LotR -- Book 2 - Chapter 07 - The Mirror of Galadriel

[Bêthberry]

A very hurried and rushed reply....

[bChild[/b] posted
We often speak of Galadriel as the prime example of a powerful female character in LotR. Yet sometimes I wonder about this. To me, at times, she seems almost genderless, if such a thing is possible. (Perhaps this ties in with the Virgin Mary, an issue that others can better address?)

hmm. We get into many kinds of problems here. Galadriel had a daughter and grandchildren. She has a husband, but as Estelyn and Aiwendil suggest, his depiction is mixed--Galadriel even 'corrects' him at one point, does she not?

"... And if it were possible, one would say that at the lat Gandalf fell from wisdom into folly, going needlessly into the net of Moria." [spoken by Celeborn]

He would be rash indeed that said that thing," said Galadriel gravely.

My understanding of the Catholic tradition of Mary is that she remained a virgin even after bearing Christ. (The concept of virginity is related to purity rather than corporeal fact.) Some traditions say that she and Joseph never had children; others, that they did. Others more knowledgeable than I about the Catholic tradition will have more to say, but to me Mary is usually represented without the stain of human sexuality but nevertheless has gender as the Mother of God.

Particularly in the interactions with Gimli, Galadriel is represented as part of the courtly love tradition (for Tolkien's view of this, see letter #43 to his son Michael). Tolkien describes the best of the tradition as " the highest ideal of love between man and woman." Particularly with the exchange of Galadriel's lock of hair, which could easily be an eroticised object, I think the characterisation stays firmly within a gendered depiction of Galadriel, but one well removed from sexual connotations.. But then, Tolkien's tone removes much sexual connotation from his characterisation. Perhaps it is this high tone ("free from dross", if I am remembering jHelen's thread correctly) which creates your sense of a genderless Galadriel?

To my regret, I do not know Abraham Herchel's [i]The Prophets[/b]--something I should redress I think. My understanding of prophets is that they carry God's message to others, they speak for God in His name. Would this be possible in a work of Middle-earth, particularly one where Eru's name is not mentioned? This gets us into the realm of Tolkien's allusions ("consciously so in the revision" as I recall Littlemanpoet's excellent thread). Given that LotR does not make explicit the cosmology of TheSilm, I myself can not see Galadriel as a phrophet (prohetess?) in this text. For this reason, I preferred to think of her as a challenger who helps stimulate the members of the Fellowship to reflect upon their roles and the self-knowledge and self-discipline which will be required of them.

davem has asked me, when he repped my previous post, to pursue my ideas further and explain what exactly Galadriel is up to, but alas I have no more time now to devote to posts--later tonight perhaps.

I'm sure that others will take up Child's very interesting idea that Lothlorien is somehow closer to the West than the rest of Middle-earth.

[Child of the 7th Age]

To my regret, I do not know Abraham Herchel's [i]The Prophets[/b]--something I should redress I think. My understanding of prophets is that they carry God's message to others, they speak for God in His name. Would this be possible in a work of Middle-earth, particularly one where Eru's name is not mentioned? This gets us into the realm of Tolkien's allusions ("consciously so in the revision" as I recall Littlemanpoet's excellent thread). Given that LotR does not make explicit the cosmology of TheSilm, I myself can not see Galadriel as a phrophet (prohetess?) in this text. For this reason, I preferred to think of her as a challenger who helps stimulate the members of the Fellowship to reflect upon their roles and the self-knowledge and self-discipline which will be required of them.

Bethberry -

Heschel's ideas are complex and difficult to convey in a concise manner. His two-volume study, first published in 1962, was widely read among both Jewish and Christian scholars and is today regarded as a classic. He is a theologian who writes like a poet: this can be clearly seen in his popular volume God in Search of Man, which I think you might find especially enjoyable.

Heschel did not deny the reality of revelation to the Hebrew prophets, but the emphasis of his own study is very different. Perhaps I can give you a taste of what Heschel meant (and, as a side line, what I mean by applying the term prophet with a little "p" to Galadriel) by throwing out just a few quotes from his introduction:

The prophet is a person, not a microphone......The prophet's task is to convey a divine view, yet as a person he is a point of view. He speaks from the perspective of God as perceived from the perspective of his own situation. We must seek to understand not only the views he expounded but also the attitudes he embodied: his own position, feeling, response--not only what he said but also what he lived; the private, the intimate dimension of the word, the subjective side of the message.....

The prophet is not only a prophet. He is also poet, teacher, ...social critic, moralist. There has been a tendency to see the essence and chief significance of prophecy in the display of one or other of these aspects. Yet this is a misapprehension of the intrinsic nature of prophecy.....

Heschel's stress is not on revelation but response. He is looking at the individual who has struggled with questions on another plane of being, one who has stepped into a world beyond the commonplace, yet who now returns and, because of that struggle, is able to combat hostile powers or spirits.

Doesn't such a description fit Galadriel? She is a prophet with a small "p" reacting from the depths of her own experience, able to interpret the reality of unseen things because she has struggled with them herself. Galadriel is certainly not a direct spokesmen for Eru, but she has grappled with things that others scarcely know exist, something which others sense. I certainly felt that in my own reading. Galadriel knows more about the West and the music of creation than most of those whom she deals with, even among the Elves.

Just as Elvish art looks like "magic" to most of us, so too a hobbit like Samwise would have a hard time truly comprehending Galadriel's past life: her experience in the West, how the great events of the Silm touched her life for good or evil, and the degree of understanding and wisdom she has gained. Moreover, Galadriel has taken such a tortured route to get to the place where she is now: the point where she can actually reject the Ring. Her spirit pervades Lorien, and it is this spirit that compels each of the Fellowship to look inside themselves and ask difficult, even disturbing questions. If we leave aside the question of revelation, that is surely the central function of a prophet. It is not a matter of judging the person or offering a complete assessment of what is going to happen. Instead, it is suggesting possibilities and inviting another person to examine the things inside their own soul in terms of those possibilities. This is what Boromir, and also Samwise and Frodo, found so challenging, even frightening. To put it bluntly, Galadriel is a very "scary" figure. She is someone who makes us look in the mirror and confront ourselves. She also seems quite different than any of the other female characters whom Tolkien developed in either LotR or Silm. Why is this, or has my mind been twisted by the scenes in PJ's move? I would love to hear other views.

In terms of Galadriel's gender....yes, she certainly had marriage and a family. The marriage, however, is also depicted in a manner that is unusual for Tolkien. At the end of the story, we aren't sure where or when or even if she and her husband will come together. I can't think of too many "good guys/gals" in Tolkien who voluntarily separate themselves from their spouse! Tolkien is very careful to keep many of his characters single precisely because he does not want them to have the responsibilities of wife and hearth that would tie them down. "Good" married couples just don't go running off in two separate directions in Middle-earth. But once again, Galadriel is different.

And sorry for running off in this particular direction instead of focusing on the chapter as a whole. But I always have the feeling that she and Frodo stand at the heart of this chapter, and everything else is secondary.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by C7A

One last impression.... We often speak of Galadriel as the prime example of a powerful female character in LotR. Yet sometimes I wonder about this. To me, at times, she seems almost genderless, if such a thing is possible. (Perhaps this ties in with the Virgin Mary, an issue that others can better address?)

Does anyone else view Galadriel as "genderless", or do you see her in a different, more feminine, light?

Mary is often considered the absolute ideal of motherhood, hence, definitely not genderless. If (to preclude confusion and facilitate discussion) I may summarize the main differing views, so that those who are not Catholic-- especially our beloved and passionate protestants-- might have a doorway to Tolkien's likely outlook, in the hopes that there might be respectful understanding all around. First, a verse often discussed regarding of Mary's virginity is Matthew 1:24 & 25

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

Both sides agree that Mary and Joseph were, clearly, separate 'til Jesus was born and that Joseph has no genetic claim to Jesus. But afterward? The key phrase that gets argued over (and over and over-- but of course, not here on the Downs ) is: "did not know her til she had brought forth ", the key word being 'til'. Upon this little three-letter word hinges great and profound matters into which we will not delve on the Downs, but here is the essence of the debate:

Catholics hold that not only didn't Joseph know mary 'til" she brought forth her firstborn son, but that Joseph didn't know her afterwards, either. In contrast, Protestants hold that once Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph entered into normal marital relations and Mary had children after Jesus. In order to support this they often refer to Mark 6:3, as follows:

Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?”

Catholics respond saying that "brothers and sisters" are debatable terms and may also refer to half-brothers, half-sisters, and/ or cousins. Protestants reply: "Half brothers, yes; they both had Mary as a mother, but Jesus' father was God, and the rest had Joseph as a father." Catholics reply, "No, these were children of Joseph by a previous marriage, and half-brothers via the name of Joseph only."

I don't know Greek so don't ask me.

Okay, so that's the debate and we can leave it there, right? (Right?) So, why on earth do I bring all this up, risking wrath all around, from Protestants, Catholics, AND The Barrow Wight to boot?

Because either way you look at it, Mary had a houseful of children. Either they were Joseph's by a previous marriage, in which case she generously adopted and cared for Four Older Boys plus several sisters. (Yikes!) Or-- they were her own, and she bore them to Joseph. Whichever doctrinal approach you prefer, you must acknowledge the following: she had a houseful of children, for whom she cooked, cleaned, hauled water, did laundry, taught scriptures, prayed over them and with them, and all the rest of those things that hebrew families did in those days; she was very family oriented and very maternal. Hence very feminine. Just to show that all this is no mistake, on Golgotha, John adopted her as his mother. John had known her for three years and was no fool... she must have been a great mom. Nothing genderless here.

She is clearly listed in Acts as being present in the upper room, which to me implies she was probably still there at Pentecost. Simply put, that means spiritual power, and a lot of it. Yet she is hardly mentioned again in Acts after that. Like Anna, one can easily imagine her devoting herself to a retired life of prayer and hidden power. So here we have a maternal, respected, powerful presence, yet reserved and retiring.

I would say the same thing about Galadriel. She exercises her queenly power by supernaturally protecting Lorien from the gaze of Sauron. She is a quiet power; reticent; hidden; yet formidable. Elrond is much easier to find and meet than Galadriel; all her power is hidden from sight. Yet neither does her power reduce her femininity. If I may jump forward to Ithilien, to recall Sam's description of her:

Originally Posted by Sam Gamgee

Beautiful she is, sir! Lovely! Sometimes like a great tree in flower, sometimes like a white daffadowndilly, small and slender like. Hard as di’monds, soft as moonlight. Warm as sunlight, cold as frost in the stars. Proud and far-off as a snow-mountain, and as merry as any lass I ever saw with daisies in her hair in springtime. But that’s a lot o’ nonsense, and all wide of my mark. ..... But perhaps you could call her perilous, because she’s so strong in herself. You, you could dash yourself to pieces on her, like a ship on a rock; or drownd yourself, like a hobbit in a river. But neither rock nor river would be to blame.

Galadriel's power is here described as at once very deadly and very feminine. This reminds me of davem's comment that Galadriel would be loved first before she was feared. I think Sam, like Gimli, would have been at risk there.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Child; now to go back & read her dissertation

[drigel]

There are also other dimensions that are very "un Mary" like about Galadriel. Pride is the first that comes to mind. She first refuses to acknowlage the ban of the Valar and also refused the pardon. She also expresses the sub-creation desire, or at the very least the desire to lead and organize. Wonderfull sublties that JRRT layers on her.

[davem]

Some points already touched on (esp. by Child, but no time to edit)

Galadriel, as Esty says, is at the centre of this chapter, but she seems to manifest aspects of three figures, two within the Legendarium, one outside it. Within it we find aspects of Elbereth & Melian, outside it of the Virgin Mary. If we take the latter aspect first, & look at the 16th Century ‘Litany of Loreto’, we find a series of titles, among which are:

Mother of Divine Grace; Mother most pure;Mother most chaste; Mother most pure; Mother of good counsel; Mirror of justice; Seat of wisdom; Spiritual vessel; Mystical Rose; Gate of Heaven; Morning Star; Health of the sick; Comforter of the Afflicted.

Clearly, Tolkien is using images of the Virgin to emphasise Galadriel’s nature, & her role within the story. She is a reconciler of ‘enemies’ - almost the first thing she does is bring peace between Celeborn & Gimli. She seeks to know the hearts of the Company, principally for their own good: they need to know themselves, to confront their own motives & desires. She effectively shows them themselves - so its significant that her symbol & ‘magical’ tool is a Mirror, & that the Ring she bears is the Ring of Water (though originally it was to have been the Ring of Earth). She is Mistress of the knowledge of past, present & future.

She also displays aspects of Melian, in her role as guardian & protector of Lorien. She keeps alive, & accessible, the Elder Days - in Lorien Elvendom is present in the waking world. But we also see something else in Galadriel, & its not something entirely comfortable. She tells Frodo that if she takes the Ring ‘All shall love her & despair.

She lifted up her white arms, & spread out her hands in a gesture of rejection & denial. Earendil, the Evening Star, most beloved of the Elves, shone clear above. So bright was it that the figure of the Elven Lady cast a dim shadow on the ground...

‘In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And i shall not be dark, but beautiful & terrible as the morning & the night! Fair as the Sea & the Sun & the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm & the Lightening! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me & despair!

She lifted up her hand & from the Ring that she bore there issued a light that illuminated her alone & left all else dark. She stood before Frodo now seeming tall beyond measurement, & beautiful beyond enduring, terrible & worshipful.

If we look at Tolkien’s description of Elbereth from ‘The Road Goes Ever On’, we find:

As a ‘divine’ or ‘angelic’ person Varda/Elberethcould be said to be ‘looking afar from heaven’ (as in Sam’s invocation)... She was often thought of, or depicted, as standing on a great height looking towards Middle earth, with eyes that penetrated the shadows, & listening to the cries for aid of Elves (& Men) in peril of grief. Frodo & Sam both invoke her in moments of extreme peril. the Elves sing hymns to her.

It seems that with the Ring she would become a kind of pseudo-Elbereth (at least at first. But she ‘passes the test’, rejects the option of becoming Middle earth’s Elbereth (as Sauron would become Middle earth’s Eru) & chooses to ‘diminish, pass into the West, & remain Galadriel’.

So, we maybe get a glimpse of what she means by ‘all loving her & despairing’ - she would have become a ‘goddess’ within the world. This is interesting in itself - we have the idea that in taking the Ring one would become a monster but Galadriel would become beautiful as the morning, fair as the Sun & the Snow upon the Mountain (I think the image of Oiolosse is deliberate). And Celeborn? Would he be her Manwe? How much, how deeply, has she pondered what she would do if she found the Ring? She seems to have pondered the options & the outcome in some depth, & even constructed a whole scenario - what she would do, how she would rule - even how she would appear to her ‘slaves’. In this, she is probably a greater danger to Frodo & the Quest than any of the Great - she has everything planned, & would get straight to work.

But in the context of LotR alone, what does she symbolise? The otherworld? She is a test (as others have pointed out). Its almost as if the ‘danger’ she symbolises is not ‘Galadriel becoming an evil version of Elbereth’, but rather the danger of the otherworld itself overwhelming the mortal, everyday world, of Dreaming overwhelming waking, of the Unconscious overwhelming consciousness, the irrational overwhelming the rational, & sweeping them all away. Its interesting that the images she uses of herself are all natural things - sun, sea, a mountain, morning, night, storm, lightening - none of them are ‘conscious’ or ‘rational’ things. Its almost as if the ‘danger’ she represents in LotR is not the danger of a ruling deity but rather of a sinking back into a participation mystique of the rational consciousness, a reversion to unselfconscious ‘nature’, where the separation of rational consciousness from the great Sea of the Unconscious is swept away. ‘All shall fall asleep, & there will be no awakening’. Galadriel with the Ring would not simply turn the whole of Middle earth into Lorien, she will force it all into an eternal ‘dream’ among the Mallorns.

Sauron, whatever else he may desire, is, strangely, attempting to ‘awaken’ the world to full consciousness, to the ‘rationality’ of the Machine. Its significant that his most powerful foes are Elves, & Wizards - beings from the Dreaming. But is it so simple? The Elves & Wizards are attempting to defeat Sauron - not in order to put a spell of sleep on mortals, but to enable them to awaken in a different way - not to the ‘reality’ of The Machine, but to another ‘reality’, one which is in harmony with the living world, in which Sun, Sea, Mountains, Storm & Lightening is not either worshipped or controlled, but loved & respected - which is the place of mortals within the great Music.

(Re Bb's question about James - traditionally Thomas was the twin brother of Jesus ('Thomas' & 'Didymus' both meaning 'twin') & there's the whole Gnostic thing of Jesus having married Mary Magdelaine & having children by her, etc, etc, which i don't think we want to get into here!)

[Bêthberry]

No wonder I was frowned upon in Sunday School when I wondered what it must have been like to have Jesus as a half big brother. (No, I am not Catholic.)

Helen, isn't there some tradition which suggests that James the discipline was the brother of Jesus?

(sorry, off topic)

Child, I did a very quick net search when you first mentioned Heschel. I will look for his book.

It seems to me that we have a textual problem interpreting Galadriel, one which Aiwendil hinted at in his post. Do we take LotR as a stand alone text, or do we incorporate UT and The Silm into our readings?

From my perspective, given that Tolkien revised and drastically altered his character of Galadriel so that we have a very mixed portrayal (see Aiwendil's breakdown of the changes above), we should either limit our readings to LotR alone, or make very clear that we are collating textual versions.

sorry for the rush and haphazard post. Must return later.

[mark12_30]

Helen, isn't there some tradition which suggests that James the discipline was the brother of Jesus?

No tradition needed: it's in Galatians 1:19. And Bb, if I could figure out what thread to put your typo in, "James the discipline" is too hilarious to leave, especially in light of his letter. Oh, it's too good. Where should that go? It doesn't really belong on Merendis' list, does it?

Back on topic, I want to applaud Child's very apt description of the prophetic and the prophet. Much food for thought.

[Aiwendil]

Child of the Seventh Age wrote:

We often speak of Galadriel as the prime example of a powerful female character in LotR. Yet sometimes I wonder about this. To me, at times, she seems almost genderless, if such a thing is possible. (Perhaps this ties in with the Virgin Mary, an issue that others can better address?)

And Bethberry:

We get into many kinds of problems here. Galadriel had a daughter and grandchildren. She has a husband, but as Estelyn and Aiwendil suggest, his depiction is mixed

Bethberry has also pointed out the problems with bringing Silmarillion material into a discussion of LotR. But it should be noted that, if we do consider those writings, their evolution has considerable bearing on this issue. Interestingly, in the late text where she refuses the pardon of the Valar, her mother-name is "Nerwen" - "man-maiden". Here she is (obviously) represented as being initially rather proud, and only at the end of the Third Age has she gained in wisdom sufficiently to let go of her pride and return into the West. In this and the earlier version where the ban upon her is not lifted, she certainly has the fierce independent spirit of many of the Noldor, and she is "stained" in that she participated in the rebellion of Feanor (though not in the kin-slaying at Alqualonde, according to the later text).

But it seems likely that the motivation behind the latest story (and late it is, dating from the last month or so of his life) - the one where she and Celeborn leave Valinor together, independently of Feanor - may have been specifically to make her more "pure". In this version, Galadriel's dislike for and opposition to Feanor (which is mentioned in one of the earlier texts) is very much emphasized. She is later pardoned by the Valar and rejects the invitation to return to Valinor, but it is not said that this is done out of pride.

The implication may be that Galadriel was not thought to bear much of a relation to Mary at the time when LotR was written, but that later Tolkien considered any suggestion of moral failure on her part a problem. However, it ought to be noted that all three texts referred to above come from the late sixties or early seventies, so any inference concerning the time of the writing of LotR is suspect.

While I'm on the subject of these texts, I ought to amend what I said in my previous post. I neglected to mention the earliest story concerning Celeborn (preceding the version in which he is a Sinda and a relation of Thingol) - that he was a Silvan Elf who dwelt in Lorien from the outset. This may well have been the intention when the chapter was written, though the Sinda story had replaced it by the time the appendices were written in the early 1950s.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Interestingly, in the late text where she refuses the pardon of the Valar, her mother-name is "Nerwen" - "man-maiden".

I'm so glad someone pointed that out; as I was reading from Child's post regarding Galadriel's "genderlessness" I was a tad surprised to see it wasn't mentioned sooner.

In this respect, she can be considered a maiden with man-like qualities, referring to her great strength and willpower. The "man" and the "maiden" in her could perhaps cancel one another out and leave her genderless, but she has always seemed feminine to me. We see aspects of the Crone in her; although she shows little sign of age she carries the wisdom of many years.

Originally Posted by davem

Mother of Divine Grace; Mother most pure;Mother most chaste; Mother most pure; Mother of good counsel; Mirror of justice; Seat of wisdom; Spiritual vessel; Mystical Rose; Gate of Heaven; Morning Star; Health of the sick; Comforter of the Afflicted.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Those of you who know the old Hebrew Bible might know the term satan, not as a diabolical agent who opposes God but as an angel who, not necessarily malevolent, opposes human desires for the purpose of warning them against a bad path. This would explain why Galadriel claims she will not give counsel, as she is not a counsellor.

I am not Christian and am hardly a theologian, but I found davem's mention of Mary being called "Morning Star" very interesting. I do believe that "Lucifer" also means "morning star," and Lucifer fell and became known as Satan. Bethberry makes reference to satan as an angel who seems to be an opposing force but is really acting for the better good. It all seems to come full circle back to Galadriel.

Just some food for thought; if anyone with more knowledge than me on matters of Christian theology cares to expand upon this, please do.

[The Saucepan Man]

... provoked by the Chapter and the previous discussion.

But first, I must start with an apology - to Aragorn. I rather agreed with the notion that Aragorn displayed foolhardiness in his charge against the Balrog, assuming that (being versed in Elven lore) he would know its nature. That assumption, however, appears to have been incorrect:

"An evil of the Ancient World it seemed, such as I have never seen before." said Aragorn. "It was both a shadow and a flame, strong and terrible."

It seems that, though he may have heard legends of Balrogs, he did not recognise this one as such.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

She has a husband, but as Estelyn and Aiwendil suggest, his depiction is mixed--Galadriel even 'corrects' him at one point, does she not?

Poor old Celeborn! She actually corrects him twice. Bêthberry referred to Galadriel admonishing his rashness in suggesting that Gandalf fell into folly. But there is also this only moments earlier:

When all the guests were seated before his chair, the Lord looked at them again. "Here there are eight," he said. "Nine were to set out: so said the messages. But maybe there has been some change of counsel that we have not heard. Elrond is far away, and darkness gathers between us, and all this year the shadows have grown longer."

"Nay, there was no change of counsel," said the Lady, speaking for the first time. Her voice was clear and musical but deeper than woman's wont. "Gandalf the Grey set out with the Company, but he did not pass the borders of this land ..."

I must say that I find the character of Celeborn rather curious. He is referred to by Galadriel as being "accounted the wisest of the Elves of Middle-earth" and yet with her first words she corrects him and goes on to jump down his throat for speaking rashly, something that he acknowledges and subsequently apologises for. And although he is the first to greet the Fellowship, Galadriel very quickly "takes command" as the central figure in Lothlorien and, of course, in this Chapter. She also describes him as a "giver of gifts beyond the power of kings", yet is she who, in the next Chapter, bestows gifts on the Fellowship (including one very much beyond the power of kings: the Phial).

I can't really put my finger on it, but Celeborn somehow comes across in this Chapter as rather "impotent", particularly in comparison with his Lady. And this seems to me to be rather a strange depiction for the Lord of such a great realm and the husband of such a powerful Lady (not to mention the wisest Elf of Middle-earth). Perhaps this is somehow related to Child's impression of Galadriel being almost genderless. Is Celeborn too genderless in the same sense? Perhaps their status and the length of their time together has somehow obviated the need for overt gender roles and rendered harmless the kind of petty admonishments that might cause ructions in a marriage of mortals. I do recall reading on a thread here that Tolkien described Elvish marriages as moving to a state, once children had been borne, whereby the partners have little interest in sexual matters. I may be misremembering here, so feel free to correct me, but that would certainly lessen the importance of one aspect of gender roles in a marriage as long lasting as that of Galadriel and Celeborn.

And, while on this topic, it is worth noting the description of Galadriel's voice in the quote given above. It has both masculine (powerful?) and feminine (intuitive?) aspects, being "deeper than woman's wont" and yet "clear and musical". This would support Child's theory of her as a genderless (gender neutral?) character. Also, the "music" in her voice might be identified with her magic, a connection which has been noted in previous discussions.

As for Galadriel's magic and its comparison with that of Sauron, it is I think worth quoting from Letter #155 in The Letters of JRR Tolkien (a draft letter to Naomi Mitchison). Apologies for the length, but it all seems relevant:

I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and other show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a psuedo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy.' Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life.'

Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil effects - because 'magicians,' who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological: the tyrant lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.

So Tolkien is here saying that both sides use magia, or "physical" magic, and goeteia, or "illusionary" magic. The Girdle of Melian, and perhaps the magic used by Galadriel to protect Lothlorien, might be described as "illusionary", in that it could “deceive or bewilder” mortals. Galadriel's Mirror might be similarly described. It certainly had the potential to deceive or bewilder Sam and Frodo, had Galadriel not been present to guide them. The difference, therefore, is not in the nature of the magic, but in the purpose to which it is put. Sauron and his minions use their magic to pursue dominion, whereas Galadriel's magic, like that of Gandalf, is used for beneficial effect, to guide and inform rather than to coerce, and also to offer hope and invigorate spirit (in the case of the Phial, for example, and also Lembas and Miruvor). Save in the destruction of Dol Guldur, I cannot think of one occasion where Galadriel's magic is used "actively" to command or destroy (and Gandalf only uses his magic in this way in extreme circumstances).

It is interesting too that Galadriel herself does not have full control over the Mirror:

Many things I can command the Mirror to reveal," she answered, "and to some I can show what they desire to see. But the Mirror will also show things unbidden, and those are often stranger and more profitable than things which we wish to behold."

So, in the case of the Mirror, Galadriel is unable to command it to show that which might be most beneficial, let alone use it to command others. Although her breath "activates" it, her primary power here is to guide Sam and Frodo concerning the visions that it shows to them. And that, it seems to me, is more a matter of wisdom, empathy and intuition than magic.

Finally, I think that we come more closely to understand the peril of Lothlorien in this Chapter. As Fordim noted in the discussion of the pervious Chapter, there is danger in the potential for Galadriel to succumb to the Ring. But the greatest peril for each member of the Fellowship individually lies in Galadriel's testing of them. As davem says:

She seeks to know the hearts of the Company, principally for their own good: they need to know themselves, to confront their own motives & desires.

Yet, there is peril for any member of the Fellowship who does not remain true - who cannot overcome their motives and desires, having confronted them. As we know, there is one member of the Fellowship who is unable to do so, and he practically gives himself away:

Well, have a care!" said Boromir. "I do not feel too sure of this Elvish Lady and her purposes"

Having (correctly) recognised that she was testing the Fellowship, tempting them by "offering what she pretended to have the power to give", he expresses suspicion as to her purposes. Typical Boromir! He has been tested and found wanting, but refuses to recognise this, believing (or rather deceiving himself) that it is Galadriel's motives which are suspect, not his.

And as if to emphasise the point, Aragorn repeats the line, almost word for word, from the previous Chapter:

"Speak no evil of the Lady Galadriel!" said Aragorn sternly. "You know not what you say. There is in her and in this land no evil, unless a man bring it hither himself. Then let him beware!"

Once again, the comment is directed at Boromir. And once again, I wonder how much Aragorn suspects concerning the “evil“ in Boromir‘s heart and the course of action which it is likely to lead him to pursue. In any event, I shall certainly be keeping a close eye on Aragorn's interaction with him more closely from now on.

[mark12_30]

Okay, I'm detecting two radically different responses to Galadriel.

One: Deep-voiced and powerful, she's macho and Celeborn is a joke.

Two: Deep-voiced and powerful, she's "beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful... (then)... a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad." Or as Sam later says: "Beautiful she is, sir! Lovely! "

Why the dichotomy?

And while I'm at it: Celeborn receives several rebukes from Galadriel. If Celeborn was always one step ahead of Galadriel, someone would criticize Tolkien for his weak female characters (again). To me, Celeborn's ability to accept and handle contradiction smoothly is a sign of wisdom and strength. If he was cocky or defensive or he ignored her, I'd be much less impressed by him.

We've been discussing Galadriel as a prophet(ess). Supposing for a moment that she is indeed prophetic, why would her husband's acceptance of that power in her (and subsequent submittal to her rebuke) be counted a weakness? A king who cannot receive council isn't wise and deep, he's narrow and simple and therefore weak.

[Aiwendil]

Mark12_30:

Celeborn receives several rebukes from Galadriel. If Celeborn was always one step ahead of Galadriel, someone would criticize Tolkien for his weak female characters (again). To me, Celeborn's ability to accept and handle contradiction smoothly is a sign of wisdom and strength. If he was cocky or defensive or he ignored her, I'd be much less impressed by him.

Agreed. I admit that Celeborn comes across as a somewhat weak character, at least on the surface. But I have a higher opinion of someone who's willing to admit he's wrong than someone who at all costs avoids coming across as weak. I think Celeborn is perhaps analogous to Goldberry - not the dominant personality in Lorien, but an important one. There is also something like an analogy in Doriath - while Thingol certainly takes a more dominant role than Celeborn, he is not at all afraid to take advice from Melian. And when he refuses to listen to her, the results are generally disastrous.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

A king who cannot receive council isn't wise and deep, he's narrow and simple and therefore weak.

Yes, Aiwendil, upon reading that sentence I too immediately thought of Thingol - we criticize him for not reacting as Celeborn did, yet judge the latter as weak for doing just that! I too see Celeborn's relaxed attitude as a sign of true inner strength and greatness - it takes a man with a healthy sense of his own worth to be able to accept a woman with great gifts as his partner! The ones who react loudly and negatively are the ones who feel their weakness the most.