Aragorn and spellcasting

[fusangite]

I notice that after two exchanges, you guys are still refusing to address why Tolkien went to the trouble of naming the plant kingsfoil. I'll deal with your other points if you can come up with an explanation for why Tolkien went to the trouble of naming the plant in this way.

 

[Desdichado]

Quite simple. It was associated with the Numenoreans. The Numenoreans were the kings. Very frequently in the Lord of the Rings and even moreso in the more "apocryphal" works, the kings and the Numenoreans were terms used interchangeably. Especially by those of other "native" Middle-earth race, such as the men of Bree, or some of the "aboriginal" men of Eriador and Gondor. In the Shire and at Bree both, several times in the first book, the kings is used synomously with simply the Dunedain. Hell, even Aragorn is called, by Bilbo, simply the Dunedan (emphasis Bilbo's, not mine.) Because to Tolkien, the king and his people were one; neither complete without the other. That's a very transparent theme of his work. Again, all of this from the basic texts of the main novels.

Really, fusangite; refusing to address any other points until I answer a pretty simple (and, I believe, fundamentally irrelevent) question like that? Either address the points I bring up (if you can) or don't, but don't play games. Especially when I've already specifically addressed the fact that Aragorn claims that it grew where the Numenoreans had lived or camped.

You come across as if you're stalling, or promoting a single (dubious) argument to focus attention away from all of the others. That doesn't seem to be your style, but I can't account for your post otherwise. But it's stretching it to say, "hey, the name of the plant is kingsfoil, so it has magical powers that only the king can use" when nothing else in the book seems to indicate that.

 

[fusangite]

Joshua,

I think we have a fundamentally different way of reading literature. You seem to read pieces of literature as though they are historical documents.

Let me illustrate:
1. The hands of the king are the hands of a healer.
You argue that the probable meaning of this is that at some point in the story, Aragorn will heal someone. I argue that, in addition to your interpretation being true, its meaning is that the hands of the king are hand of a healer.
2. Kingsfoil, the plant's name
You argue that the probable meaning of this is that because athelas is associated with the Numenoreans and because the great kings were Numenoreans, the name simply indicates that the plant is associated with Numenor. I argue, in addition to your interepretation being true, that the name indicates that the plant has special power in the hands of the king.
3. The Houses of Healing
You argue that Aragorn must enter the Houses of Healing to cure Merry and Faramir of their sorcerously inflicted wounds because to do so fulfills the prophecy that the hands of the king are the hands of a healer. I argue, in addition to your interpretation being true, that circumstances require that Aragorn fulfill the prophecy at this particular moment in this particular way because only he can use athelas to heal.
4. Medieval Kingship
You argue that the fact that medievals believed that a true king could demonstrate his lordship by healing with the laying on of hands does not pertain to Lord of the Rings. I argue that the book is suffused with a medieval worldview, with copious use of medieval literary tropes such as Boromir's horn bursting in the same way that Roland's did.

Let me address these four basic arguments first. In my view, when one reads a work of literature, the language and symbols used by an author are important. Unlike an historical document, words are not affixed to a set of observed events. Rather, the words are generated contemporaneously with the events themselves. This means that when one reads a skilled author like Tolkien, one should assume that he is taking words seriously and employing them precisely. Similarly, one should assume that if a book already contains specific references to a particular time, place or situation, that other apparent references are not coincidental.

I believe that Tolkien is deliberate and not haphazard in his language. If there exist two possible interpretations of a set of passages, one of which shows the author to be deliberate and precise and the other of which shows him to be haphazard in his use of words, I will choose the one that shows Tolkien to be communicating in the most consistent and sophisticated way.

The reason I waited for you to respond to the question of the plant's name was because I wanted to make this argument very strongly in this particular instance. Given everything you know about Tolkien, what would make you think that an interpretation in which "king" means "Numenorean" is preferable to one in which "king" means "king"?

Ask yourself, does my interpretation of what is going on produce a single inconsistency in the story? No. Does my interpretation invalidate any of the things you believe to be true about the story? No. Given that, you need to ask yourself why a medievalist writing a work of literature containing a series of tests in which a figure of Arthur or Charlemagne or some other great medieval king would unconsciously/accidentally write implying that the king healed by laying on hands without meaning it.

I think you're being a little deliberately obtuse here. It reminds me of arguing with my stepmother whose favourite phrase used to be "not necessarily." If LOTR were an historical document, your approach would make sense. But it's not. LOTR is a precise literary work in which every word is carefully chosen.

Really, fusangite; refusing to address any other points until I answer a pretty simple (and, I believe, fundamentally irrelevent) question like that?

This is why I'm highly unlikely to continue this debate. If you can view the name an author gives a plant he invents in the way that you do, I don't think we really sufficient interpretive common ground to discuss how meaning arises from a literary text.

Either address the points I bring up (if you can) or don't, but don't play games.

Well, I wasn't going to address these other points you raised but now I suppose I have to out of a sense of internet forum pride.

But when else in the books does knowledge, by itself, allow Aragorn to perform a physical action of which others are incapable?

This is similar to when he uses the palantir successfully, which even Gandalf wouldn't do. It was his right; he was the heir, so he could do it. He certainly didn't have more power than Gandalf, but he had the right and the mantle of kingship, so he did it.

How are you even arguing against me here? I asked for an example of Aragorn being able to do something solely because of superior knowledge and you proceed to tell me about Aragorn doing something special because of his identity as king. That's myargument.

Could someone else have done it? Don't know.

Yes we do. Even Pippin saw things in the Palantir without even knowing what the stone was.

Anyway, I think the value and use of knowledge as a marker of nobility is clearly established in Tolkien.

But I'm not arguing that it is not. I'm simply arguing that if a direct, literal interpretaion of the text can be made, without invalidating a single belief we share about the general nature of said text, that such an interpretation is going to be correct. I'm not even factoring knowledge out of Aragorn's healing -- he knows the ancient lore about athelas and therefore knows that while it is just an aromatic weed in everyone else's hands, in his (because he is the true king), it can heal sorcerously inflicted wounds.

In fact, IIRC, Elrond and Glorfindel both referred to its use in regards to Frodo as well, and clearly neither of them were kings.

So, what does this tell you about Aragorn having to enter the city before the appointed time? Clearly others know about Athelas, including Gandalf but Aragorn must enter the city in secret. You argue that this is because Aragorn must fulfill the prophecy and that personally entering the city is the only way to do that. But this would only make sense if this "prophecy" referred to when, how or whom the king would heal. But it did not; so, given that the Palantir only sees geographically far off (as opposed to temporily far off) things, why would Aragorn think that this was the moment that he had to physically heal someone and not at some future battle? You see if the property of healing with athelas inheres in Aragorn, rather than just in the plant, this question is answered.

In fact, there is no clear connection of athelas with the king per se other than it's common name of kingsfoil. That combined with Tolkien's own beliefs in the sanctity of kingship, and his penchant for identifying the king as a living personification of the nation he leads, doesn't lead me to believe that kingsfoil is to be interpreted as something only the kings could use.

Even discounting the name of the plant, doesn't the evidence that you never see anyone but Aragorn heal with the plant suggest something pretty clearly here? Remember -- this is a work of literature not history.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with Aragorn's use of athelas and everything to do with his fulfilling of prophecy.

What is a more elegant way to fulfill a prophecy? When a prophesied event takes place because someone goes "oh I'm in a prophecy and therefore have to do this" or, as in the case of the paths of the dead and every other significant prophetic fulfilment in the novel, "I have no choice but to do this because no other option will allow us to succeed"? The fulfilment of prophecy in the literary traditions that inspired Tolkien, (e.g. the role of fate in the Eddas) clearly indicates that prophecy is fulfilled by necessity not be conscious choice.

For one thing, he had to diagnose the problem first, and then if you recall, he had to go on a massive search for athelas. The Gondorians didn't even keep any, not valuing the plant at all.

Right. And in my model, they have stopped keeping the plant around because there is no king to use it. And yes, I'll happily concede that their knowledge of the plant has also waned during the era of the stewards, along with various other things.

this one was simply a more public fulfillment that served to signal to all the Gondorians that he was the true king.

But it wasn't. Aragorn entered in secret. Ioreth was asked to keep the healing secret. So I just don't buy that Aragorn is using this episode to publicly prove he's the true king when he enters the city icognito entirely because he doesn't wish to lay claim to it yet.

But these arguments are mere nitpicking. My main point, and I don't want to lose sight of it, is this: would Tolkien have referenced ideas about medieval kingship unintentionally, imprecisely or haphazardly? Would Tolkien have used the word "hand" to mean "knowledge" when the text makes more sense of it actually means "hand"? Would Tolkien have used the word "king" to mean "Numenorean" when the text makes more sense of it actually means "king"? If you can answer "yes" to any of these questions, I simply don't think we have sufficient common ground to continue this argument.

 

[hong]

Let me address these four basic arguments first. In my view, when one reads a work of literature, the language and symbols used by an author are important. Unlike an historical document, words are not affixed to a set of observed events. Rather, the words are generated contemporaneously with the events themselves.

 

[Desdichado]

I think we have a fundamentally different way of reading literature. You seem to read pieces of literature as though they are historical documents.

Rather, I'd say you extract, and even invent symbolism that the author has never indicated that he intended. I take what I read more at face value and don't try to make it say things that it does not.

You argue that the fact that medievals believed that a true king could demonstrate his lordship by healing with the laying on of hands does not pertain to Lord of the Rings. I argue that the book is suffused with a medieval worldview, with copious use of medieval literary tropes such as Boromir's horn bursting in the same way that Roland's did.

No, it really isn't. Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, and in fact invented Middle-earth, specifically to reflect a pre-Medieval, or at least very early Medieval worldview that resembles very little the Medieval worldview you are trying to assign to it. It was designed to represent the heroic worldview of Beowulf, or the Eddas. Extracting a "Lives of the Medieval Saints" interpretation of Aragorn is, IMO, ridiculous, because it is completely inconsistent with everything else Tolkien wrote in the Lord of the Rings or about it. It's a completely different genre, that Tolkien had little interest in. If you want Medieval fantasy, read William Morris, not Tolkien.

Let me address these four basic arguments first. In my view, when one reads a work of literature, the language and symbols used by an author are important. Unlike an historical document, words are not affixed to a set of observed events. Rather, the words are generated contemporaneously with the events themselves. This means that when one reads a skilled author like Tolkien, one should assume that he is taking words seriously and employing them precisely. Similarly, one should assume that if a book already contains specific references to a particular time, place or situation, that other apparent references are not coincidental.

Quite right. Which is why I reject your interpretation of Aragorn as a "lay on hands" type of healer, or athelas being some special plant only he could use. Those are not symbols Tolkien used, are inconsistent with the worldview presented in the Tolkiens work, and are anachronous to the time period and literature to which Tolkien looked for inspiration. If you're going to construct a careful interpretation of what an author means symbolically and as a "subtext" between the lines, be more careful with your designation. Tolkien was not a Medievalist, and he had little interest in the "classic Medieval" period or literature, being much more a lover of the "Heroic" period preceding it, which had quite different views on the world. It's entirely possible (in fact, Tom Shippey makes this specific argument in The Road to Middle Earth and J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century that Tolkien was trying to reconstruct the pseudo-mythological work of literature that we just barely couldn't quite see; it was just beyond sight, hiding subtlely in Beowulf (which was a late Christianization of an earlier pagan story) or the various other works which he studied. The mythological past was mentioned tantalizingly, and then discounted and covered up by writers who didn't want to be associated with it.

Tolkien was a philologist first and foremost, and in fact considered himself "the last of the philologists" as he understood the term. Folks like Rasmus Rask, the Grimm brothers and others were the classic philologists; they were linguists, but they believed that entire cultures and worldviews could be reconstructed via linguistics, and in many ways that's what Tolkien's work was about; reconstructing the lost Old English folklore and mythology, and making it concurrently compatible with his own Catholic worldview was what he was all about.

Your insistence that Tolkien was a medievalist, or that he often used, or was even particularly interested in medieval "tropes" (BTW, your consistent misuse of the word trope is a pet peeve of mine, although irrelevent to this discussion) is flat-out incorrect.

I believe that Tolkien is deliberate and not haphazard in his language. If there exist two possible interpretations of a set of passages, one of which shows the author to be deliberate and precise and the other of which shows him to be haphazard in his use of words, I will choose the one that shows Tolkien to be communicating in the most consistent and sophisticated way.

Quite right. Which is why kingsfoil is such an interesting word. It is not a translation of the elvish name athelas, but a common word used by the common people to refer to the plant. The reason they did so was because it was associated with the Numenoreans, and to the common people, the Numenoreans were "the kings." This was precisely the kind of linguistic word game that Tolkien loved, and he used many times. But that's just it; he loved creating these phony etymologies for invented words, not use words as symbolism. There's a big difference, and he was actually much more inclined to do the former than the latter. He had, naturally, a professional interest in doing so, and a professional interest in avoiding the latter, as it was a literary convention and throughout his professional life he had to deal with bitter rivalry between the linguistic and literature aspects of the English department at Exeter.

The reason I waited for you to respond to the question of the plant's name was because I wanted to make this argument very strongly in this particular instance. Given everything you know about Tolkien, what would make you think that an interpretation in which "king" means "Numenorean" is preferable to one in which "king" means "king"?

As stated above. Everything I know about Tolkien, what he liked, what he did, and what was going on around him outside of the writing of the Lord of the Rings itself suggests to me that you are putting a much greater symbolic burden on kingsfoil than it was ever intended to bear.

Ask yourself, does my interpretation of what is going on produce a single inconsistency in the story? No.

Only in the sense that it becomes a very singular moment with no other analogs anywhere in the work. Given that, I'd be very surprised that he could possibly have meant it as you claim without it being a good deal clearer.

Does my interpretation invalidate any of the things you believe to be true about the story? No. Given that, you need to ask yourself why a medievalist writing a work of literature containing a series of tests in which a figure of Arthur or Charlemagne or some other great medieval king would unconsciously/accidentally write implying that the king healed by laying on hands without meaning it.

As I said, Tolkien was no medievalist. And I don't think that implication is really there; it never occured to me even until you brought it up. And now that you have, I still see no compelling reason to accept it.

 

[billd91]

3. The Houses of Healing
You argue that Aragorn must enter the Houses of Healing to cure Merry and Faramir of their sorcerously inflicted wounds because to do so fulfills the prophecy that the hands of the king are the hands of a healer. I argue, in addition to your interpretation being true, that circumstances require that Aragorn fulfill the prophecy at this particular moment in this particular way because only he can use athelas to heal.
4. Medieval Kingship
You argue that the fact that medievals believed that a true king could demonstrate his lordship by healing with the laying on of hands does not pertain to Lord of the Rings. I argue that the book is suffused with a medieval worldview, with copious use of medieval literary tropes such as Boromir's horn bursting in the same way that Roland's did.

It's actually Theoden's horn that bursts. Boromir's is found cloven when he is found by Aragorn after fighting with the orcs. But I don't think the symbolism of Roland and Theoden are the same at all. Sure, both are on their way to death, but under totally different circumstances: one after his pride makes it too late to benefit from the summoned help, and one as he shrugs off the enervation of age and despair to meet his fate riding to aid his ally. There's a very strong psychological difference in cases.
I think Aragorn has to be the one to heal the characters suffering from the Nazgul ailments because he is the one who actually knows how to treat them. Remember that it's a big deal in the early part of the triology that the Nine are abroad, implying that they don't get out all that much. Knowledge of how to treat the Black Breath and all that is probably pretty weak in Gondor in the later days of the 3rd Age. It's obviously still well known in Rivendell, where Aragorn was raised or Frodo would have been lost early. That is certianly a likely source for Aragorn's knowledge and skill with healing. Notice also that athelas, AKA kingsfoil, is used to foil the ailments of the Nazgul, all previously kings of men.

Ask yourself, does my interpretation of what is going on produce a single inconsistency in the story? No. Does my interpretation invalidate any of the things you believe to be true about the story? No. Given that, you need to ask yourself why a medievalist writing a work of literature containing a series of tests in which a figure of Arthur or Charlemagne or some other great medieval king would unconsciously/accidentally write implying that the king healed by laying on hands without meaning it.

Does it produce inconsistency? Not any more than our interpretations do, but I think you're putting too much work into it and seeing things that aren't intentionally there. Especially since the Aragorn character exists in earlier drafts as a hobbit named "Trotter". And even though there were quite a few rewrites and the character changes considerably, I think your belief in the Professor's precision with symbology is a bit over-stated.

Clearly others know about Athelas, including Gandalf but Aragorn must enter the city in secret.

But we don't really know if Gandalf or any of the others on-hand have any skill with healing. Gandalf knows a lot of stuff, but it's also clear from the books that he can't do everything under the sun. In this case, the hands of the king being the hands of a healer may also indicate a fundamental aspect of Aragorn's character that was part of the prophecy... he's particularly a man of compassion as well as war. You have yet to undermine that argument in any of your interpretations.

Even discounting the name of the plant, doesn't the evidence that you never see anyone but Aragorn heal with the plant suggest something pretty clearly here?

Actually, I think we can say there's insufficient data to support your claim. We don't see ANYONE other than Aragorn doing any healing. We hear that Elrond heals Frodo, but we don't see how he does it. We don't have enough information to say that the healing power of athelas inires with Aragorn at all. All we really know is that old Gondorian wives tales have good things to say about it and the 'knowledgeable' doctors have no idea about it's uses.
Why wouldn't you say that the Professor was just making a comment about the germs of truth inherent in folk remedies in contrast with sterile, scientific medical knowledge?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Actually, that's not quite true. They were not of roughly equal power, and Sauron had more native power than just about any of the other Maia. Maia came in all sorts of power grades, and it's apparent that Gandalf was roughly equivalent to the Balrog. Tolkien claimed that the Balrogs were much lesser in power than Sauron.

I seem to remember Gandalf's Maia name being mentioned in The Silmarillion as a Maia of surpassing power. But perhaps I'm misremembering. It's been a while.

 

[Desdichado]

I seem to remember Gandalf's Maia name being mentioned in The Silmarillion as a Maia of surpassing power. But perhaps I'm misremembering. It's been a while.

I don't remember what Olorin means off the top of my head. I think you're thinking of that essay in Unfinished Tales called "Of the Istari" where he is described as somewhat weak, actually, and not self-confident, but wise, far-sighted, compassionate and Manwe's favorite.

They don't make any reference to him being of "surpassing power" though. And there wouldn't be any references to him in the Silmarillion at all except perhaps in the "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" essay, which I haven't read in a long time. I should probably break that out and read it again.

 

[Steverooo]

A few points to consider:

1. Gandalf is a Maia; in other words, he is a lesser God existing in a human form through hypostasis. To argue that human beings can cast D&D-style spells in Middle Earth because lesser deities/angels can is simply not on. Saruman, Radagast, Gandalf, the two Blue Wizards, Bombadil and a handful of others in the world are all or part-Maia. Their magical properties, I would argue, come principally from the fact that they are immortal divinities.

And need I point out to you the Appendices in the back of Book III?

Melian The Maia wed King Thingol Sindacollo (Greycloak), whose daughter was Luthien Tinuviel (Twilight), of whom many said Arwyn Undomiel was a reincarnation. Luthien (after his many trials) married Beren Camlost (One-hand), mixing the races of Maiar, Elves, and Men. Their descendants, again, mixed Elves & Men (Idril & Tuor? Earendil & Elwing?). Of the line of Melian the Maia, of which it was foretold that it should never end, came Elrond and his brother Elros, as well as his daughter Arwyn...

Thus, we have the "problem" of the Peredhil (Half-Elven) in Middengard (Middle Earth). Thus the big deal made in the LotR movie about Arwyn's choice... But let's back up, a bit, and look at her uncle...

Y'see, the Valar (Tolkien's top-level angels) ruled that there could be NO HALF-ELVES. They had to CHOOSE whether to suffer the fate of Men, or Elves. Elrond chose to be an Elf. His brother, Elros (Tar-Minyatur) chose to be a MAN, and became the FIRST KING OF NUMENOR! Arwyn, eventually, chose to become a mortal woman, and eventually died, after Aragorn's passing...

Thus, ALL Numenoreans had the blood of the Maiar flowing through their veins. They were Men, yes, and did not get to choose, but they still had the blood of Maiar and Elves flowing through their veins, to greater or lesser extent.

Hence, your arguement that only the Maiar can cast spells actually supports the idea that Aragorn can. Arwyn certainly did, as did Elrond, Elros, and even Faramir (although, in true Anglo-Saxon fashion, he calls them "Virtues").

Now like it or not, the Ranger is based on Aragorn, and like it or not, a case can most certainly be made for Aragorn casting spells... If you want a Spell-less Ranger, use the Barbarian!

 

[Desdichado]

Now like it or not, the Ranger is based on Aragorn, and like it or not, a case can most certainly be made for Aragorn casting spells... If you want a Spell-less Ranger, use the Barbarian!

First off, have you counted the generations between Melian and Aragorn? If you're honestly trying to say that Aragorn can cast spells as a Maia because he is one, I'm going to have to call that the biggest baloney theory on Tolkien I've ever heard.

As to the part of your post that I quoted, I have a few problems. Let me address them one by one:

"Now like it or not, the Ranger is based on Aragorn" -- yes, I agree.

"and like it or not, a case can most certainly be made for Aragorn casting spells..." -- that doesn't mean it's a good or a convincing case. A case can also be made that the Moon landing never took place (and has been.) A case can also be made the the Holocaust is a giant fraud (and has been.) A case can be made that the earth is flat. Just because a case can be made doesn't mean people should line up to support it.

"If you want a Spell-less Ranger, use the Barbarian!" -- you can't be serious, can you? Not only is that a complete non sequiter that is unrelated to the discussion, but the barbarian is a poor implementation of the woodsman archetype anyway.