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:

Did Aragorn mean that the sword would not permit anyone's touch save one from his lineage, or did Aragorn mean to execute anyone that touched his sword?

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?

I would say the latter, or at least that's how I read it. As for why, Aragorn seemed somehow upset in Théoden's house overall (maybe the several-day long run on the plains, his failure as the leader of the fellowship have fallen upon him all at once, so he focused also strongly on "okay, I screwed up everything, now I need to at least fulfil my destiny as the heir of Isildur!")... But I think the touchiness about the sword could have had something to do with the fact that the sword was connected to so many prophecies. Of course, nobody says Aragorn would really do it, I personally rather doubt (and I think every sane person would) that Aragorn would come out chopping the heads of Théoden's doormen, however, it was worth the threat in his opinion, to underline the importance of the sword to him. I guess we need to take this a bit metaphorically, come on - I don't think Aragorn would do anything to people touching it, if it came to that (he'd look at them nastily, probably), but he would certainly be enraged beyond imagination if he found that his sword has been stolen or that the guards somehow decided meanwhile to lock the travelers' weapons in the armory, just for "safety measures".

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 :

All this & a Shieldmaiden too...

Interesting question, alatar. There's something to be said for either possibility.
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:

• Arthur's Excalibur, which could only be drawn from its anvil/stone/whateveritwas by the rightful king. Aragorn is in a way a very Arthuresque figure - both ideal kings ascending to their heritage from a rather unglamorous incognito existence, and in both cases the sword is closely connected to their royal status.
• Tyrfing, the jinxed sword of Norse legend (also forged by Dwarves!), which demanded blood every time it was drawn and had a nasty habit of turning against its wielder if it couldn't get the desired nourishment otherwise (a motif exploited ad nauseam by Michael Moorcock in Elric's Stormbringer, and handled, in my opinion, much better by Poul Anderson in The Broken Sword [!]).

(There's something similar in Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain: the sword Dyrnwyn burned anybody who tried to draw it but those of royal blood; maybe he was influenced/inspired by Aragorn's words?)
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::))

Yeah - but you wrote a proper post, while I just whacked on a quote from Wikipedia
.... I would have done a bit more meself, but I'm just surfacing from swine flu & my brain hurts......

Poor you, get well soon!

Now that brings thoughts of Túrin's Gurthang (formerly known as Anglachel). Thingol gave that sword to Beleg first, and Melian was moved to say this when she looked upon it:

Túrin later took it from the body of Beleg, and when Túrin sought to use it to kill himself with it, he heard a voice he perceived to come from the sword itself.

Silm Of Túrin Turambar (both)

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?

Well, for me the reason why I never thought of Andúril in that way is that it is basically never shown to "behave" like that. Respectively, not to "behave" in any way at all, and if Aragorn's words in front of Théoden's hall are the only thing that may point towards something like that, it seems rather feeble to me. And what Aragorn says itself evokes rather the idea of a "cursed item" like some sort of plague-infested thing, or thing of so much worth that if you touch it, you die. (We know examples of such things from the mythologies as well.) Anyway, we never hear of Aragorn having a friendly chat with Andúril, and there are no remarks like "still the smith's heart dwells in that one", as we know it from Anglachel's case.

Well, as far as knowing Middle-Earth, I would say that heirlooms of historical significance are often far more valuable there than "practical" things. In general, just look at it. That is, nobody says that Aragorn did not have other weapon with him (I recall a thread questioning at lenghts this matter). But it is certain that the shards of Narsil were important enough, nonsensical as it seems to us (again for practical reasons: it would be even safer in Rivendell, here, what if Aragorn accidentally dropped it into some chasm or drowned it in a river?), for Aragorn to keep with him all the time.

But do you think Aragorn would make a threat or promise without the intention to follow through on it? You know, saying "I'm going to kill anyone who touches my sword!" though he only means he'd be really, really angry... I don't, which is why I favour the curse thing, though I agree it's poorly supported by the text, disregarding the mythological parallels Davem and Pitchwife brought up.

Inzil, the thread that discusses whether Aragorn actually carried the shards is here.

Oh, I agree. I simply thought it interesting that either an intelligence in Gurthang (Eöl's), or perhaps Túrin's guilty conscience recognised Túrin as not being the sword's legitimate owner.

Thanks. I figured there was one around somewhere.

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.

As far as I know, 'Ohtar' was the only Man to touch Narsil after Elendil's death apart from Isildur and the latter's descendants. It is said in UT that 'Ohtar' was actually the title of the person and not his actual name. However, it also says in Footnote 17 of the essay The Disaster of the Gladden Fields, that Ohtar was 'of [Isildur's] own kin'. Whether that means royal blood or not, who knows?

It appears that Aragorn takes his reponsibilities as the Heir of Isildur very seriously, to say the least. The Sword That Was Broken was probably the most recognisable symbol of his lineage. He showed it to the Hobbits in Bree when his identity was questioned. He did the same at the Council of Elrond to aid in proving himself to Boromir.
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.

Well, for one, note that he did not say "I am going to kill you", but he said the obscure "whoever touches it will die". Mainly though, you never have used any exaggerated sayings like that? Or heard them at least? I would be puzzled, because I think it's quite normal and I don't get why people won't see it in cases like this and take everything literally. Like, somebody says "oh but if you screw up your job this time again, your boss is going to rip your head off", while in the end (at least normally) no decapitations occur. Also, for the guards, the intimidation itself is enough, and that is what I think Aragorn is betting on. Just imagine yourself in that situation, if the blade would really be so important to you. You basically count on that the guys will NOT touch it, and the stage "what if they did" does not even cross your mind - nor theirs (which is the reason why you are saying the threat). Now if it happened, it would have turned into a bit of a different situation, it would be a change of roles, you would need to be confronted with the fact that the guys are not taking you seriously. It would be something like: "Oh yea? Scary wanderer threatening us? Boo boo, come on us, scary wanderer, we are already afraid of you!" It would be about Aragorn once again to deal with this (somehow I can well imagine such a scene in some movie). However, as the threat is enough, that means, Aragorn's personality has enough impact on the guys to decide not to mess up with him and rather obey.
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):
Well, if Narsil indeed had any special powers like that, I guess indeed they might not "work" as long as the sword was shattered, which would let Ohtar touch it without any problems.

That just underlines the importance of it. And note, I would also consider it supporting the idea that the sword is not cursed or anything. Because if it was cursed, and whoever touched it would die, Aragorn's motive would have been different: it would be to protect poor innocent soldiers from accidentally touching it and dying, just because of ignorance. However, I think Aragorn is basically just a bit angered in this scene, so I think it fits more that he just does not want to give the sword away because he is protective of his heirloom.

Isn't that stating the obvious, a generalization that applies to all humans? Death comes to everyone, sooner or later. Mind you, it also applies to those who do not touch the sword...

Aragorn should have specified an unusually swift death would come to certain people. ;)

Exactly. It's a passive sentence.

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.
Yes, I might say something like "I'll kill that ******* who stole my bike!" although I wouldn't actually do it if given the chance. Probably not anyway. ;)
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:
. Why is this significant? Go back a bit to Halbarad's first appearance:
. Halbarad bears the banner to Aragorn, & foresees his own death (he does fall on the Pelennor).

Look at this:

Honestly, my feeling is that Tolkien is drawing on incidents like these, & they remain ultimately mysterious & unexplained because the intent is to impart a flavour of 'Northerness' to the story.

The sword was certainly a powerful symbol, but the Dead were not cursed and bound to the world by Elendil, but by Isildur. Narsil was not Isildur's sword at the time of the curse.
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?

Yes, I agree there is no direct link here between the sword and being able to pass through the Paths of the Dead. I am suggesting more of a parallel here, that just as he has inherited Elendils sword, so also he inherits the right to pass through the Paths of the Dead and survive. Perhaps this is too weak a parallel, but otherwise you have to invoke a curse or spell associated with the reforging, which does not sound like the sort of thing that the Elves of Rivendell would do.

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.

I think this is it. It fits in with the kinds of predictions/prophesies littered through the book. For example, when the shards of Narsil are brought to Rivendell, Elendil prophesises that the sword will not be reforged until the One Ring is found.

"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.

A note - curses and all these fate-prescribed things do NOT usually work on "common sense". It would have killed Ohtar, if the sword had such a power and if it still had the power even after being broken. All the tales and legends I can think of now which have something to do with curses or destinies do not operate on "common sense", quite the opposite, most often some poor guy ends up a victim of the curse just because he got in the way in a rather random fashion. If it worked differently in M-E, it would be a rather unique phaenomenon, and I think it would be illogical, even given what we know about curses from the tale of Túrin and co., where they seem also to work "programmed", like machines, no common logic.

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:
Surely Saruman would have loved to get the Blade That Was Broken into his hands - another nice trophy to keep with the Elendilmir and the chain on which Isildur had worn the Ring.

But these curses and such like are also sticklers for semantics and tend to take things very literally. According to Aragorn, the 'curse', if it was such, would only take effect on those who drew the sword. Ohtar did not, presumably, draw the sword, but instead gathered up and bore its shards.

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'.

I'm in agreement with POTH on this one. Ohtar was given an explicit command by Isildur to take the shards and flee. If there had been some sort of curse on Narsil (which I don't believe was the case), that command by a legitimate Heir of Elendil should have exempted Ohtar from its effects.
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?



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:

Logic would say the Heirs ought to have left the shards in Rivendell while they were about in the wild, but plainly Aragorn didn't do so.

beyond this, The blade was pretty much the Heir's token, the symbol by which the Heir and Future King could be recognized as such. I would very much doubt that there were many amoung the people of ME (and still fewer amoung the men) who, given the time that had passed would be able to recognize kinship to the Kingly line in Aragorn just on the basis of his face (even assuning there was anyone around at tha ttime who knew waht Isiuldur had looked like, or where an accurate portrait of him was to be found) If somone had walked aweay with Anduril, there would have been a very real possilbity that they could claim to be Isiuldur heir and many men would gather to him, on top of all his other troubles, Aragorn could have wound up having to deal with a contender to the throne, and one who would likey be commanding a large force. I doubt the rangers (who presumaby knew Aragorn as the heir from the day he was born) on thier own could have stood up to all of the other peoples of ME, seperately or collectively.

And how would anyone know what the real Narsil looked like, especially when it was reforged? And what a target for Sauron! Make copies of Anduril, and sell all but one on eBay. Raise up one of your Black Númenóreans to be more fair than foul looking, and give him the sword and send him westward. Even if he didn't become King, in the confusion you might get another kinslaying, and so what's not to like?

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?