Aragorn and spellcasting

[fusangite]

I don't have my Tolkien Biography immediately to hand, but I'm pretty certain that's incorrect if by "mediaeval" you mean the troubadour tradition of Arthurian romances, Song of Roland etc.

The medieval period is the period from approximately 550 to 1450 AD. Within this period, Tolkien's area of focus was the Anglo-Saxons. Medieval studies at universities 100 years ago were not that different from medieval studies at universities today; a good medievalist must choose geographic and temporal foci within medieval Europe but must nevertheless be conversant with medieval Europe outside of these focal areas.

There is ample direct textual evidence both from Tolkien's correspondence and from the books themselves that Tolkien was a competent medievalist in that he understood both his areas of focus and the period as a whole.

Those would have been French in origin, and Tolkien hated anything French.

How do you reconcile this with Tolkien's own statements that he based Aragorn, in part, on Charlemagne and, in part, on Arthur?

But what is your larger point here? If you want to argue that Tolkien's clearly evident familiarity with the Carolingians and the literature they inspired (ie. the Song of Roland) came from somewhere else, I don't really care that much, as long as you don't attempt to take the totally outrageous position that some posters seem to have flirted with briefly that somehow my knowledge of medieval Europe is better than the great man's.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't have my Tolkien Biography immediately to hand, but I'm pretty certain that's incorrect if by "mediaeval" you mean the troubadour tradition of Arthurian romances, Song of Roland etc.

Those would have been French in origin, and Tolkien hated anything French.

His field was earlier - Anglo-Saxon predominantly plus iof course his philological passion which led him to Finnish and Welsh myths (Kalavela and Mabinogion, frex) amongst others.

Sorta my point; I think fusangite is putting the wrong emphasis on anachronistic sources. Was Tolkien familiar with them? Of course! Was he interested in them? IMO, no. He was demonstrably interested primarily in pre-Christian Germanic folklore. From a linguistics standpoint, he was not very interested in anything after 1066, which he is noted as having thought the greatest linguistic tragedy to befall the English.

However, I do have to take exception to the idea that he wouldn't have liked Roland because it was French. The chansons of Roland was primarily based on Carolingian stories, and was Germanic in origin, although the only forms (that I know of) that we have of it today are based on French sources. I think Roland was certainly a source that Tolkien could have utilized and felt comfortable with as belonging to the same tradition.

I haven't ever seen this quote fusangite keeps referencing where Tolkien compares Aragorn to Charlemagne, though (although I haven't read all the Letters by any means.) I'd like to know where it is, and what he actually said.

 

[Desdichado]

By using the term "burden" here, you imply that my main textual evidence is this. As you can see from throughout our argument back and forth, my main evidence remains a literal reading of the text. All this other stuff is just backup. What I have not seen is textual evidence that when Tolkien says, "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer" that we should not take him at his word and read the text literally.

No, I can see from our back and forth that your evidence is rooted in other sources which you believe Tolkien used as reference. My interpretation is based on a literal reading of the text.

 

[Steverooo]

One point that nobody mentioned is when the fellowship escapes Moria after Gandalf falls, doesn't Aragorn use Kingsfoil to treat Frodo's injury from the Orc Chief. I seem to recall he had a giant bruise that was interfering with his breathing, and after Aragorn bathes the wound with Kingsfoil, Frodo feels better and the bruise fades. Wouldn't that support the position that Aragorn had some healing power, since it has already been established that the plant itself has no medical use?

"There was a dark and blackened bruise on Frodo's right side and breast. Under the mail there was a shirt of soft leather, but at one point the rings had been driven through it into the flesh. Frodo's left side also was scored and bruised where he had been hurled against the wall. While the others set the food ready, Aragorn bathed the hurts with water in which athelas was steeped. The pungent fragrance filled the dell, and all those who stooped over the steaming water felt refreshed and strengthened. Soon Frodo felt the pain leave him, and his breath grew easy: though he was stiff and sore to the touch for many days." FotR:382.

 

[Steverooo]

This is what I mean about the difference between reading history and reading literature. If LOTR were an historical document, your reasoning would be correct. But in literature, the absence of anyone else healing actually is evidence; Tolkien is choosing not to show anyone else healing.

But we DO see Elrond, and both his sons, healing!

"When he had looked on the faces of the sick and seen their hurts he sighed. 'Here I must put forth all such power and skill as is given to me,' he said. 'Would that Elrond were here, for he is the eldest of all our race, and has the greatest power.'" RotK:145.

Elrond...

"Then, whether Aragorn had indeed some forgotten power of Westernesse, or whether it was but his words of the Lady Eowyn that wrought on them, as the sweet influence of the herb stole about the chamber it seemed to those who stood by that a keen wind blew through the window, and it bore no scent, but was an air wholly fresh and clean and young, as if it had not before been breathed by any living thing and came new-made from snowy mountains high beneath a dome of stars, or from shores of silver far away washed by seas of foam." RotK:149-50.

This one certainly implies that other men of Westernesse could have done likewise...

"At the doors of the Houses many were already gathered to see Aragorn, and they followed after him; and when at last he had supped, men came and prayed that he would heal their kinsmen or their friends whose lives were in peril through hurt or wound, or who lay under the Black Shadow. And Aragorn arose and went out, and he sent for the sons of Elrond, and together they laboured far into the night." RotK:153.

Elrond's sons, too...

 

[Steverooo]

All I've done here is reorder your statements. I hope that's sufficient to make my point. But just in case it isn't, what you're saying here is: by choosing to be men, they lost their elvish nature but by choosing to be men, they did not lose their angelic nature. You can't be serious.

What I am saying is this: The Numenoreans suffer the Doom of Men (death, and removal from the cares of this world), rather than the Doom of Elves (a long wait in the Halls of Mandos for eventual reincarnation). Still, the Numenoreans can do some things Elves and Maia can, such as speaking mind-to-mind...

The fact that they are Men, and suffer their fate, still doesn't change their ancestry. That ancestry, apparently, gives them some special abilities. You can call it "Spell-like Abilities", instead of "Spellcasting", if you like, but I fail to see the difference, when Somatic & Material components are both involved.

Now, answer my question, in the "What IS he doing?" post, above. What IS Aragorn doing, Fusangite?

 

[Steverooo]

When did Arwen cast a spell?

Heh! Only in the movie version (at the fords of Bruinen). I'll stand corrected, on that one (in the book version, anyway)!

 

[Steverooo]

When did that happen?

See above, in re to "virtues". Also, Faramir reads smeagol's mind (whether you see this a spellcasting, or spell-like ability).

 

[fusangite]

No, I can see from our back and forth that your evidence is rooted in other sources which you believe Tolkien used as reference. My interpretation is based on a literal reading of the text.

Your position:
"hands"="knowledge"
"king"="Numenorean"
My position:
"hands"="hands"
"king"="king"

From that, how do you come to the view that your interpretation is more literal than mine?

 

[fusangite]

See above, in re to "virtues". Also, Faramir reads smeagol's mind (whether you see this a spellcasting, or spell-like ability).

Supposing a person was foolish enough to think that LOTR could be appropriately modeled using D&D. How would paying attention combined with a 35 on a Sense Motive roll not produce the same result?