For the Love of Galadriel (Middle-earth’s Ultimate Muse?)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

But my point is not to insist upon any one particular use of 'lovers' which Estelyn cleverly disguised in her initial post. It was really just ruminating on why Russell rejected Esty's interpretation that Galadriel was a muse.

The only problem I can see with the idea of Galadriel as 'muse' is that unlike the Muses of antiquity Galadriel is a person in her own right (within the secondary world). It may be that she recieved an Anima projection from Feanor, Celebrimbor & Gimli, because according to Jung that is the role the Anima plays for a man. Yet, that would not make Galadriel herself into a muse - because as a real, living Elf woman she would be far more complex than that.

So, Galadriel has her own existence as a flawed, fallen being within Middle-earth, but to those who 'loved' her she took on a numinosity in their minds. I put 'loved' in quotes there because the only ones who could have been said to love her in the true sense were those who knew her as a person in her own right - principally Celeborn, Celebrian, Elrond & Arwen. For the others, she would have been a symbol of something 'other'. What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

One could argue that what Feanor (possibly), Celebrimbor & Gimli 'loved' was what Galadriel symbolised for them, rather than the Elven maiden 'clothed in simple white'. Lots of 'projections' going on.

[drigel]

The whole idea of muses to me is an attempt to describe the fleeting and rare spark that divines inspiration. It takes many forms. I suppose the Greeks needed personification for this divinity. Of course it's a woman.

I would think, from a mortal's POV, all Eldar from the 1st age on produced inspiration on many levels, if one would aspire to a higher level of personal or spiritual state. At the macro level would be a desire for a higher state of civilization or culture.

What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

As the (arguably) sole representative of an active Eldar in a leadership position, G certainly could be considered goddess like. Not only in her personal attributes, but what that represented, and what others would heap on her, in terms of what she represented. Not her fault, but there is an almost goddess like love for her.

[Lyta_Underhill]

What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

Indeed, Galadriel seems to have emerged into the active secondary world of Middle Earth and then faded back into the 'cauldron of story,' perhaps much on a theme of the elder race 'fading' at the end of the Third Age. His tales are shot through with the theme of the Faerie aspect of this world passing away, of the desire to follow but never being fully able to, the frustration of the "Sea Bell" rising when the desire is too great and the pleasant tantalizing hints of "news from Bree" which puts this Faerie realm where it seems to fit best, in the imagination and on the edge of reality.

Galadriel's position seems very much goddess-like, as she comes into contact with few who live in Middle Earth, and none who meet her ever forget her. They are all moved by her power and all love her. It is interesting to note Frodo's complete willingness to give up the One Ring to her. In this moment, he worships her and also feels her power, she is a goddess to his mind. She does not so much inspire him to create and to reach greater heights but enjoins him to keep to his quest by revealing her own vulnerability (and strength). She becomes real in this sense, rather than an abstract quality. Sam, on the other hand, seems to reject the unreal (scary!) aspects of 'elvish magic' once he has seen them, opting instead for the real 'earth magic,' if you will, of the realm of Lothlorien, loving the Lady for her living works, taking away her image in his mind and applying it with inspiration in the Shire. It seems that Galadriel takes on more of a "muse-like" aspect with regard to Samwise, as his creations in the Shire each have a grain of Galadriel's gift, much like the germ of an inspiration. Of course, this is not absolute in its definition, as there is a full blown mallorn tree growing in the Party Field, an unmistakable sign of the Lady's direct influence.

Galadriel does seem to change her aspect as time wears on, and I suppose one who wielded temporal power, even as she kept her realm as non-temporal as possible, would fade into myth, as the Elves fade from the story, the Fourth Age begins, and the Lady's works fade; all that is left to Middle Earth is memory and inspiration. For those who have personal experience of the Lady of the Golden Wood, the inspiration becomes more like a loss, and most follow the image West into memory or myth, if you will. Gimli, for his devotion, is allowed to follow Galadriel to the West, a boon not granted to those in the primary world, who must sit and watch things pass away and retain their inspirational qualities.

I'm not sure what I am trying to say in this rambling post, but I have very much enjoyed this thread so far, and look forward to reading more! Bear with the hobbit's crackpot theories if you will, and maybe there is something between the lines!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In my introductory post, I mentioned that I didn't remember what would be considered the second fall of Galadriel. I've just read Michael Martinez' article on Celeborn; he says something that throws a bit of light onto that question:

...the Rings of Power were originally a second act of Elvish rebellion.

That's not a major point in this topic, but an interesting aspect.


I've enjoyed reading the various thoughts you've all shared! As to the uses of the terms "muse" and "love(r)", it seems to me that Bêthberry found the right quote by another Oxford professor:

Originally Posted by Humpty Dumpty

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'