Cursing In the Books

[Inziladun]

Well, not cursing, as in orcish vulgarities, but curses, as in wishes of ill will from one person to another.

We see many examples of this throughout the books. Sometimes they work:

But this I will add: he that loosed the shaft shall break his bow and his arrows and lay them at my son's feet; and he shall never take arrow nor bear bow again. If he does, he shall die by it. That curse I lay on him'.

Mîm the Dwarf to Túrin's companion Andróg, who apparently died of arrow-wounds on Amon Rûdh.

Sometimes they don't work.

'By the beard of Durin! I wish I had Gandalf here! Curse him for his choice of you! May his beard wither!'

Thorin Oakenshield

What I'm wondering is this: what exactly makes a curse work? I'm not speaking of Morgoth's curse of Túrin, as that curse was accomplished through the active work of Morgoth. But in the case of Mîm, he did not act directly to make the curse come true: it just happened.
Now, Mîm's curse might seem to be just, as his son was shot by Andróg as he fled from the outlaws.
Thorin's would seem to be unjust, because it was bourne of greed and anger, that Bilbo had given the Arkenstone to Bard as a bargaining chip.
Who brings about the events laid out in a curse? Who decides what curses are just, and which are not?
Isildur, though he certainly was wronged by the Men of Dunharrow when they broke their oath to him, was a mortal Man. He had no power to hold the souls of the Oathbreakers to the earth after their lives ended. So who did it? Who is the judge of whose curse ought to be fulfilled, and whose should not?

[Pitchwife]

Good question!

Who brings about the events laid out in a curse? Who decides what curses are just, and which are not?
Isildur, though he certainly was wronged by the Men of Dunharrow when they broke their oath to him, was a mortal Man. He had no power to hold the souls of the Oathbreakers to the earth after their lives ended. So who did it? Who is the judge of whose curse ought to be fulfilled, and whose should not?

As far as the Dead Men of Dunharrow are concerned, there was, for all we know, only One who could (at least temporarily) deny them the Gift of Ilúvatar. So we should probably read Isildur's curse as an appeal to Eru, and suppose that Eru, judging that the appeal was justified, decided to grant it by fulfilling the curse.
I wonder, however, what part, if any, guilty conscience on the side of the Oathbreakers themselves played in this. If they felt - as well they might - that they had deserved Isildur's curse by breaking their oath, they may not have felt free to move on as long as they had unfinished business in this world. Again, Eru probably agreed with their judgement of themselves, but what if He hadn't?

Mîm's curse, I think, is quite another matter. Implicit assent by the cursed person doesn't seem to have played any part in its fulfilment: even if Andróg felt any guilt about the slaying of Khîm, it's hard to conceive how this could have affected the manner of his own death. And as for intervention by Eru in this case, this is hard to reconcile with his portrayal in the Silmarillion as a remote deity who doesn't meddle with His creation except in special cases after a special appeal from the Valar. (Yes, I know, somebody's going to tell me that He pushed Gollum over the brink at Sammath Naur, and I concede that this reading is possible but would argue that it's not necessary.) So either Eru isn't quite as remote from His creation as we are led to believe, or there's something else at work here.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well the basis for this reasoning is the "causal" reasoning of the ... (well, I originally wanted to write "pre-Christian", then I decided that from the overall perspective it won't be true so I wanted to write "ancient", and then I realised that some "enlightened modern" people operate under such thoughts even up to now, so whatever), where of course there is some basic supernatural chain of effects and the supernatural has as much power as the natural. It works on similar mechanics as let's say simple physics, with the only difference that it's not "seen".

Fundamentally, we could say that - however Tolkien denies it - there was something like "magic" in Middle-Earth working exactly in this sense. (I think "magic" is the best word for that anyway.)

There is also this famous quote from Thorin from the beginning of the Hobbit:

We still mean to get [our gold] back, and to bring our curses home to Smaug - if we can.

Although of course we can just speculate as to what did the author mean by this in particular.

Basically I think the thing is that it has to be "meant seriously", and also, it probably needs to have some "logical grounding". The first thing, in my opinion, would disqualify the quote presented by Inzil about Thorin, as there it was definitely spoken in affect and Thorin did not really sort of mean it. Or: he would probably say it differently had he not been in affect. Whereas many curses of course are spoken in affect - looking into old tales, that's actually when they are usually spoken - however I would think that at least in M-E, they might be disqualified if the person who spoke them would not say the some thing after it has calmed down. I.e. Mim would still want Andróg to die, but Thorin won't probably want his beard to wither (if nothing else then also for that it won't be a very effective punishment. If Thorin really hated Gandalf for what he did, he'd probably wish to Gandalf to get an apprentice who would prove as useless as Bilbo did to him, or something like that).

That's of course pure speculation on my part. But I am trying to find some logic in that. I am stemming also from the fact that we don't know to what extent these curses could be misused. I mean: if it was easy for any random Mordorian to say "may Gondorian crops die this year", it probably would add quite a complicated dimension to the overall struggle, wouldn't it? That makes me think that there is something to the thought of "just" curse, so that it's not there just for the sake of it, but it is somehow "in tune with the karmic balance", to use a term which I hope would make clear what I mean In other words: Mim died, so in fact, it was "fair" that his murderer was punished - so if somebody actually wanted to have him punished, it was more likely to happen. Similarly with Isildur. There is also this quite clear "eye for an eye" or "compensatory", we might say, character to the curses - Mim's curse is fulfilled when Andróg dies just like his son did, Oathbreakers are freed when they "compensate" for their cowardice. Of course, this compensatory mechanic seems really strictly mechanical - mere causal law, not much chance of avoiding it by simply being sorry for what you did. You have to compensate (e.g. Andróg - with his own life for Khim's life). I would dare to propose a daring statement, that had Andróg for example saved a life of another of Mim's sons, he would have been saved from the curse (eye for an eye, life for life, again this compensatory mechanic). Of course, the problem was that there were not many chances remaining to save some sons here.

[skip spence]

I think from an inside perspective to the story there's really no telling what the curses were all about. Except perhaps that they are connected to the Great Music - in the Elder Days more accessible than later on one might assume - and that characters in a moment of epiphany might get a clear vision of the (always so ironic) future through a glimpse into the Great Music. Such as when Glorfindel prophets the end of the Witch-King. This fore-seeing is mostly associated with Elves but one might assume that some mortals also have this latent ability to hear the Music so to speak.

But really, I think these curses and prophesies (that always come true) would be better understood from an outside perspective. After all, Tolkien's inspiration for these stories - the Nordic, Old English, Classic and I don't know what mythologies - are ripe with these kinds of things, and that they should pop up in his own books is understandable, no? I suppose they also help to give the books that flavour of Old Tradition Tolkien is looking for.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I think from an inside perspective to the story there's really no telling what the curses were all about. Except perhaps that they are connected to the Great Music - in the Elder Days more accessible than later on one might assume - and that characters in a moment of epiphany might get a clear vision of the (always so ironic) future through a glimpse into the Great Music. Such as when Glorfindel prophets the end of the Witch-King. This fore-seeing is mostly associated with Elves but one might assume that some mortals also have this latent ability to hear the Music so to speak.

Well while I agree with your interpretation of prophecies or something, I firmly stand against that you could say anything similar about curses. It's not that Mim would see how Andróg is going to end - the less to say that he was connected to the Music, come on! - and also there's the obvious cause-effect relationship, the similarity between what's been done (breaking of the oath, killing somebody with a bow) with what is going to happen/has to be done (fulfilling the oath, being killed and/or lacking a bow in need). And you certainly cannot explain the case of the Oathbreakers with any "moment of enlightement" from Isildur's part: because if it were so, it would mean (by how you put it) that the Oathbreakers would become cursed in any case, even if Isildur did not have this "prophetic moment". I fundamentally disagree with that: the way curses work - in all these old mythologies you mentioned - is that somebody makes a curse, and then it works. I think this is something which should not be even questioned. And so I don't see a reason why it should work in any different way in M-E.

(Otherwise, see above in my post.)

[skip spence]

I won't argue against your objections. It was only a far-fetched, flash of the moment, pot shot-theory to be honest. My main point was that there is no fully logical or even probable in-story explanation to these things. The curses work because that's the way it has to be. Tolkien wrote them in because it rocked his boat, because he though the theme fitting. But from an in-story perspective, Mim did not make a formal request to Eru's Ministry of Curses and Prophecies, who later deemed it appropriate, or knew the curse spell at level 3 or something. Mim just did what he did.

[Nazgûl-king]

I think we could say that it is Mandos, with Iluvatar’s permission, that grants that fulfillment of curses and decides which curses get fulfilled and which ones don’t. Mandos to me seems like someone who does not talk much, but when he talks it is important because he seems to speak prophecies or dooms. For example there is the curse of Mandos on the Noldor. So I think we could say that when a curse is said in Middle-earth Mandos hears it, consults Iluvatar about it, and then based on what he says either fulfils it or denies it. Of course this is just speculation. Of corse in Morgoth's case with Túrin it is Morgoth's will that carries out the curse.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Good idea, Nazgul-king. Why not, as for the matter of who sort of puts the curse to action, I don't see why it couldn't be Mandos and there are indeed instances, like the Doom of Noldor, that support this claim. Let's just emphasise, however, that it's not Mandos' initiative to curse the Noldor or something, but he is merely doing somebody else's will (as you have basically said in your post, I only felt the need to emphasise it). So if Yavanna for example is the so-called "minister of nature" among the Valar, Mandos might as well be the "minister of curses" (or "minister of justice", if you want it to sound better).

[skip spence]

But doesn't Mandos know all that is to come? Unless that is a line is a my mind made up. But I don't think Mandos is the decision-making type, nor one to offer his opinion. He reluctantly issues dooms yes and he's never wrong, but I think that is because he knows what's going to happen and not because he makes it happen.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by skip spence

But doesn't Mandos know all that is to come? Unless that is a line is a my mind made up. But I don't think Mandos is the decision-making type, nor one to offer his opinion. He reluctantly issues dooms yes and he's never wrong, but I think that is because he knows what's going to happen and not because he makes it happen.

I think he knows everything except what is outside the Music, ie: what is still under Ilúvatar's freedom to alter.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I think he knows everything except what is outside the Music, ie: what is still under Ilúvatar's freedom to alter.

Think so too. And isn't that a good argument that Mandos is not one to deny or enable individual curses. It is not within his jurisdiction or power to do so. Mandos too is bound by the Music.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nazgûl-king

I think we could say that it is Mandos, with Iluvatar’s permission, that grants that fulfillment of curses and decides which curses get fulfilled and which ones don’t. Mandos to me seems like someone who does not talk much, but when he talks it is important because he seems to speak prophecies or dooms. For example there is the curse of Mandos on the Noldor. So I think we could say that when a curse is said in Middle-earth Mandos hears it, consults Iluvatar about it, and then based on what he says either fulfils it or denies it. Of course this is just speculation. Of corse in Morgoth's case with Túrin it is Morgoth's will that carries out the curse.

I don't think that's a bad idea at all. My only caveat would be that perhaps the Dwarf-curses were 'administered' by Aulë. their sub-creator and 'father'.

[Galadriel55]

I think that it will help if we look at the curses' opposites - blesings. There are some that are, well, legitimate blessings, like Varda hallowing the Silmarilli. Others are merely respectful, or wish good luck - eg the Dwarves' "may your beard grow longer".

Same could happen with curses - a real curse versus an "I wish you all the worst" sort of thing. They might sound the same as curses, but their respective opposites are totally different.

For further clarification: it's like the difference between have to and must. They sound like the same thing. However, their oppisites, do not have to and must not are quite different: either you CAN, but it's not manditory, or it is prohibited.