybe the Ring is 'strengthening' Frodo's spirit,
allowing it to shine forth in the physical world much like Gandalf's
does when he returns as Gandalf the White?
<snip>
> BTW, I also have sometimes a picture in my head that people's
> consciousness (or "souls", if you like) are like little sparks in a
> big darkness, each on his own, moving around as the person moves.
I have heard that idea before. I guess the identification of souls with
light is a very ancient idea. The specific 'spark' idea is seen in Peter
Pan. The fairies there are lit up by sparks that go out when they die.
<snip>
>> And can Gollum see it?
>>
>> "Gollum returned quietly and peered over Sam's shoulder. Looking at
>> Frodo, he shut his eyes and crawled away without a sound."
>
> I'd say this is likely because of a different reason -- he sees Frodo
> lying there, very peacefully, and turns away.
That's not a reason. You've only said what happens!
> That's enough, no need
> to add extra "magical" ingredients.
Yes, but it is a nice idea. Almost any emotion could be ascribed to
Gollum at that moment, though I agree that only the peaceful look on
Frodo's face is needed to produce these emotions in Gollum (whatever
they are).
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip - hopefully the posts will eventually get smaller...>
[I wrote about my views on Faërie and dreams]
> I'll give a fuller quotation from OFS about Faërie and dream:
<snip>
I had a sneaking suspicion that you might drag out lots of OFS quotes
about dreams! I think I now see things slightly more clearly... :-)
>> [What made Faramir trust Frodo?]
>>
>>>> Though,' and now he smiled, 'there is something strange about you,
>>>> Frodo, an elvish air, maybe.
>>
>> I thought this was just a consequence of Bilbo's teachings or a
>> description of Frodo's sensitivity, but I like your suggestion:
>>
>>> "He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes
>>> to see that can."
>>> (Gandalf about Frodo in LotR II,1 'Many Meetings')
>
> I completely forgot to mention the obvious similarity between this
> description and Galadriel's gift to Frodo 'a glass filled with a clear
> light' indeed!
Just coincidence. Surely... You might as well compare all these glasses
and clear lights to the Silmarils. :-)
<snip>
>> about the "clear light" that Gandalf foresees appearing in Frodo.
>> First, there are at least two cases of what I believe to be similar
>> lights:
>
> I thought of searching for other cases, but that'll have to be some
> other day.
>
>> "I thought that I saw a white figure that shone and did not grow dim
>> like the others. Was that Glorfindel then?" (Frodo, Many Meetings)
>
> "Yes, you saw him for a moment as he is upon the other side:"
>
> Something one would have to see with 'other sight' ;-)
>
> The suggestion here is, IMO, that this sight is not normally visible
> for mortals. At another level it might be speculated that Frodo saw
> mainly the light because he was so close to the Unseen (or 'the other
> side'). What Sam sees in Frodo is (developing this speculation) much
> weaker because he is more fully in the material world -- he sees a
> weak image of the 'figure that shone' superimposed on the usual,
> material, image of Frodo
I see it more as Frodo's body becoming transparant, and the spirit
within shining forth. Remember the talk about "like a glass", and the
fact that Gandalf sees a hint of tranparency in Frodo's left hand just
before he makes his mental speculation that we've been talking about.
<snip>
>> "Before him stooped the old figure, white; shining now as if with
>> some light kindled within, bent, laden with years, but holding a
>> power beyond the strength of kings." (Gandalf compared to Aragorn,
>> The White Rider)
[hence Gandalf's light is visible to all]
>> Sam sees Frodo shining with light at least twice:
>>
>> "He was reminded suddenly of Frodo as he had lain, asleep in the
>> house of Elrond, after his deadly wound. Then as he had kept watch
>> Sam had noticed that at times a light seemed to be shining faintly
>> within; but now the light was even clearer and stronger." (Of Herbs
>> and Stewed Rabbits)
>
> . . .
>
> How could one add anything to that?
Are you really asking, or is that rhetorical?
<snip>
>> But getting back to Sam seeing Frodo shining with light, I wonder
>> HOW he can see this?
<snip>
>> so maybe we shouldn't be surprised that Sam can see the light shining
>> in Frodo.
>
> Maybe and maybe not . . .
>
> Sam is in some ways the more prosaic of the Hobbits, but there
> appears to be a more poetic person underneath.
But this is powerful stuff, even for Faërie. Just being poetic is not
enough, surely? My speculation here is that the Ring is helping to cause
this. Hmm. I think that whenever I fail to find an explanation for
something, I blame the Ring!
Seriously though, I think that maybe the Morgul wound would have still
wraithified Frodo in the long run, but he would instead be this "glass
filled with a clear light". This light would not normally be visible to
mortals, but it is visible here because Frodo is bearing the One Ring.
Maybe it is logical that a Ring that turns bodies invisible, would make
spirits (or fëa) more visible? Gandalf might or might not have forgotten
to include the unknown effects of the Ring when speculating by Frodo's
bedside in Rivendell. This is a unique situation after all. At no other
time has a victim of a Morgul wound been bearing the Ruling Ring.
I think this sounds reasonable. Is it?
>> But I think that we are meant to take Gandalf's comment "for eyes to
>> see that can" to mean that not everyone could see the light shining
>> in Frodo.
>
> I definitely agree. The light that shines from Gandalf seems to be a
> little different in nature -- to be more generally visible -- though
> possibly (probably?) that is just because his Fëa (after his
> enhancement by Eru) is that much clearer/stronger/whatever, but
> anyhow I don't think that his and Frodo's light is directly
> comparable.
I wouldn't be so sure about that... :-)
>> And if so, what significance is there that _Sam_ can see this light?
>
> His poetic soul?
>
> Had he only been able to see it here in book 4 I might have referred
> more strongly to his ennoblement, but while he certainly grows during
> the journey from the Hill to Rivendell, I'm not sure that I'd call it
> 'ennoblement' at that point.
In support of my 'Ring-effect' theory above, the big difference between
Rivendell and Ithilien is that Frodo has been bearing the Ring for
longer and the Ring is also more powerful as it approaches Mount Doom. I
think that anyone, and not just Sam, could see the light, though in fact
only Sam sees it because he is the only one to look closely (and the
light only shines through occassionally, not all the time).
>> And can Gollum see it?
>>
>> "Gollum returned quietly and peered over Sam's shoulder. Looking at
>> Frodo, he shut his eyes and crawled away without a sound."
>
> As an aftereffect of his long association with the Ring?
But no Morgul wound. Gollum was peculiarly resistant to wraithification,
though if he saw signs of it in Frodo, then he might react like this. As
in another post, I don't think it is necessary for Gollum to see this
light, it is just an interesting point to consider.
> It's possible, though I think there's something different in that
> particular quotation -- this feels more like a forshadowing of the
> situation at the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, or perhaps rather as leading
> up to that opportunity for redemption that Sméagol almost took.
Yes.
[Forms of laughter]
<snip>
>> Indeed. I think that a special kind of laughter could be one that
>> mixes joy and sorrow.
>
> Aren't they antitheses? Do they mix?
Isn't that what bittersweet is about?
<snip>
>> (Probably best to say that this is my developing viewpoint, maybe
>> diverging from Tolkien's, and I don't claim to understand OFS).
>
> Understanding OFS would be an exaggeration, I agree ;-)
>
> But then I'm not sure that Tolkien would have claimed that he
> understood Faërie, or Fairy-story, perfectly himself; "Yet I hope
> that what I have later to say about the other questions will give
> some glimpses of my own imperfect vision of it."
<sigh> I snipped some other examples, but it seems that anything I come
up with can be countered or supported with an OFS quote!! :-)
> I see that my .sig chooser has again come up with something apt.
LOL!
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> In alt.fan.tolkien Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> "Gollum returned quietly and peered over Sam's shoulder. Looking at
>>> Frodo, he shut his eyes and crawled away without a sound."
>> I'd say this is likely because of a different reason -- he sees Frodo
>> lying there, very peacefully, and turns away.
> That's not a reason. You've only said what happens!
Did you never see somebody sleeping peacefully, say, a child, and
turned away silently, to not disturb him or her?
>> That's enough, no need to add extra "magical" ingredients.
> Yes, but it is a nice idea. Almost any emotion could be ascribed to
> Gollum at that moment, though I agree that only the peaceful look on
> Frodo's face is needed to produce these emotions in Gollum (whatever
> they are).
That's what I meant.
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>
> <snip - hopefully the posts will eventually get smaller...>
I think we'll manage ;-)
[Frodo as "a glass filled with a clear light"]
>> I completely forgot to mention the obvious similarity between this
>> description and Galadriel's gift to Frodo 'a glass filled with a
>> clear light' indeed!
>
> Just coincidence. Surely... You might as well compare all these
> glasses and clear lights to the Silmarils. :-)
I don't know. In my own mind I have always connected the two, thinking
one to be a symbol of the other (though I'm not sure which way <G>), or
both to be metaphores of the same (Frodo's ennoblement?).
<snip>
>> The suggestion here is, IMO, that this sight is not normally visible
>> for mortals. At another level it might be speculated that Frodo saw
>> mainly the light because he was so close to the Unseen (or 'the other
>> side'). What Sam sees in Frodo is (developing this speculation) much
>> weaker because he is more fully in the material world -- he sees a
>> weak image of the 'figure that shone' superimposed on the usual,
>> material, image of Frodo
>
> I see it more as Frodo's body becoming transparant, and the spirit
> within shining forth. Remember the talk about "like a glass", and the
> fact that Gandalf sees a hint of tranparency in Frodo's left hand just
> before he makes his mental speculation that we've been talking about.
I took the hint of transparency to be merely a lingering effect of having
been to the border of the Unseen realm, but possibly that is part of it,
and actually I think it would fit well with my ideas.
I was focusing on the viewer before (prompted, I think, by the discussion
of Sam being able to see the light from Frodo), but you're quite right
that it might also be associated with the object, though Frodo's
experience at the Ford would show that both are important.
Dirk suggested that this light is a visible representation of the Fëa --
something that fits well with the idea of the Unseen world being the
world of the Fëar, and with Fëanor being the 'Spirit of Fire'.
How about this, then.
The strength of the light is related to the strength of the Fëa (not
necessarily 'innate power' alone -- moral strength etc. could also
contribute).
This light is usually obscured by the physical body, and is normally too
weak anyway to be seen in the material world.
At the Ford Frodo was entering the Unseen world, and his image of the
others' physical bodies 'grew dim' -- in contrast his image of
Glorfindel's Fëa (to accept this explanation) grew clearer. I would say
that his image of the others' Fëar should also have been clearer, but
they weren't noticeable next to Glorfindel, "one of the mighty of the
Firstborn." It is a dual effect with a single cause: Frodo was "already
on the threshold of [the Nazgûl's] world", and there he could both see
clearer the light from the Fëar, and their bodies would become dimmer
(the Nazgûl can't see the bodies of others).
So why can't the Nazgûl see the Fëar of other people? One guess would be
that the light is too faint to be noticeable in all but the strongest:
even Aragorn was invisible to them.
This, however, leads to the question of the light from Frodo. If this is
of the same kind, would that, then, mean that he is become stronger, in a
spiritual sense, than Aragorn? Enough that his Fëa now shines visibly?
And why don't the Nazgûl notice that light, then, when they (almost) meet
later: during the passage of the Marches, in the Morgul Vale, when Sam
and Frodo escapes from Cirith Ungol . . .
Seems that I'm arguing myself into a corner from which I can't move on.
<snip>
>> How could one add anything to that?
>
> Are you really asking, or is that rhetorical?
That was meant rhetorically.
<snip>
>> Sam is in some ways the more prosaic of the Hobbits, but there
>> appears to be a more poetic person underneath.
>
> But this is powerful stuff, even for Faërie. Just being poetic is not
> enough, surely?
Love, ennoblement and a poetic soul? Why shouldn't that be enough :-)
> My speculation here is that the Ring is helping to cause this.
Why should it?
I don't think there's any evidence that the Ring is doing anything to Sam
before he takes it himself. And what would the purpose be for making Sam
see something here?
> Seriously though, I think that maybe the Morgul wound would have still
> wraithified Frodo in the long run, but he would instead be this "glass
> filled with a clear light".
I can agree that the Morgul wound left some lingering hint of
transparency (actually, rereading the passage in II,1 I think it likely
that the text is hinting at a permanent change; "to the wizard's eye
there was a faint change just a hint as it were of transparency, about
him"), but I don't think that the light is caused by the Morgul wound as
such -- it would rather be the experiences Frodo has gone through, his
struggle and possibly an effect of his accepting the burden of the Ring
(in II,1 he has accepted it as far as Rivendell, but that is still
something).
> This light would not normally be visible to mortals, but it is visible
> here because Frodo is bearing the One Ring.
I don't think so.
I would rather think that we should look to Sam for the explanation of
why he can see it. Faramir doesn't, as I read his words, see this effect
(it would have gone far beyond 'an elvish air' IMO), and his men
certainly (I would say) does not.
> Maybe it is logical that a Ring that turns bodies invisible, would
> make spirits (or fëa) more visible?
Isildur and Elendur at the Gladden Fields. It would follow, IMO, that
such an effect would be even stronger when the person was completely
invisible.
> This is a unique situation after all. At no other time has a victim
> of a Morgul wound been bearing the Ruling Ring.
Frodo is unique in so many ways that it can be difficult to see which
ones are at the bottom of any particular 'effect', but all of the four
Hobbits in the fellowship are unique in their own ways, and I wouldn't
put it past San, 'the chief hero', to be able to see what others doesn't
see; even before his own experience as a Ring-bearer.
> I think this sounds reasonable. Is it?
I'm afraid that, reasonable or not, it doesn't 'work for me'.
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer
The trouble with being a god is that you've got no one to pray to.
- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Taemon
> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
<snip>
Now that I finally look into it, I see it is actually two
chapters back. Anyway, here's something that's been bothering me
since my last rereading. Faramir knows that the ring exists. He
knows that Isildur took something from Sauron's hand. How come he
couldn't guess what Isildur's Bane is?
T.
Stanislaus B.
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>At the Ford Frodo was entering the Unseen world, and his image of the
>others' physical bodies 'grew dim' -- in contrast his image of
>Glorfindel's Fëa (to accept this explanation) grew clearer. I would say
>that his image of the others' Fëar should also have been clearer, but
>they weren't noticeable next to Glorfindel, "one of the mighty of the
>Firstborn." It is a dual effect with a single cause: Frodo was "already
>on the threshold of [the Nazg?l's] world", and there he could both see
>clearer the light from the Fëar, and their bodies would become dimmer
>(the Nazg?l can't see the bodies of others).
>
>So why can't the Nazg?l see the Fëar of other people? One guess would be
>that the light is too faint to be noticeable in all but the strongest:
>even Aragorn was invisible to them.
>
>This, however, leads to the question of the light from Frodo. If this is
>of the same kind, would that, then, mean that he is become stronger, in a
>spiritual sense, than Aragorn? Enough that his Fëa now shines visibly?
>And why don't the Nazg?l notice that light, then, when they (almost) meet
>later: during the passage of the Marches, in the Morgul Vale, when Sam
>and Frodo escapes from Cirith Ungol . . .
>
>Seems that I'm arguing myself into a corner from which I can't move on.
" 'I was too careless on the hill-top,' answered Strider. 'I was very
anxious to find some sign of Gandalf; but it was a mistake for three
of us to go up and stand there so long. For the black horses can see,
and the Riders can use men and other creatures as spies, as we found
at Bree. They themselves do not see the world of light as we do, but
our shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun
destroys; and in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are
hidden from us: then they are most to be feared. And at all times they
smell the blood of living things, desiring and hating it. Senses, too,
there are other than sight or smell. We can feel their presence ? it
troubled our hearts, as soon as we came here, and before we saw them;
they feel ours more keenly. Also,' he added, and his voice sank to a
whisper, 'the Ring draws them.'"
Nazgul can't see light, both material and spiritual. They can see
material world, but only in the darkness.
As for the light of Aragorn:
" Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he
grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame
as he swept it out. 'Elendil!' he cried. 'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn
and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur
Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is
forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!'
Gimli and Legolas looked at their companion in amazement, for
they had not seen him in this mood before. He seemed to have grown in
stature while Éomer had shrunk; and in his living face they caught a
brief vision of the power and majesty of the kings of stone. For a
moment it seemed to the eyes of Legolas that a white flame flickered
on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown.
Éomer stepped back and a look of awe was in his face. He cast
down his proud eyes. 'These are indeed strange days,' he muttered.
'Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass."
By the way, the ancient Persians, (Zoroastrians) named the light of
soul "khwarenah" or "Hvarena". A strong light was an attribute of
kings and saints. It is represented visually by the aureole.
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=448&discussionID=369360
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> In alt.fan.tolkien Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>
>>>> "Gollum returned quietly and peered over Sam's shoulder.
>>>> Looking at Frodo, he shut his eyes and crawled away without
>>>> a sound."
>
>>> I'd say this is likely because of a different reason -- he sees
>>> Frodo lying there, very peacefully, and turns away.
>
>> That's not a reason. You've only said what happens!
>
> Did you never see somebody sleeping peacefully, say, a child, and
> turned away silently, to not disturb him or her?
Are you seriously suggesting that Gollum turns away to avoid disturbing
Frodo? The 'crawled away without a sound' bit on its own might mean
that, but the 'shut his eyes' bit implies a need for Gollum to shut out
what he is seeing, and in that context I think the crawling away is
Gollum trying to get away from what he has seen: hence an emotional
reaction. The without a sound bit might still imply some compassion on
Gollum's part in not wanting to disturb Frodo. I must admit I do like
that idea now!
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> Chapter of the Week (CotW) 'The Lord of the Rings' (LotR)
>> Book 4, Chapter 5: The Window on the West
>
> <snip>
>
> Now that I finally look into it, I see it is actually two
> chapters back. Anyway, here's something that's been bothering me
> since my last rereading. Faramir knows that the ring exists.
When? Can you provide a quote? He knows that something called the One
Ring _did_ exist, but it seems that everyone thought it had been
destroyed. Elrond and Cirdan and Isildur and his sons knew differently,
but probably no-one else knew that the Ring survived. Gandalf and
Saruman learn later, but it seems that Faramir thought it had been
destroyed. I wonder when Denethor first learnt that the One Ring still
existed. Maybe he also only learnt this when someone (Gandalf
presumably) told him?
> He knows that Isildur took something from Sauron's hand. How
> come he couldn't guess what Isildur's Bane is?
Maybe the bit where he says that the Ring was "thought to have perished
from the world"?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> Dirk suggested that this light is a visible representation of the Fëa
> -- something that fits well with the idea of the Unseen world being
> the world of the Fëar, and with Fëanor being the 'Spirit of Fire'.
I've always thought these lights to be spiritual.
I can't see what else they could be.
> How about this, then.
>
> The strength of the light is related to the strength of the Fëa (not
> necessarily 'innate power' alone -- moral strength etc. could also
> contribute).
>
> This light is usually obscured by the physical body, and is normally
> too weak anyway to be seen in the material world.
I would say that this light exists all the time, but only in the 'other
world', and not in the physical world (except by association with
physical objects). But then I have to explain how it 'crosses over' when
we see these shining lights in ME... Maybe this 'light' is not visible
because it is bound to material bodies and objects, and only appears in
the real world when it spills out of the body, when the body is full or
becoming transparent.
<snip>
> This, however, leads to the question of the light from Frodo. If this
> is of the same kind, would that, then, mean that he is become
> stronger, in a spiritual sense, than Aragorn?
The comparison with Aragorn might be apt. As Stanislaus has pointed out,
Aragorn also has these enlightened episodes (pun intentional).
> Enough that his Fëa now
> shines visibly?
I'm very confused about this now. I've tried arguing several examples in
draft form, but my theory isn't quite working... :-/
>> My speculation here is that the Ring is helping to cause this.
>
> Why should it?
>
> I don't think there's any evidence that the Ring is doing anything to
> Sam before he takes it himself. And what would the purpose be for
> making Sam see something here?
Not the Ring affecting Sam. The Ring affecting Frodo.
>> Seriously though, I think that maybe the Morgul wound would have
>> still wraithified Frodo in the long run, but he would instead be
>> this "glass filled with a clear light".
>
> I can agree that the Morgul wound left some lingering hint of
> transparency (actually, rereading the passage in II,1 I think it
> likely that the text is hinting at a permanent change; "to the
> wizard's eye there was a faint change just a hint as it were of
> transparency, about him"), but I don't think that the light is caused
> by the Morgul wound as such
I think the light was always there, just hidden.
> -- it would rather be the experiences
> Frodo has gone through, his struggle and possibly an effect of his
> accepting the burden of the Ring (in II,1 he has accepted it as far
> as Rivendell, but that is still something).
Though maybe its quality changes, as you say.
>> I think this sounds reasonable. Is it?
>
> I'm afraid that, reasonable or not, it doesn't 'work for me'.
I may have to think about it some more!
Christopher Kreuzer
[about the Nazgul powers of 'vision']
> " 'I was too careless on the hill-top,' answered Strider. 'I was very
> anxious to find some sign of Gandalf; but it was a mistake for three
> of us to go up and stand there so long. For the black horses can see,
> and the Riders can use men and other creatures as spies, as we found
> at Bree. They themselves do not see the world of light as we do,
I take this to mean the real visible light. Not spiritual light of the
'other side'.
> but
> our shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun
> destroys; and in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are
> hidden from us:
This might refer to Nazgul being able to see bright lights such as
Glorfindel on the 'other side'. That is something that is hidden from
others. It would also explain why they feared Glorfindel, much like they
may have avoided the noon sun. In the noon sun, they would be less able
to see Glorfindel as a 'white figure', because the radiant power of Anor
overpowers this in the same way as it overpowers the 'shadows' cast in
their minds by ordinary mortals?
> Nazgul can't see light, both material and spiritual. They can see
> material world, but only in the darkness.
Material light yes. Why do you say they can't see spiritual light?
> As for the light of Aragorn:
Thanks for this quote. Anduril also has a flame as well.
> " Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he
> grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame
> [...] For a moment it seemed to the eyes of Legolas that a white flame
> flickered on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown.
Not quite so blatent, but there is a similar scene at Pelennor:
"But before all went Aragorn with the Flame of the West, Andúril like a
new fire kindled, Narsil re-forged as deadly as of old: and upon his
brow was the Star of Elendil."
And there is the scene in Unfinished Tales where Isildur wears the
Elendilmir upon his brow (and this object shines forth with red light).
And the crown of Gondor had seven gems set in it to represent seven
stars, which again implies light shining forth from the king.
And a genuine case of light surrounding Aragorn is at his coronation:
"Tall as the sea-kings of old, he stood above all that were near;
ancient of days he seemed and yet in the flower of manhood; and wisdom
sat upon his brow, and strength and healing were in his hands, and a
light was about him."
There is also a light in Aragorn's eyes as he passes the Argonath,
though possibly lights in eyes have a more literary significance in
Tolkien's writings, different from general auras of light that have more
mystical/faërie connotations.
> By the way, the ancient Persians, (Zoroastrians) named the light of
> soul "khwarenah" or "Hvarena". A strong light was an attribute of
> kings and saints. It is represented visually by the aureole.
Is that like a halo?
Prai Jei
<2ucn8uF...@uni-berlin.de>:
The Ring wasn't the direct cause of Isildur's death. Isildur was killed by
an orc-arrow. Were the hobbits carrying that arrow with them? What special
powers might an arrow possess by virtue of having previously killed
Isildur? No, the words "Isildur's Bane" pointed to some other, more
powerful, menace connected with the change of age, some vanished piece of
lore which might one day resurface to save/lose the day.
For an analogous case try Edmund Hamilton's SF novel "The Star Kings". There
is much bandying around of the name "The Disruptor", some ultimate doomsday
weapon which had been devised two thousand years before and successfully
used to defeat an invading army. But nobody knew what the Disruptor
actually was: that was kept secret, handed down from emperor to emperor.
Now that a new crisis was looming, everybody clamoured for the Disruptor to
be used again to defeat the new enemy, but the current emperor-regent (the
emperor had been attacked and wounded and was out of the swing of things
for a while) was shilly-shallying around refusing to use it and relying on
more conventional forces.
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Christopher Kreuzer
> Taemon (or somebody else of the same name) wrote:
>> [...] something that's been bothering me
>> since my last rereading. Faramir knows that the ring exists. He
>> knows that Isildur took something from Sauron's hand. How come he
>> couldn't guess what Isildur's Bane is?
> The Ring wasn't the direct cause of Isildur's death.
I think the point of the question here was not the Bane bit, but why
couldn't Faramir guess that the object taken from Sauron's hand was the
One Ring. I would say that Faramir is aware of something called the One
Ring that Sauron wore on his hand (but is unsure if it still exists).
Connect this with his guess that Isildur's Bane is a mighty heirloom
that was taken from Sauron, and you then wonder why he is surprised to
find that this object turns out to be the One Ring.
I would guess that he considered the possibillity, but rejected the idea
because it was thought (at least in Gondor outside the royal family)
that the One Ring had been destroyed. I do wonder though why Isildur's
scroll was never read by anyone else (or at least the memory of it was
forgotten, as well as the [seemingly non-existent] library indexing
system of Minas Tirith - though to be fair, these are records more than
3000 years old).
Faramir kind of implies this with his reaction to Sam's revelation that
the burden Frodo bears is the One Ring:
"So that is the answer to all the riddles! The One Ring that was thought
to have perished from the world."
And the loss of lore is implied by Gandalf at the Council of Elrond when
he tells of his finding of Isildur's scroll:
"And yet there lie in [Denethor's] hoards many records that few now can
read, even of the lore-masters, for their scripts and tongues have
become dark to later men. And Boromir, there lies in Minas Tirith still,
unread, I guess, by any save Saruman and myself since the kings failed,
a scroll that Isildur made himself [...] and that is not remembered in
Gondor, it would seem."
Troels Forchhammer
>>
<snip>
>> Did you never see somebody sleeping peacefully, say, a child, and
>> turned away silently, to not disturb him or her?
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that Gollum turns away to avoid
> disturbing Frodo?
If Dirk isn't, I will; though not exclusively.
> The 'crawled away without a sound' bit on its own might mean that,
> but the 'shut his eyes' bit implies a need for Gollum to shut out
> what he is seeing,
I have always seen his closed eyes as a sign of emotional pain. As I've
said elsewhere, I think this scene must be seen in the context of the
later scene at the top of the Stairs of Cirith Ungol -- what we see is,
IMO, regret; foreshadowing, or perhaps rather setting the scene for the
moment when Gollum balances on the knife's edge between condemnation
and redemption. Gollum, in other words, is shutting his eyes at his own
planned betrayal.
> and in that context I think the crawling away is Gollum trying to
> get away from what he has seen:
Aye -- and from what the sight does to him . . .
Disturbing Frodo and Sam in that moment would have equivalent, somehow,
to rejecting the last possibility opportunity of redemption before it
happens -- something I think neither Sméagol nor Tolkien would have
been ready to do ;-)
> hence an emotional reaction. The without a sound bit might still
> imply some compassion on Gollum's part in not wanting to disturb
> Frodo. I must admit I do like that idea now!
Oh . . .
Eh, sorry then ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo
Troels Forchhammer
"Stanislaus B." <strai...@trash.us> enriched us with:
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:00:26 GMT, "Troels Forchhammer"
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> So why can't the Nazgūl see the Fėar of other people? One guess
>> would be that the light is too faint to be noticeable in all but
>> the strongest: even Aragorn was invisible to them.
[...]
>> Seems that I'm arguing myself into a corner from which I can't move
>> on.
>
Nice quotations, thanks.
<snipping them anyway>
> Nazgul can't see light, both material and spiritual.
They 'do not see the world of light as we do', which, to me, implies
something else.
I can see two possible meanings of this.
A) The Nazgūl see the world of light differently -- not in the same
way 'as we do'.
B) The Nazgūl are unable to see the world of light = the material world
(which is the 'world of light' that 'we' see).
No matter which way, I can't see how this can be seen as saying that
they don't see light in the immaterial world. They saw Frodo at
Weathertop and at the Ford, and they also saw Glorfindel at the Ford:
"Caught between fire and water, and seeing an Elf-lord
revealed in his wrath, they were dismayed, [...]"
I would say that they can definitely see the spiritual light.
> They can see material world, but only in the darkness.
I wonder . . . "in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are
hidden from us," but are these 'signs and forms' hidden from normal Men
only by the cover of darkness, or are they signs and forms that, like
the shape of people "cast shadows in their minds"?
The Nazgūl are stronger in the dark, but they don't appear to see
clearly in the dark either -- they make no move towards Frodo until he
puts on the Ring and is shifted halfway into their world, becoming
visible to them:
"You were in gravest peril while you wore the Ring, for
then you were half in the wraith-world yourself, and they
might have seized you. You could see them, and they could
see you."
> As for the light of Aragorn:
Good point. So it does seem that there /is/ a light about Aragorn,
though only clearly visible when he reveals himself in majesty.
> By the way, the ancient Persians, (Zoroastrians) named the light of
> soul "khwarenah" or "Hvarena". A strong light was an attribute of
> kings and saints. It is represented visually by the aureole.
Thanks.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great
men are almost always bad men.
- Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.
Troels Forchhammer
>>
<snip>
>> The strength of the light is related to the strength of the Fëa
>> (not necessarily 'innate power' alone -- moral strength etc. could
>> also contribute).
>>
>> This light is usually obscured by the physical body, and is
>> normally too weak anyway to be seen in the material world.
>
> I would say that this light exists all the time, but only in the
> 'other world', and not in the physical world (except by association
> with physical objects).
The problem with this is also that the Nazgûl didn't see Frodo's Fëa at
any point during the trek to Rivendell -- while still in the Shire
Frodo was able to hide in a patch of long grass behind a tree looking
at a Ringwraith who was on his part actively searching for Frodo. If
Frodo at this point had been shining brightly in the Unseen world, the
Ringwraith should have seen him (as they saw Glorfindel "revealed in
his wrath" at the Ford), and later they should have seen it at
Weathertop, where they, according to Gandalf, couldn't see Frodo until
he put on the Ring.
> But then I have to explain how it 'crosses over' when we see these
> shining lights in ME... Maybe this 'light' is not visible because it
> is bound to material bodies and objects, and only appears in the real
> world when it spills out of the body, when the body is full or
> becoming transparent.
I think the idea is promising, though we'll have to come up with some
exotic explanations to cover all the cases ;-)
I still think, though, that the light can only be visible in the
material world under very special circumstances or "for eyes to see
that can." Otherwise there would be too many occasions where somebody
should have noticed the light, but didn't.
Some of this does depend on the question of whether Sam is exceptional
in being able to see the effect that Gandalf describes.
<rearrange>
>> I can agree that the Morgul wound left some lingering hint of
>> transparency (actually, rereading the passage in II,1 I think it
>> likely that the text is hinting at a permanent change; "to the
>> wizard's eye there was a faint change just a hint as it were of
>> transparency, about him"), but I don't think that the light is
>> caused by the Morgul wound as such
>
> I think the light was always there, just hidden.
If it is the light of the spirit, then there must certainly always have
been /some/ light, but if this depends only on the changes in Frodo,
why then don't we hear about others noticing it (for instance the
Ringwraiths that pass over them in the Marshes, at the Black Gate and
when they flee from Cirith Ungol), and what should we then make of
Gandalf's words in Rivendell?
I still feel that the change in Frodo isn't generally visible -- it
truly can only be seen by special people, with "eyes to see that can".
My problem then is to explain what makes Sam capable of seeing this
light.
Did Sam see Glorfindel as a shining figure? I don't think that we ever
hear. If he did not, then it could be explained by Glorfindel's
material body obscuring the light, and Sam can only see such light if
the obscuring effect of the material body has been dimmed.
The next problem becomes to explain the difference between Frodo and
the Nazgûl seeing Glorfindel at the ford, and the Nazgûl not noticing
Frodo anywhere en route unless he wears the Ring. Frodo clearly
describes that the others' figures grew dim at the Ford, and Gandalf
explains that this was because he was "already on the threshold of
their world," but why did only Glorfindel appear as a shining figure?
Gandalf explains to Frodo that Glorfindel is "one of the mighty of the
Firstborn" implying, as I see it, a causal connection, so it would seem
to me that the strength of this light depends on the strength of the
spirit and that any light that Frodo might have seen under other
circumstances from the others was unnoticeable under these
circumstances (the very bright light from Glorfindel and the chaotic
situation in general).
At the same time Sam doesn't see the effect all the time:
"He shook his head, as if finding words useless, and
murmured: 'I love him. He's like that, and sometimes it
shines through, somehow. But I love him, whether or no.'"
I think the idea here is that it requires some special circumstances
for Sam to see this; that he or Frodo (or both) have to be in a special
mood (Frodo relaxed or peaceful, Sam filled with his love for Frodo).
That would also explain why the Ringwraiths doesn't notice Frodo: the
circumstances aren't right.
>> -- it would rather be the experiences Frodo has gone through, his
>> struggle and possibly an effect of his accepting the burden of the
>> Ring (in II,1 he has accepted it as far as Rivendell, but that is
>> still something).
>
> Though maybe its quality changes, as you say.
If my assumption that the strength of this light depends on the
intensity of the spirit is right, then it would follow that as Frodo
grows, so does the light.
>> This, however, leads to the question of the light from Frodo. If
>> this is of the same kind, would that, then, mean that he is become
>> stronger, in a spiritual sense, than Aragorn?
>
> The comparison with Aragorn might be apt. As Stanislaus has pointed
> out, Aragorn also has these enlightened episodes (pun intentional).
Yes, and again the circumstances are important. His light shows under
different circumstances than Frodo's, but then the strength of his
spirit is not the same as that of Frodo's.
Aragorn is the King, and this effect only shows when he is being
particularly kingly.
<snip>
> Not the Ring affecting Sam. The Ring affecting Frodo.
I don't think so, though my strongest objection is moral. This effect
is, I believe, described as something good: "Not to evil, I think. He
may become like a glass [...]" Gandalf contrasts this effect to evil.
The Ring is evil, and I don't think it could affect Frodo in this way.
Of course his experiences with the Ring -- in particular his long
struggle to resist it -- is an important ingredient in the ennoblement
and growth of Frodo's spiritual strength, and in that sense the Ring
does assist promoting the effect.
aelfwina
wound causing a fading of Frodo's *material* self, allowing the strength of
his spirit to glow through to those who could see it under certain
circumstances. For Gandalf, that was his ability inherent in who and what
he was, but I think for Sam it was his love and devotion that allowed him to
see this at times.
Barbara
Christopher Kreuzer
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> I would say that this light exists all the time, but only in the
>> 'other world', and not in the physical world (except by association
>> with physical objects).
>
> The problem with this is also that the Nazgūl didn't see Frodo's Fėa
> at any point during the trek to Rivendell
Sorry. Should have been clearer. The idea I have is that the fėa is not
normally visible (though obviously always there) because of the presence
of a material body to which it is 'bound'. This binding obscures it,
kind of like pouring water into a container. However, if the container
overflows, or springs a leak, or something else, we see light shining
forth.
<snip>
> I still think, though, that the light can only be visible in the
> material world under very special circumstances or "for eyes to see
> that can." Otherwise there would be too many occasions where somebody
> should have noticed the light, but didn't.
Yes.
> Some of this does depend on the question of whether Sam is exceptional
> in being able to see the effect that Gandalf describes.
I am now coming around to the idea that Sam's love and devotion to his
master might have enabled him to see this light. Though the Ring and
Morgul wound are probably also necessary, though the exact details are
something we will just have to speculate about.
<snip>
> I still feel that the change in Frodo isn't generally visible -- it
> truly can only be seen by special people, with "eyes to see that can".
But let's take Gandalf and Sam as examples. Would Gandalf have been able
to see things that Sam couldn't before all this happened? And what has
changed to allow Sam to see these things? Or might Sam have been able to
see things like this before the Morgul wound and before the journey?
> My problem then is to explain what makes Sam capable of seeing this
> light.
>
> Did Sam see Glorfindel as a shining figure? I don't think that we ever
> hear.
I rather think he would have said something!
> If he did not, then it could be explained by Glorfindel's
> material body obscuring the light, and Sam can only see such light if
> the obscuring effect of the material body has been dimmed.
There is a simpler explanation. I get the impression from Gandalf that
Glorfindel has _revealed_ himself, that much like the Istari, he kept
himself cloaked until he needed to blaze forth in wrath:
"Caught between fire and water, and seeing an Elf-lord revealed in his
wrath..." (Gandalf, Many Meetings)
<snip>
> At the same time Sam doesn't see the effect all the time:
>
> "He shook his head, as if finding words useless, and
> murmured: 'I love him. He's like that, and sometimes it
> shines through, somehow. But I love him, whether or no.'"
>
> I think the idea here is that it requires some special circumstances
> for Sam to see this; that he or Frodo (or both) have to be in a
> special mood (Frodo relaxed or peaceful, Sam filled with his love for
> Frodo). That would also explain why the Ringwraiths doesn't notice
> Frodo: the circumstances aren't right.
Totally agree.
<snip>
>> Not the Ring affecting Sam. The Ring affecting Frodo.
>
> I don't think so, though my strongest objection is moral. This effect
> is, I believe, described as something good: "Not to evil, I think. He
> may become like a glass [...]" Gandalf contrasts this effect to evil.
> The Ring is evil, and I don't think it could affect Frodo in this way.
It is just an unintentional side-effect.
Taemon
> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > Now that I finally look into it, I see it is actually
> > two chapters back. Anyway, here's something that's been
> > bothering me since my last rereading. Faramir knows
> > that the ring exists.
> When? Can you provide a quote?
The window on the West:
"'But this much I learned, or guessed, and I have kept it ever
secret in my heart since: that Isildur took somewhat from the
hand of the Unnamed, ere he went away from Gondor, never to be
seen among mortal men again. Here I thought was the answer to
Mithrandir's questioning. But it seemed then a matter that
concerned only the seekers after ancient learning. Nor when the
riddling words of our dream were debated among us, did I think of
_Isildur's Bane_ as being this same thing. For Isildur was
ambushed and slain by orc-arrows, according to the only legend
that we knew, and Mithrandir had never told me more.'"
Strange, too, that no one else made that connection.
> > He knows that Isildur took something from Sauron's
> > hand. How come he couldn't guess what Isildur's Bane is?
> Maybe the bit where he says that the Ring was "thought to
> have perished from the world"?
Well, what else can one take from a hand? The Nailpolish of Doom?
And from someone so intelligent as Faramir?
T.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> Now that I finally look into it, I see it is actually
>>> two chapters back. Anyway, here's something that's been
>>> bothering me since my last rereading. Faramir knows
>>> that the ring exists.
>> When? Can you provide a quote?
>
> The window on the West:
>
> "'But this much I learned, or guessed, and I have kept it ever
> secret in my heart since: that Isildur took somewhat
'somewhat' : Faramir does not know what this thing was. Isildur seems
never to have told anyone other than his sons, and the only other people
present on Mount Doom were Elrond and Cirdan. Isildur make his scroll
precisely to preserve an account of what happened, rather than just tell
(say) Meneldil.
I actually find it hard to believe that Faramir did guess that Isildur
took something from the hand of Sauron. What would have made him make
this guess?
> from the
> hand of the Unnamed, ere he went away from Gondor, never to be
> seen among mortal men again. Here I thought was the answer to
> Mithrandir's questioning.
It seems that Gandalf's questionings are what triggered Faramir's guess.
I would speculate that Faramir remembered something he had been taught
by Gandalf, which would explain why only Faramir made this connection.
> But it seemed then a matter that
> concerned only the seekers after ancient learning. Nor when the
> riddling words of our dream were debated among us, did I think of
> _Isildur's Bane_ as being this same thing.
And nearly everyone made this same mistake. They know that Sauron once
had something called the One Ring. They _don't_ know (except for the
Wise) that the Ring survived and was not destroyed. But even the Wise
don't know what happened after Isildur and his men were lost.
> For Isildur was
> ambushed and slain by orc-arrows, according to the only legend
> that we knew, and Mithrandir had never told me more.'"
>
> Strange, too, that no one else made that connection.
I think Faramir's explanation is a reasonable one.
>>> He knows that Isildur took something from Sauron's
>>> hand. How come he couldn't guess what Isildur's Bane is?
>> Maybe the bit where he says that the Ring was "thought to
>> have perished from the world"?
>
> Well, what else can one take from a hand? The Nailpolish of Doom?
> And from someone so intelligent as Faramir?
A sword? An axe? The magical glove? I admit that 'The One Ring' is the
obvious conclusion, but we surely have to accept Faramir at his word
when he says that he was misled by the thought that the One Ring had
perished from the world, and also misled by the name 'Isildur's Bane'.
Taemon
> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > The window on the West:
> >
> > "'But this much I learned, or guessed, and I have kept
> > it ever secret in my heart since: that Isildur took
> > somewhat
> 'somewhat' : Faramir does not know what this thing was.
But he already knew there was this One Ring! Which, of course, by
that time wasn't destroyed. How hard can it be?
> I actually find it hard to believe that Faramir did guess
> that Isildur took something from the hand of Sauron. What
> would have made him make this guess?
Good question. I have no idea. That is what I find so strange;
that he did know Isildur took something but didn't know what.
Seems to me those two are inseperable, if you take into account
when Isildur did this.
T.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> The window on the West:
>>>
>>> "'But this much I learned, or guessed, and I have kept
>>> it ever secret in my heart since: that Isildur took
>>> somewhat
>> 'somewhat' : Faramir does not know what this thing was.
>
> But he already knew there was this One Ring! Which, of course, by
> that time wasn't destroyed. How hard can it be?
How hard can it be to understand that Faramir did not know that the One
Ring had not been destroyed?
>> I actually find it hard to believe that Faramir did guess
>> that Isildur took something from the hand of Sauron. What
>> would have made him make this guess?
>
> Good question. I have no idea. That is what I find so strange;
> that he did know Isildur took something but didn't know what.
> Seems to me those two are inseperable, if you take into account
> when Isildur did this.
I don't think Faramir _knew_ that Isildur took something, he only
_suspected_ it. These suspicions appear to have been woken by something
that Gandalf said, but the suspicions were allayed by thoughts that the
One Ring was thought to have been destroyed. The suspicions were
reawoken when Faramir discovered that Boromir was dead and he found two
hobbits wandering in the glades of North Ithilien.
Öjevind Lång
news:KRcid.6232$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> > Good question. I have no idea. That is what I find so strange;
> > that he did know Isildur took something but didn't know what.
> > Seems to me those two are inseperable, if you take into account
> > when Isildur did this.
>
> I don't think Faramir _knew_ that Isildur took something, he only
> _suspected_ it. These suspicions appear to have been woken by something
> that Gandalf said, but the suspicions were allayed by thoughts that the
> One Ring was thought to have been destroyed. The suspicions were
> reawoken when Faramir discovered that Boromir was dead and he found two
> hobbits wandering in the glades of North Ithilien.
I think it was quite shrewd of Faramir to immediately make the connection
when Sam mentioned Sauron's Ring. It *is* worth to keep in mind that
everybody except the Wise thought that the One Ring had been destroyed, that
the meaning of the expression "Isildur's Bane" was unknown, that all that
was known of Isildur's death in Gondor is that he was killed by an orc-arrow
and that Isildur could have taken all manner of important things from
Sauron's hand. A sword would have been a natural assumption.
Öjevind
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> In alt.fan.tolkien Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>>>> "Gollum returned quietly and peered over Sam's shoulder.
>>>>> Looking at Frodo, he shut his eyes and crawled away without
>>>>> a sound."
>>>> I'd say this is likely because of a different reason -- he sees
>>>> Frodo lying there, very peacefully, and turns away.
>>> That's not a reason. You've only said what happens!
>> Did you never see somebody sleeping peacefully, say, a child, and
>> turned away silently, to not disturb him or her?
> Are you seriously suggesting that Gollum turns away to avoid disturbing
> Frodo?
Yes, among other things. Just picture the scene, say, in a theatre, in
a different context: A person walks up to another pair of persons,
one sleeping, one watching him. He looks over the shoulder of the
watching person, closes his eyes for a moment (as a sign that something
inside him has been touched), turns, and walks away, leaving them
in peace. It's perfectly natural human behaviour. Have you never
seen anything like this?
Picture a mother with her child, sleeping. A man walks up to them,
looks at the child, stops for a moment, turns, and walks silently away.
> The 'crawled away without a sound' bit on its own might mean that,
> but the 'shut his eyes' bit implies a need for Gollum to shut out
> what he is seeing,
No. It means that something has touched him inside, that he has to
think about something. It's like a prolonged blink. (I don't think
he crawls away with his eyes still closed, though probably if anyone
could, it would be Gollum :-)
> and in that context I think the crawling away is Gollum trying to
> get away from what he has seen:
No. If you want to get away from something badly, you run. You don't
crawl. Especially you don't crawl silently. And what was in this
scene that Gollum would need to get away from?
> hence an emotional reaction.
Certainly, but a very different one :-)
> The without a sound bit might still imply some compassion on
> Gollum's part in not wanting to disturb Frodo. I must admit I do like
> that idea now!
Good :-)
- Dirk
Taemon
> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > But he already knew there was this One Ring! Which, of
> > course, by that time wasn't destroyed. How hard can it
> > be?
> How hard can it be to understand that Faramir did not
> know that the One Ring had not been destroyed?
He knew it was't destroyed when Isildur took "something" from the
hand of Sauron. Faramir was a clever man and had all the data. If
he hadn't known Isildur took something, alright. But to know this
and still wonder what Isildur's Bane is sounds a little
far-fetched to me.
> I don't think Faramir _knew_ that Isildur took something,
> he only _suspected_ it.
He said "known, or suspected" so it isn't clear. He probably
didn't know for sure.
T.
Taemon
> It *is* worth to keep in mind that everybody except the Wise
> thought that the One Ring had been destroyed, that the
> meaning of the expression "Isildur's Bane" was unknown,
> that all that was known of Isildur's death in Gondor is
> that he was killed by an orc-arrow and that Isildur could
> have taken all manner of important things from Sauron's
> hand. A sword would have been a natural assumption.
Except that everybody knew there was this ring around at the time
and no mention of some Sword of Doom.
T.
Larry Swain
Taemon wrote:
>
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> > Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > > But he already knew there was this One Ring! Which, of
> > > course, by that time wasn't destroyed. How hard can it
> > > be?
> > How hard can it be to understand that Faramir did not
> > know that the One Ring had not been destroyed?
>
> He knew it was't destroyed when Isildur took "something" from the
> hand of Sauron. Faramir was a clever man and had all the data. If
> he hadn't known Isildur took something, alright. But to know this
> and still wonder what Isildur's Bane is sounds a little
> far-fetched to me.
Right, and he had the vision too remember, and undoubtedly spent
time in the archives trying to unravel it when Denethor was not
forthcoming--and probably aided or talked to Gandalf when
Gandalf was looking at the same records. Granted, few could
read those texts--but Boromir at the Council of Elrond isn't
surprised that the Ring is Isildur's Bane whereas he is
surprised about Halflings and the Sword that was Broken. I take
that to indicate that they knew what Isildur's Bane was the One
Ring, but didn't dare mention that....hence the euphemism.
Emma Pease
How do we know there was no mention of other tools that Sauron had?
We know tools were made such as the knives of the Nazgul and it is
possible that others existed and were written about but they have no
direct connection to this story's plot so don't get mentioned within
the LOTR.
Faramir probably picked up that Isildur had taken something from
Sauron's hand because of Gandalf's searches through the archives.
Gandalf knew what was taken was the ring and was looking for
information about it but probably asked for information about anything
Isildur did at the last battle (and probably only to Faramir whom he
trusted though not enough to explicitly mention the ring). Faramir
read between what Gandalf was saying and realized that Isildur had
taken something from Sauron. I think Faramir was aware of tools such
as the Nazgul knives and thought about them in regards to Isildur's
bane but didn't consider the one ring as a candidate because everyone
knew it was gone (see Boromir's reaction at the council).
The same goes for the palantir on the Dunedain side; why didn't the
White Council consider them? Probably because the Dunedain bought
many other things with them that were gifts of the Eldar or heirlooms
of Numenor and the palantir didn't seem to have any major significance
until Gandalf's head nearly got broken by one. The other items don't
play any role for the most part so don't get mentioned (exceptions
would be Narsil and the Ring of Barahir and the latter only gets
mentioned in the appendices).
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Faramir probably picked up that Isildur had taken something from
> Sauron's hand because of Gandalf's searches through the archives.
> Gandalf knew what was taken was the ring and was looking for
> information about it but probably asked for information about anything
> Isildur did at the last battle (and probably only to Faramir whom he
> trusted though not enough to explicitly mention the ring). Faramir
> read between what Gandalf was saying and realized that Isildur had
> taken something from Sauron.
This is exactly the impression I get as well.
> I think Faramir was aware of tools such
> as the Nazgul knives and thought about them in regards to Isildur's
> bane but didn't consider the one ring as a candidate because everyone
> knew it was gone (see Boromir's reaction at the council).
I agrere, but Larry is under the impression that Boromir was _not_
surprised at the One Ring being Isildur's Bane:
>Larry wrote:
>> Boromir at the Council of Elrond isn't
>> surprised that the Ring is Isildur's Bane whereas he is
>> surprised about Halflings and the Sword that was Broken. I take
>> that to indicate that they knew what Isildur's Bane was the One
>> Ring, but didn't dare mention that....hence the euphemism.
I beg to differ. Boromir said:
"I have heard of the Great Ring of him that we do not name; but we
believed that it perished from the world in the ruin of his first realm.
Isildur took it! That is tidings indeed."
Given this, why on ME would they call the Ring Isildur's Bane? That was
a term used exclusively by the Northern Dunedain, _not_ the Southern
Dunedain.
In fact, when Boromir recites the verse he heard in a dream (including
the phrase Isildur's Bane), he says: "Of these words we could understand
little..."
Later, Boromir sees Frodo brings out a Ring, at which moment Elrond
declares: "Behold Isildur's Bane". But later Boromir says this:
"Isildur's Bane is found, you say. I have seen a bright ring in the
Halfling's hand; but Isildur perished ere this age of the world began,
they say. How do the Wise know that this ring is his?"
Boromir is clearly _questioning_ whether Isildur's Bane should be
identified with the Ring. The motivation may be to cast doubt on
Aragorn's claim that he should return to Gondor (possibly to claim the
kingship), but it is quite clear that Boromir had no idea that Isildur's
Bane was another name for the One Ring.
> The same goes for the palantir on the Dunedain side; why didn't the
> White Council consider them? Probably because the Dunedain bought
> many other things with them that were gifts of the Eldar or heirlooms
> of Numenor and the palantir didn't seem to have any major significance
> until Gandalf's head nearly got broken by one. The other items don't
> play any role for the most part so don't get mentioned (exceptions
> would be Narsil and the Ring of Barahir and the latter only gets
> mentioned in the appendices).
This historical context is indeed important. You have to remember that
it is some 5000 years since the Ring was made, and over 3000 years since
it was lost. It is hardly surprising that Faramir and Boromir know
little of these matters. Like the Rohirrim, who see legendary beings,
and a man bearing a legendary sword, spring out of the grass, and
Denethor, who sees a Halfling bring a blade from the North and out of
the deep past.
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
> Boromir said:
> "I have heard of the Great Ring of him that we do not name; but we
> believed that it perished from the world in the ruin of his first realm.
> Isildur took it! That is tidings indeed."
> Given this, why on ME would they call the Ring Isildur's Bane? That was
> a term used exclusively by the Northern Dunedain, _not_ the Southern
> Dunedain.
Was that term used by anyone before Faramir and Boromir's
dream? For Gandalf, Aragorn and Elrond, knowing that the Ring
had been found and that the prophetic dream had to have some
significance, it was easy to conclude that Isildur's Bane was
the Ring. For Boromir, who didn't happen to know that Isildur
claimed the Ring, it was less obvious.
"X's Bane" can just mean "the thing that killed X", so
Boromir would have wondered if it meant an arrow, a particular
Orc, Isildur's pride or folly, Isildur's non-optimal swimming
ability, Anduin, or whatever. Or maybe the story they heard was
wrong, and Isildur was actually killed by some monster that had
lain asleep for many years after that, like that monster they
said was somewhere in Moria? Who knew?
--Jamie. (a Dover edition designed for years of use!)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
Christopher Kreuzer
>> Boromir said:
>> "I have heard of the Great Ring of him that we do not name; but we
>> believed that it perished from the world in the ruin of his first
>> realm. Isildur took it! That is tidings indeed."
>>
>> Given this, why on ME would they call the Ring Isildur's Bane? That
>> was a term used exclusively by the Northern Dunedain, _not_ the
>> Southern Dunedain.
>
> Was that term used by anyone before Faramir and Boromir's
> dream?
Yes, it was. Elrond and Aragorn say this at the Council of Elrond,
either side of Boromir mentioning it.
Elrond: "But soon he [Isildur] was betrayed by it to his death; and so
it is named in the North Isildur's Bane."
Then Boromir recites the verse he heard in the dream; Frodo reveals the
Ring; Elrond declares it is Isildur's Bane; and Aragorn says his bit.
Aragorn: "...for it was spoken of old among us that it [Narsil] should
be made again when the Ring, Isildur's Bane, was found."
Aragorn: "But now the world is changing once again. A new hour comes.
Isildur's Bane is found. Battle is at hand. The Sword shall be reforged.
I will come to Minas Tirith."
> For Gandalf, Aragorn and Elrond, knowing that the Ring
> had been found and that the prophetic dream had to have some
> significance, it was easy to conclude that Isildur's Bane was
> the Ring. For Boromir, who didn't happen to know that Isildur
> claimed the Ring, it was less obvious.
For Faramir and Boromir it was less obvious. I'm not so sure about
Denethor. He might have had some inkling, like Faramir.
Gandalf, Aragorn and Elrond called it Isildur's Bane based on
information that was gathered after the Disaster of the Gladden Fields
and handed down through the ages. Details are in the account in
Unfinished Tales.
I wonder what exactly was said in the messages that were sent south to
Gondor in those days (after Isildur's death). Obviously no mention was
made of the Ring, but equally obviously the heirs of Valandil _were_
told about the Ring and its history. Why was this withheld from Gondor?
Are we meant to believe that the two Dunedain kingdoms didn't
communicate or rather that Gondor lost this knowledge (the change in
languages maybe)?
<snip>
Shanahan
<snip>
> Gandalf, Aragorn and Elrond called it Isildur's Bane based on
> information that was gathered after the Disaster of the Gladden
> Fields and handed down through the ages. Details are in the
> account in Unfinished Tales.
This just made me wonder -- what if it was Elrond himself who first
named it Isildur's Bane? Wouldn't that be cool?
> I wonder what exactly was said in the messages that were sent
> south to Gondor in those days (after Isildur's death). Obviously
> no mention was made of the Ring, but equally obviously the heirs
> of Valandil _were_ told about the Ring and its history. Why was
> this withheld from Gondor? Are we meant to believe that the two
> Dunedain kingdoms didn't communicate or rather that Gondor lost
> this knowledge (the change in languages maybe)?
Interesting question. It seems to mark a certain level of distrust
between the two kingdoms, right from the beginning, if the knowledge
was deliberately withheld from Gondor. Maybe Elrond, who would be
making this decision at least until the heir was of age, assumed
that Gondor knew as much about the Ring than he did, since Isildur
had dwelt there with it for two years. Maybe the unnamed Queen of
Arnor made the decision, although I'm sure Elrond's advice would be
taken into account.
Elrond would have been quietly waiting for Isildur to either: come
to him with the Ring, frustrated at not being able to control it; or
to show signs of the Ring's corruption. He probably heaved a huge
sigh of relief when Isildur died, mourned the loss of a brave and
wise man, and resolved to think no more of the matter. Why speak to
Gondor about something which was lost?
Ciaran S.
--
"...giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy,
Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief."
- JRRT, On Fairy Stories
Christopher Kreuzer
> The impression I got was that the knowledge was forgotten
> in Gondor. Boromir says he didn't know Isildur claimed the
> Ring; yet it was in documents in Minas Tirith that Gandalf found
> Isildur's account of the Ring.
And Gandalf confirms that he thinks this knowledge was forgotten:
"And yet there lie in his [Denethor's] hoards many records that few now
can read, even of the lore-masters, for their scripts and tongues have
become dark to later men. And Boromir, there lies in Minas Tirith still,
unread, I guess, by any save Saruman and myself since the kings failed,
a scroll that Isildur made himself." (The Council of Elrond)
Gandalf seems to think that the failing of knowledge was linked to the
failing of the Kings. Maybe this implies that Meneldil and his heirs
_did_ know of the Ring and Isildur's scroll.
> I got the impression that
> because the Ring was lost and considered unfindable, most people
> forgot about it and forgot that it was a thing of such great
> power and malice. Hence they would not have ascribed Isildur's
> death to the Ring enough to have called it his bane. Elrond
> remembered, of course, and so the knowledge was kept alive
> amongst the Dunedain of the North.
That is _very_ convincing! Especially when you consider that the fall of
Arnor and the reduction of the nothern Dunedain to wandering Rangers
meant that there was even less communication between the North and the
South than before Arnor fell (however much communication there was even
then).
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Elrond would have been quietly waiting for Isildur to either: come
> to him with the Ring, frustrated at not being able to control it; or
> to show signs of the Ring's corruption. He probably heaved a huge
> sigh of relief when Isildur died, mourned the loss of a brave and
> wise man, and resolved to think no more of the matter. Why speak to
> Gondor about something which was lost?
Ah, but they had to tell Gondor that Isildur was dead. At that point we
might presume that Meneldil (if he had read Isildur's scroll) would ask
about the Ring. Isildur said in the scroll:
"The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom; but
records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also dwell the heirs of
Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of these great matters shall
grow dim."
I think the implication is that Isildur was writing for a time when both
North and South had forgotten about the Ring, and hence that Meneldil
knew about the Ring. Can we presume this?
[At last, a chance to do a new 'X and the Ring' thread!]
fred
> Gandalf seems to think that the failing of knowledge was linked to the
> failing of the Kings. Maybe this implies that Meneldil and his heirs
> _did_ know of the Ring and Isildur's scroll.
>
> > I got the impression that
> > because the Ring was lost and considered unfindable, most people
> > forgot about it and forgot that it was a thing of such great
> > power and malice. Hence they would not have ascribed Isildur's
> > death to the Ring enough to have called it his bane. Elrond
> > remembered, of course, and so the knowledge was kept alive
> > amongst the Dunedain of the North.
>
> That is _very_ convincing! Especially when you consider that the fall of
> Arnor and the reduction of the nothern Dunedain to wandering Rangers
> meant that there was even less communication between the North and the
> South than before Arnor fell (however much communication there was even
> then).
>
> Christopher
I have always thought (without much evidence) that there was some
communication via the palantiri in the days soon after Isildur's loss,
although it became less and less as time went on. Telling Meneldil of
Isildur's death via the stones would seem to be both easy and paramount.
There was nobody to listen in, except in Valinor. The master stone at
Osgiliath was supposed to communicate with all the others "in accord"
with it, too. Maybe Arvedui summoned aid via his palantir. But about the
same time that "the kings failed" in Gondor, Mordor got a stone and the
Gondorians stopped using theirs altogether until Denethor.
fred
--
Philip Bradwell
<pog...@NOTbluefrog.com> writes
[snip]
>Elrond would have been quietly waiting for Isildur to either: come
>to him with the Ring, frustrated at not being able to control it; or
>to show signs of the Ring's corruption. He probably heaved a huge
>sigh of relief when Isildur died, mourned the loss of a brave and
>wise man, and resolved to think no more of the matter. Why speak to
>Gondor about something which was lost?
Why would Elrond be looking for signs of the rings corruption? AFAIK the
corrupting powers of the ring were unknown at this point. The only
reason Elrond wanted the ring destroyed was because it would have meant
Saurons ultimate downfall. Surely if Elrond believed that the ring would
corrupt the bearer and turn him all icky he would have been adamant
about the One Rings destruction.
This brings up a couple of other questions:
Was it known at this point how the Nazgul were created? (i.e. corruption
from the One ring through the lesser rings?)
If the 'wise' were aware of this process did they think that with Sauron
defeated and the One Ring in the hands of a 'good' man that this
corruption and possession of the Nazgul would stop?
When was the One Rings first corrupting influence realised? When Gollum
was captured and tortured? Did anyone even think this kind of thing
could happen? Did even Sauron know this was going to happen? (not that
he planned to lose the Ring in the first place!)
I can't recall which of the elves remaining in middle-earth at this time
would be most versed in ring-lore. Galadriel Elrond Cirdan? Someone
else?
Hope people can shed light on these Q's, and I apologise if these topics
have been brought up before - am only recently returned to usenet after
a 4 year long break. Thanks
--
Wafer
Shanahan
> Shanahan <pog...@NOTbluefrog.com> writes
> [snip]
>
>> Elrond would have been quietly waiting for Isildur to either:
>> come to him with the Ring, frustrated at not being able to
>> control it; or to show signs of the Ring's corruption. He
>> probably heaved a huge sigh of relief when Isildur died, mourned
>> the loss of a brave and wise man, and resolved to think no more
>> of the matter. Why speak to Gondor about something which was
>> lost?
>
> Why would Elrond be looking for signs of the rings corruption?
Well, it had been made expressly for power and control by Sauron the
Dark Lord and Enemy of Elves and Men...it probably didn't just
decorate one's finger! <g>
> When was the One Rings first corrupting influence realised? When
> Gollum was captured and tortured? Did anyone even think this kind
Well before Gollum's emergence. Gandalf's talk with Frodo in Ch.2
indicates a pretty good knowledge of all the rings' effects. For
example, he says that even the lesser rings "were, to my mind,
dangerous to mortals".
There was a long wrangle on these ngs just a short while ago, about
Isildur and Gollum and when the Ring's influence began, etc. etc.
Take a look at the Chapter of the Week thread on "The Window on the
West" chapter, or the "Frodo and the Ring" thread back in
September/October. Have fun!
-- Ciaran S.
Shanahan
>
> <snip>
>
>> Elrond would have been quietly waiting for Isildur to either:
>> come to him with the Ring, frustrated at not being able to
>> control it; or to show signs of the Ring's corruption. He
>> probably heaved a huge sigh of relief when Isildur died, mourned
>> the loss of a brave and wise man, and resolved to think no more
>> of the matter. Why speak to Gondor about something which was
>> lost?
>
> Ah, but they had to tell Gondor that Isildur was dead. At that
> point we might presume that Meneldil (if he had read Isildur's
> scroll) would ask about the Ring. Isildur said in the scroll:
> "The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North
> Kingdom; but records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also
> dwell the heirs of Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of
> these great matters shall grow dim."
> I think the implication is that Isildur was writing for a time
> when both North and South had forgotten about the Ring, and hence
> that Meneldil knew about the Ring. Can we presume this?
I'd say the wording indicates that Isildur is writing for a time
when Gondor, specifically, might have forgotten. Whether or not
Meneldil had read the scroll is another matter. I don't recall any
evidence from anywhere about this, so we'd just be guessing. The
questions to be asked seem to be: a) did Meneldil or anyone else
ever read the scroll; b) did Elrond and the Heirs to the North
Kingdom assume that the scroll had been read and known among the
King's House in Gondor. Beats the heck out of me! ;)
-- Ciaran S.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Isildur said in [his] scroll:
>> "The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North
>> Kingdom; but records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also
>> dwell the heirs of Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of
>> these great matters shall grow dim."
>> I think the implication is that Isildur was writing for a time
>> when both North and South had forgotten about the Ring, and hence
>> that Meneldil knew about the Ring. Can we presume this?
>
> I'd say the wording indicates that Isildur is writing for a time
> when Gondor, specifically, might have forgotten. Whether or not
> Meneldil had read the scroll is another matter. I don't recall any
> evidence from anywhere about this, so we'd just be guessing. The
> questions to be asked seem to be: a) did Meneldil or anyone else
> ever read the scroll?
I think Gandalf's comment "unread, I guess, by any [...] since the kings
failed", implies that he thinks that the Kings might have read the
scroll, but not the Stewards. When the Kings failed (or the line shifted
to a different branch) a lot of the "father to son" stuff must have been
lost, though it is interesting to note that the Stewards (or at least
Cirion) were aware of the significance of the hill where the oath of
Eorl was sworn.
> b) did Elrond and the Heirs to the North
> Kingdom assume that the scroll had been read and known among the
> King's House in Gondor?
I would say probably. Over the millennia though, both North and South
became preoccupied with their day-to-day problems and (among mortals) I
guess the Ring faded out of memory, except for a longheld prophecy in
the North that Narsil would be reforged when Isildur's Bane was found;
and the legends and stories surrounding the beginnings of the
Kingdoms-in-Exile, and Elendil, Isildur, Anarion, and Numenor, would be
long-remembered in both kingdoms as part of ancient lore.
The key factor in the North would have been the lore of Elrond and the
storied knowledge contained in the books of Rivendell. If there was some
language there that you couldn't understand, you'd go and ask Elrond,
the greatest of lore-masters!
Philip Bradwell
<pog...@NOTbluefrog.com> writes
>Philip Bradwell <phi...@bradwell4.demon.co.uk> typed sincerely:
>> Shanahan <pog...@NOTbluefrog.com> writes
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Elrond would have been quietly waiting for Isildur to either:
>>> come to him with the Ring, frustrated at not being able to
>>> control it; or to show signs of the Ring's corruption. He
>>> probably heaved a huge sigh of relief when Isildur died, mourned
>>> the loss of a brave and wise man, and resolved to think no more
>>> of the matter. Why speak to Gondor about something which was
>>> lost?
>>
>> Why would Elrond be looking for signs of the rings corruption?
>
>Well, it had been made expressly for power and control by Sauron the
>Dark Lord and Enemy of Elves and Men...it probably didn't just
>decorate one's finger! <g>
I accept that but it is another thing to suggest that the very act of
wearing it would corrupt you. That capability was 'built in' to the nine
rings but I can't imagine Sauron building it into the One Ring on the
off chance he would lose it.
Sauron created the ring to give himself more power, thus implicitly
giving anyone wearing it more power. It does not follow that bearing the
ring would turn you evil. (Excusing the fact that power by its very
nature corrupts.)
>
>> When was the One Rings first corrupting influence realised? When
>> Gollum was captured and tortured? Did anyone even think this kind
>
>Well before Gollum's emergence. Gandalf's talk with Frodo in Ch.2
>indicates a pretty good knowledge of all the rings' effects. For
>example, he says that even the lesser rings "were, to my mind,
>dangerous to mortals".
>
>There was a long wrangle on these ngs just a short while ago, about
>Isildur and Gollum and when the Ring's influence began, etc. etc.
>Take a look at the Chapter of the Week thread on "The Window on the
>West" chapter, or the "Frodo and the Ring" thread back in
>September/October. Have fun!
>
>-- Ciaran S.
>
Thanks I will check those out. Another excuse to waste time :-)
--
Wafer
AC
> I think it was quite shrewd of Faramir to immediately make the connection
> when Sam mentioned Sauron's Ring. It *is* worth to keep in mind that
> everybody except the Wise thought that the One Ring had been destroyed, that
> the meaning of the expression "Isildur's Bane" was unknown, that all that
> was known of Isildur's death in Gondor is that he was killed by an orc-arrow
> and that Isildur could have taken all manner of important things from
> Sauron's hand. A sword would have been a natural assumption.
I wonder. Could Denethor have known? He seems like the kind of guy
that would have poked around the ancient archives looking for
information on Sauron.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
Shanahan
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>> I think it was quite shrewd of Faramir to immediately make the
>> connection when Sam mentioned Sauron's Ring. It *is* worth to
>> keep in mind that everybody except the Wise thought that the One
>> Ring had been destroyed, that the meaning of the expression
>> "Isildur's Bane" was unknown, that all that was known of
>> Isildur's death in Gondor is that he was killed by an orc-arrow
>> and that Isildur could have taken all manner of important things
>> from Sauron's hand. A sword would have been a natural
>> assumption.
>
> I wonder. Could Denethor have known? He seems like the kind of
> guy that would have poked around the ancient archives looking for
> information on Sauron.
I'll bet he did. He says something like that to Gandalf, I think,
to the effect that *he* can read ancient scripts and tongues, too.
I'll bet he made sure he knew exactly what manuscripts Saruman and
Gandalf were interested in, too. He'd just have to have a librarian
report what their researches were. Denethor thinks politically --
he knows that information is power.
Ciaran S.
--
He wears sorrow as others wear velvet.
Tears become him like jewels.
Shanahan
> Shanahan <pog...@NOTbluefrog.com> wrote:
>> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Isildur said in [his] scroll:
>>> "The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North
>>> Kingdom; but records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also
>>> dwell the heirs of Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of
>>> these great matters shall grow dim."
>>> I think the implication is that Isildur was writing for a time
>>> when both North and South had forgotten about the Ring, and
>>> hence that Meneldil knew about the Ring. Can we presume this?
>>
>> I'd say the wording indicates that Isildur is writing for a time
>> when Gondor, specifically, might have forgotten. Whether or not
>> Meneldil had read the scroll is another matter. I don't recall
>> any evidence from anywhere about this, so we'd just be guessing.
>> The questions to be asked seem to be: a) did Meneldil or anyone
>> else ever read the scroll?
>
> I think Gandalf's comment "unread, I guess, by any [...] since
> the kings failed", implies that he thinks that the Kings might
> have read the scroll, but not the Stewards. When the Kings failed
> (or the line shifted to a different branch) a lot of the "father
> to son" stuff must have been lost, though it is interesting to
> note that the Stewards (or at least Cirion) were aware of the
> significance of the hill where the oath of Eorl was sworn.
Yes, I'd agree with that. I'd expect that a lot of knowledge was
lost during the plague and the Kin-Strife (it surprised me to read
that these were responsible for Osgiliath's state of ruin; when
reading the story, I'd assumed it was ruined by battle with Mordor).
So Meneldil might have read Isildur's scroll. Would Isildur have
shared this knowledge with his nephew, or would he have kept the
Ring hidden, and left the scroll in the archives as a kind of salve
to his conscience for taking and keeping the Ring? I guess it
depends on how much of a hold one thinks the Ring had on him then.
We see the impulse to secrecy and possessiveness beginning
immediately with Bilbo. OTOH, Isildur does leave for Imladris fully
intending to let Elrond have the Ring (although who knows what would
have happened if he had actually gotten to the sticking-point of
doing that). I'm not sure what I think.
>> b) did Elrond and the Heirs to the North
>> Kingdom assume that the scroll had been read and known among the
>> King's House in Gondor?
>
> I would say probably. Over the millennia though, both North and
> South became preoccupied with their day-to-day problems and
> (among mortals) I guess the Ring faded out of memory, except for
> a longheld prophecy in the North that Narsil would be reforged
> when Isildur's Bane was found <snip>
True. So to go way back to the initial question, (did Arnor
deliberately withhold knowledge of the Ring from Gondor after
Isildur's death), what have we got? We've got Meneldil, who may or
may not know about the Ring (I tend to think he did), ruling Gondor.
We've got a youthful king and perhaps a Queen-Regent ruling Arnor,
no doubt with the help of a council; the Queen and Valandil are both
dwelling in Imladris, so Elrond probably has a heavy say at council,
as well. They probably think that Meneldil knows about the Ring.
Communications are either by rider, or by palantir through Arnor's
council, since the Queen-Regent is in Imladris. We have no idea
what those communications were, really, but it they had concerned
the Ring, Tolkien probably would have mentioned them.
Why did neither side say anything about the Ring? I think Elrond
would have been making the primary decisions, and I think he wanted
to let sleeping dogs (or drowned evil rings) lie. If Meneldil
doesn't ask, Elrond would just be grateful, and pray the damned
thing never shows up again. Why didn't Meneldil ask? I think maybe
he knew about the Ring, but didn't quite trust Elrond. He surely
knew that Elrond had seen Isildur take the Ring. Isildur may have
told him that Elrond had wanted it destroyed. And Meneldil has been
watching Isildur during the past two years; he has seen how the Ring
tormented him at first, yet Isildur would not give it up. He has
seen Isildur's attempts to control or 'wield' the Ring, perhaps, and
how they failed. These attempts must have made a change in Isildur,
which Meneldil would have observed. And finally, he might have
known Isildur's intent to give up this uncontrollable power to
Elrond. So Meneldil might have assumed that the Ring had gone with
Ohtar and the shards of Narsil, to Elrond, who he at least trusted
to destroy the evil thing.
Or maybe Elrond just sent a message saying "Ring lost in River
Anduin with the Elendilmir", and Meneldil figured it was just as
well, being hip to some of the Ring's evil effects on his uncle, and
shrugged it off.
> The key factor in the North would have been the lore of Elrond
> and the storied knowledge contained in the books of Rivendell. If
> there was some language there that you couldn't understand, you'd
> go and ask Elrond, the greatest of lore-masters!
I still think it would be v. cool if it was Elrond who named the
Ring 'Isildur's Bane'.
Ciaran S.
--
God invented whiskey to keep the Irish from conquering the world.
Christopher Kreuzer
> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> declared:
>> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>>> I think it was quite shrewd of Faramir to immediately make the
>>> connection when Sam mentioned Sauron's Ring.
<snip>
>> I wonder. Could Denethor have known? He seems like the kind of
>> guy that would have poked around the ancient archives looking for
>> information on Sauron.
>
> I'll bet he did. He says something like that to Gandalf, I think,
> to the effect that *he* can read ancient scripts and tongues, too.
<snip>
So why didn't he tell Faramir and Boromir?