I've come to this very late, but I felt a burning need to stick my two penn'orth in, despite not being in full possession of all the facts (story of my life)
It is certainly true to say that the difference betwen "do not" and "need not" has come to be seen as a significant one - a lot of that has to do with the plain english campaign - and I'm all for that, especially in a public service context.
But Tolkien is not a public service. It's a work of art - and it's there that these issues start to get more complex.
I think it would be hard to argue anything other than that most of Tolkien's work is an attempt to capture the spirit of writings from an earlier time - mythical and folkloreish - indeed, it seems to me to be the *point* of his work. And it's from this standpoint that the do not / need not debate becomes a thing of beauty really. Let me explain - in old texts (and many of them word of mouth texts) do not can *mean* need not, and vice versa. The language of earler times was less complex than our language - words had to work harder for a living and often had many more meanings than they do now. The classic example is the immaculate conception (bear with me) - the bible says that Jesus was borne of a virgin's womb, and modern religions have interpreted that to mean something magical and mystical. But, of course, the word "virgin" (or the Aramaic equivalent of it) meant many things - a young woman, a beautiful woman, a good woman etc etc etc.
Another example - there is a beautiful English folk song called Death and the Lady. There's no definitive version of it, though. In it, death comes to a young maiden to take her away to heaven. In one version I have, he says:
"Fair lady lay your robes aside
No longer glory in your pride.
And now sweet maid make no delay,
Your time is come, you must away"
In another
"Fair Lady, throw those costly robes aside,
No longer may you glory in your pride;
Take leave of all your carnal vain delight,
I'm come to summon you away this night."
In yet another
"I'll have no gold, I'll have no pearl
I want no costly rich robes to wear
I cannot spare you a little while
Nor give you time your life to lament
Nor give you time your life to lament"
But the meaning is the same in all of them. And why? Because, being a folk song its message is universal and all embracing. And what I find beautiful about Tolkien's work is that it is universal and all embracing too. And it's a great thing to me that dilemmas like this arise, because it means that he has succeeded in creating a mythology that seems to have the characteristics of coming from an earlier time.
Hope that makes sense. It sort of does to me (which is nothing short of a miracle)
"Finger pointing, eyebrows low, mouth in the shape of the letter 'O' - red means stop! Do not go! NO! NO! NO!"
