![]() |
Done if by Hand or Hew if by Sword?
Andúril, the Flame of the West, forged from the shards of Narsil (and that sword fashioned by the dwarven hands of Telchar), inspired friends and frightened foes. With this sword Aragorn wins the Battle of Helm's Deep, breaks the Siege of Minas Tirith and assaults the Black Gate of Mordor (with help).
So the sword and the hand that wielded it saw much work (and blood) in the closing days of the Third Age. But what did Aragorn mean, when laying his sword beside the door of Meduseld at King Théoden's command, that: Quote:
Whichever, then the next question would be, why? Sure, I want to keep the kids out of my stuff, but if Aragorn meant the latter, why so severe a punishment? |
Quote:
|
I think this is ancient epic warrior speech on Aragorn's part, meant to intimidate the guards and possibly to suggest some sort of omen or prophecy concerning the safe keeping of the sword.
Or maybe, like the nouveau riche, Aragorn is struggling to find his own manner of expression of his lineage. |
I think Legate has the right of it.
Obviously those not in Elendil's line had touched it before. The shards of Narsil had been brought to Rivendell after Isildur's death by a 'nobody' esquire. Also, Elven-smiths had reforged it in Rivendell, and you'd think that might involve laying hands on it (unless Aragorn was paranoid enough to want to hold it while they did their thing). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrfing :
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. We don't know what spells old Telchar wrought into the blade, and the elven-smiths of Rivendell may have added some of their own. So it's entirely possible that there was some magic in the sword that would kill anybody trying to draw it except for its legitimate owner (or those authorized by him, taking into account the exceptions that Inzil points out). If so, I think we see here a blending of two ancient literary motifs that Tolkien must have been aware of:
2. As the sword was so closely connected to the kingship (possibly one of the regalia of Arnor), anybody who presumed to draw Elendil's sword may have been seen as claiming to be Elendil's heir - in other words, committing high treason under the laws of the old kingdom, a crime punishable by death in most monarchies of real world history. On the other hand, if there was indeed such a law, Aragorn surely was in no position to see it carried out at Théoden's court, and any attempt at self-justice by him would have proved disastrous - not to mention that it seems highly unlike him to inflict such severe punishment on somebody who didn't know what they were doing. But it certainly didn't hurt to put some respect into those guards - in so far I agree with Legate. (x-ed with davem, who beat me to pointing out the Tyrfing connection - as could be expected:rolleyes::)) |
Quote:
.... I would have done a bit more meself, but I'm just surfacing from swine flu & my brain hurts...... |
Poor you, get well soon!
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There was a sword which apparently held some faith for its master's hand, at least, though it's conjecture whether that was the case with Andúril. All this actually leads into something I've long wondered about: why did Aragorn feel the need to carry Narsil with him? The work of protecting the Shire and the North had to have involved fighting from time to time. Wouldn't a usable sword have been more of an asset in those circumstances than an heirloom of such historical significance? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Inzil, the thread that discusses whether Aragorn actually carried the shards is here. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Thanks all for your informative posts (and now we all know to avoid poor davem until we know that he's flu free ;):D).
Don't think that Narsil/Anduril was cursed like Tyrfing or Gurthang. Yet it may still have had some magical property that could have harmed anyone not related to Elendil. What humans handled Narsil/Anduril, as I would think that Dwarves and Elves would be immune to whatever spells they may have presumably wove into the item? Was Ohtar 'part of the family?' Even if he weren't, Narsil's 'light' was extinguished (obviously) when he handled the shards. But what if the blade isn't in itself lethal to touch? So then we have Aragorn all a'huff about anyone touching his sword. Was this because the bearer would then be considered 'royalty?' That doesn't seem sensible. Also, Aragorn makes too much about leaving his sword, more than one would expect, especially after Gandalf cautions the group about speaking any haughty words to King Theoden. Is this just a result of Aragorn's weariness, where he not only disregards Gandalf's wisdom but also wants to begin asserting his claim to some station - not wanting to be mistaken for wizard ragtag? But this is the same Aragorn who says that he'd leave any sword at the door, even if visiting some peasant's hut, but not *this* sword. It just seems too important a scene to be easily dismissed. |
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps he did simply want to impress upon Háma and the Rohirrim the value he placed in the lineage of the sword in the hope (apparently well-founded) that no one would molest it, and extra care would be taken to guard it, since he was urged by Gandalf to bow to Théoden's wished for that time. |
Quote:
If there is anything which is considered "cursed", or maybe rather just magical here, it is Legolas' bow. But only considered, mind you, by the superstitious Rohanian men (remembering all the talk about the Witch of Lórien and stuff like that): Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil's sword, save Elendil's heir To me that doesn't sound like a man saying "I'll kill anyone who messes with my gear!" it sounds more like a warning that fate will punish whoever draws the blade. Maybe the word curse was misused, but to me it sounds more like something like that. Tolkien's work is after all littered with prophesies and curses. And I'm surprised that you'd say that Narsil isn't in any way magical, just because it wasn't a big talker. It is after all the legendary sword that cut the One Ring off Sauron's finger. No plain pocket knife would be fated to do that. Quote:
But Aragorn isn't like you and me. He's a very serious chap. I'm quite certain he wouldn't blurp out anything in a fit of rage that he didn't mean. Just think of how he marches up to the black gate and demands that the Dark Lord should step forward and pay for his crimes. Although he's in no position to make that happen, he's still dead serious, and would die trying to achieve what he said he would do. No, I think he meant it literally when he said that death will come to any man who draws his sword, and since the scenario of him cutting down Theoden's guards (how would he do that anyway without his sword?) isn't plausable, I must assume there is a curse or something similar. Notice that the words says no man but the heir of Elendil can draw the sword and live. Touching it is no death sentance, which is probably why Othar could live. |
But I also see this in the context of what follows a few days later, when Aragorn bearing the Narsil announces himself as the heir of Isildur and thus earns the right to pass the Paths of the Dead. I take it that whoever would touch the sword, other than the heir of Isildur, is fated to die (certainly nothing to do with Aragorn killing them). Aragorn has had a premonition here that he is the only one who is going to be able to pass through Death, and the sword as the linkage to Elendil (and Isildur) becomes part of this...
|
Also reminds me of Halbarad's statement at the door of the Paths of the Dead:
Quote:
Quote:
Look at this: Quote:
|
Quote:
The sword was inheirited by Isildur, but more importantly, the authority to release the Dead from the curse was inheirited by Isildur's descendants. I think the latter was what was perceived somehow by the Dead, more than the sword. When asserting his right to pass through, he at no point displays Andúril, or speaks of it. It was his words, and the banner Davem mentioned that proved Aragorn to them. If the sword was what the Dead keyed on, anyone who happened upon it by random finding or theft could have commanded the Dead, couldn't they? |
Quote:
The sword of Elendil in any case is obviously far more than an ordinary sword, and is presumably to be wielded only by his heir. Same sense in which only Aragorn can command the Dead (and thus avoid his own death in attempting this)... |
Sounds more like "You touch this you die." It's more of an idle threat. But because of its importance he may have put more emphasis on it.
|
Quote:
"Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil's sword, save Elendil's heir" It is a warning that since only Elendil's heir is entitled to bear the sword, it is simply foolish for any other man to attempt to do so. You would be tempting fate and inviting an untimely end. Of course the sword is also tangible proof that Aragorn is Elendil's heir, so naturally he needs to assert his authority over it. As far as Ohtar is concerned: he was simply doing his duty. If he hadn't taken the shards then no future heir of Elendil would be able to bear the sword, so it's commonsense that he wouldn't be punished by fate (or a curse). In any case, Isildur entrusted the shards to Ohtar - so Ohtar had the authority to carry the shards. He was a kind of steward, if you like. One thing I wonder is: Did any other of the other heirs of Elendil ever carry the shards? Or was Aragorn especially favoured? |
Note that Aragorn began acting more 'lordly' (and I don't mean that in a good sense) once he got amongst humans in Rohan. Remember his words to Eomer regarding being 'aided or thwarted.' Not too humble, those.
|
Quote:
|
Good point about curses and spells not being 'context-sensitive', Legate. As for Ohtar - well, Aragorn's precise words were Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil's sword, so I'd suppose Ohtar was safe as long as he kept the shards sheathed or wrapped up. As a loyal Numenorean and kinsman of Isildur, he would have handled them with the utmost respect and caution.
I still favour the magic protection hypothesis, but it occurs to me Aragorn may have had another good reason for his stubborn reluctance to part with the sword. Théoden was at that time still under Wormtongue's (and thereby Saruman's) influence, and up to his healing by Gandalf, Rohan's position in the coming war would have been open to some doubt. Remember the rumour at the Council of Elrond that the Rohirrim were paying tribute in horses to Mordor. Boromir vehemently denied this, but later, when the Three Hunters met Éomer's éored, Aragorn still felt it necessary to ask whether they were friend or foe of Sauron. Gandalf obviously knew all the time that Wormtongue was working for Saruman; it isn't mentioned whether he told Aragorn as much, but Aragorn may have done some guessing of his own and decided that it might be better not to leave Andúril out of his sight and reach. His caution certainly wasn't unwarranted. Later in the same chapter, Háma reveals that Wormtongue was not only a traitor, but also a petty thief: Quote:
|
Quote:
That said, I don't go along with the 'curse' theory. I tend to think it was just all part of Aragorn's general snarkiness at the door of Meduseld, albeit 'heroically' expressed, after the events at Parth Galen and the subsequent long and tiring chase. It is notable that Aragorn's initial refusal to submit to the rules of the King in whose city he was a guest and subsequent bad-tempered acquiesence contrasts sharply with his later reluctance to enter Minas Tirith until invited. At this stage he is still not yet quite the returning King that he ultimately becomes. Edit: Crossed with Pitch, who makes the same point about the terms of the 'curse'. |
Quote:
The Simarils recognised when they were touched by one who had no right to them. And the Palantíri were most easily used by the Heirs of Elendil or others with inheirited authority. Why should a cursed sword necessarily work differently? Quote:
I don't think it's clearly stated one way or the other. It was said by Elrond during the Council that Ohtar "brought them to Valandil, the Heir of Isildur", but later in Appendix A it states: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The only requirement that Sauron's fake sword-wielding puppet might not be able to fake is the 'hands of a healer' thing. So was it the sword, which no one in Gondor seemed to need when accepting their returned King? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.