The effect of the Great Rings upon Men

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The conclusions that appear to follow from the quotes:

1. Their bodies had mass.
2. They were invisible.
3. They were neither living nor dead

That pretty well covers it.

You mentioned some good observations about the Witch-king's confrontation with Éowyn and Merry.

Upon the WK's death, it is noted that:

But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up....

ROTK The Battle of the Pelennor Fields

When the Witch-king's spirit was separated from his body, his clothing and armor was "empty", meaning it had before been filled by something physical. And it was only after his "death" that his voice became bodiless. But that begs the question of why the body did not remain on the earth when the spirit passed. I think that can be explained by the special status of the Nazgûl as "undead". Their bodies retained an ability to affect the "real" world, though because their time on earth had been so far extended beyond their natural span, their original bodies were mostly in the Unseen Realm.
If it was only thralldom to Sauron's fea that allowed the Nazgûl a tenuous link to the world of Light, then once that link to him was removed, the body would pass all the way to the other side.
Or, maybe it was a case like Saruman: once the spirit left the body, natural decay set in so quickly that the body became (invisible) dust, which obviously could not support clothing.

Conjecture, certainly, but at least food for thought.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

<--snip Upon the WK's death, it is noted that:

ROTK The Battle of the Pelennor Fields

When the Witch-king's spirit was separated from his body, his clothing and armor was "empty", meaning it had before been filled by something physical. And it was only after his "death" that his voice became bodiless. But that begs the question of why the body did not remain on the earth when the spirit passed--->snip

I hear ya about the 'undead' thing and vanishing in a puff of smoke - or sumatt like that

..... I think that can be explained by the special status of the Nazgûl as "undead". Their bodies retained an ability to affect the "real" world, though because their time on earth had been so far extended beyond their natural span, their original bodies were mostly in the Unseen Realm.....-->snip

I love his ideas about the 'unseen' realm. Kinda gets the imagination wondering. I'd say invisible dust would make sense, which would be kinda creepy on the grass or air where it all went

I wonder if their Spirits go to the Halls of Mandos? And if they had Spirit Palls that would talk to 'em, or is it like a really divided dance hall or party with groups of Spirits in groups

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Or, maybe it was a case like Saruman: once the spirit left the body, natural decay set in so quickly that the body became (invisible) dust, which obviously could not support clothing.

I think this is a serious possibility: the incredibly aged, invisible body simply collapsed into decomposed matter. This is similar to how I think Gollum's belief that he would "die into dust" might be taken literally. It is possible that he expects that his body will virtually disintegrate instantly if the Ring is destroyed.

At the same time, however, I can't help but feel that jallanite has a point regarding the "nothingness" which supposedly constituted a Nazgûl unrobed. Frodo experiences the Eye of Sauron as a "pit, a window into nothing." In a metaphorical sense, this symbolises, I would argue, the idea that Sauron's tyranny and evil are symptomatic of a fundamental "emptiness" and "hollowness" which originated with Melkor and which Professor Tolkien argued had inevitably infected Sauron to a degree. This "nihilism" seems to have constituted a kind of empty, meaningless, pointless wrath and hatred for all life (and of God) which manifested as a "lust for destruction". It represents, to me, the attitude of a mind which has reached the point where it is incapable of interacting with the world except through efforts to dominate it and eventually destroy it. Fire emanates from the rim of the eye, the point of contact between nothingess and "thingness" (if you'll pardon the clumsiness of that expression).

In a metaphysical sense, I would argue that it's possible that the Ringwraiths embody that "nihilism" as a consequence of their artificially prolonged existence. Their physical forms perhaps transmute to a kind of "wraith-matter" for want of a better term: invisible, only partially substantial, and so deeply unnatural at a fundamental level that it inspires depression, terror and loathing in mortals who encounter it. It might be compared to the Unlight of Ungoliant. Perhaps when the Wraith was killed, the "shell" of physical tangibility, like the fire which burned from the Eye, collapses, and all that remains is an invisible emptiness which expires unnoticed, at least to mortal eyes.

I was just looking at a blog which compares Ungoliant's Unlight to a Manichean account of evil as a "thing in itself" as opposed to an Augustinian or Boethian account of evil as the "absence of good". Shippey has argued that The Lord of the Rings blends both concepts. I think the same idea could be extended to things like the Wraiths. One could combine the idea of "evil as absence" and "evil as presence" to form, if this makes sense, "evil as the absence which has presence" or "evil as the thing which is nothing". Perhaps that's redundant, but I feel as if metaphysical explanations can be quite effective in trying to understand some of Professor Tolkien's representations.

EDIT: I might add that, in a very round-about way, the "counterfeit immortality" conveyed by the Rings seems to be part of Sauron's overall arsenal of "counterfeit godhood": essentially nothing more than extremely complex spiritual/metaphysical technology which gave him a kind of makeshift, fake element of "divine power" which would suit the agenda of a would-be God-King. I would argue that having immortal servants (even terrifying, loathsome invisible ones) is not just useful to provide the tyrant with lieutenants, but also, on some level, is an expression of Sauron's underlying God complex.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I think this is a serious possibility: the incredibly aged, invisible body simply collapsed into decomposed matter. This is similar to how I think Gollum's belief that he would "die into dust" might be taken literally. It is possible that he expects that his body will virtually disintegrate instantly if the Ring is destroyed.

At the same time, however, I can't help but feel that jallanite has a point regarding the "nothingness" which supposedly constituted a Nazgûl unrobed. Frodo experiences the Eye of Sauron as a "pit, a window into nothing." In a metaphorical sense, this symbolises, I would argue, the idea that Sauron's tyranny and evil are symptomatic of a fundamental "emptiness" and "hollowness" which originated with Melkor and which Professor Tolkien argued had inevitably infected Sauron to a degree. This "nihilism" seems to have constituted a kind of empty, meaningless, pointless wrath and hatred for all life (and of God) which manifested as a "lust for destruction". It represents, to me, the attitude of a mind which has reached the point where it is incapable of interacting with the world except through efforts to dominate it and eventually destroy it. Fire emanates from the rim of the eye, the point of contact between nothingess and "thingness" (if you'll pardon the clumsiness of that expression).

In a metaphysical sense, I would argue that it's possible that the Ringwraiths embody that "nihilism" as a consequence of their artificially prolonged existence. Their physical forms perhaps transmute to a kind of "wraith-matter" for want of a better term: invisible, only partially substantial, and so deeply unnatural at a fundamental level that it inspires depression, terror and loathing in mortals who encounter it. It might be compared to the Unlight of Ungoliant. Perhaps when the Wraith was killed, the "shell" of physical tangibility, like the fire which burned from the Eye, collapses, and all that remains is an invisible emptiness which expires unnoticed, at least to mortal eyes.

I was just looking at a blog which compares Ungoliant's Unlight to a Manichean account of evil as a "thing in itself" as opposed to an Augustinian or Boethian account of evil as the "absence of good". Shippey has argued that The Lord of the Rings blends both concepts. I think the same idea could be extended to things like the Wraiths. One could combine the idea of "evil as absence" and "evil as presence" to form, if this makes sense, "evil as the absence which has presence" or "evil as the thing which is nothing". Perhaps that's redundant, but I feel as if metaphysical explanations can be quite effective in trying to understand some of Professor Tolkien's representations.

I love discussions about Tolkien's etymology and linguistics, especially about 'un'. Galadriel was 'unfriends' with Feanor FOR EVER - that one makes me smile to this day.

Unlight. Does that mean one sees that with Unsight? The Unseen of the Wraith. And what is the relationship to Evil - of the ringwraith.

To go for a 'vibe' argument, Tolkien uses Evil by presence--yet--achieves that by metaphysical substances -- and -- by absence. Nazgul, Orc, Wraith - absence of essences of Ea, or Ea's essences running in the inverse (e.g. unlife/undead things). Ungoliant and Unlight. Metaphysical syphon, it seems she was. Unlight implies, to me, the channeling of light -- out of -- Arda into the Void.

Yet the evil of the Wraith - was grounded in the Evil of choice of Men. Greed, lust, vanity. Self-serving motivations. Sexual perversity, no doubt as well. Pleasure - for the self - at the expense of life itself. As men, prior to wraith-dom, their acts were much like those of the sociopath and psychopath of our world. Primary reinforcers of behaviour--thrill, greed, lust, and pleasure. Sadistic pleasure, such as Sauron's torments.

Is the evil of the Nazgul which straddles the metaphysical, beyond the physical really more than just a 'sociopath with a dark spell'? These are all, it seems to me, acts of predation and feeding--Sauronically--meant enslavement and feasting on flesh. Orcs, so it seems did much the same, as Tolkien so said and implied - feasting on manflesh.

A strange duality, in the mythology, don't you think though--when we chuck in Maeglin's creepy dad, Eol, who was (I've said this at these boards before), was chucked off the cliffs by crazy, creepy Elves as well. I mean wt? was that--ha?? Turgon rules that Eol should be tossed of a cliff?

I dunno - sometimes the whole 'good evil' thing gets a little fuzzy in Tolienian mythology.

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

When the Witch-king's spirit was separated from his body, his clothing and armor was "empty", meaning it had before been filled by something physical. And it was only after his "death" that his voice became bodiless. But that begs the question of why the body did not remain on the earth when the spirit passed. I think that can be explained by the special status of the Nazgûl as "undead". Their bodies retained an ability to affect the "real" world, though because their time on earth had been so far extended beyond their natural span, their original bodies were mostly in the Unseen Realm.

This almost sounds like the "fading" that Elves go through where their bodies can't hold their fëar and eventually dissipate and are held like a memory.

"They eventually became housed, if it can be called that, not in actual visible and tangible hröar, but only in the memory of the fëa of its bodily form, and its desire for it; and therefore not dependent for mere existence upon the material of Arda." [Morgoth's Ring]

[Belegorn]

I believe the Elvish fading is a byproduct of Melkor's influence on Arda. That's why I brought it up and because it kind of reminds of of the Nazgûl. Their bodies apparently were not supposed to do that but somehow through some taint perhaps it cannot abide the soul of an Elf for so long. I think in this condition they actually became literally invincible, like unkillable by any means they used to get killed by. Not quite the same with the Nazgûl.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

....and

...cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

This seems to me a significant moment in the narrative commentary about the 'what' of a Nazgul. Something Sauron 'did' via the Rings --a spell-- that somehow --knit-- that vestige of formerly mortal flesh --to will of might of mind--. I wonder now: Tolkien often spoke of Mind holding the Body of Men to Life. Numenoreans could yield their life at old age--with and act of will, or cling until death ended their body. This 'will' facility was explicitly noted in other races, especially the Elves and Elven Mind fortifying body through 'the other world' (Glorfindel being in 'two worlds' at the confrontation of the Ringwraiths).

I read the quote differently. My will is knit to my sinews for instance, and I will my sinews or limbs to move about, to do stuff. In me, at least, these things are not knit together with a literal "spell" but perhaps a metaphorical one. This was Merry's strike, and in my opinion the Witch King could no longer will his body to defend against Eowyn's strike. Merry called her name, Eowyn tottered or struggled up (hardly words to describe swift action in my opinion), but the Nazgul-lord did not even try to parry the blow.

I believe the Nine had invisible bodies, and although Tolkien doesn't draw a lot of attention to it, I note that when dealing with the Dead who followed Aragorn, fear was enough. In other words, it was said (through an internal character at least) that it was not known if their weapons would bite -- that, to me, is significant. They are ghosts, so even Tolkien will "acknowledge" the question in the minds of readers: do their weapons even work?

The Nine are not questioned about this however. They are like enough to "wraiths" or ghosts -- being invisible and fear instilling -- like enough to be called wraiths. Their robes give shape to the otherwise unseen...

... "nothingness" in that sense (not excluding other senses however), in my opinion; but they are not actual nothing when disrobed, and their weapons bite.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galin

I read the quote differently. My will is knit to my sinews for instance, and I will my sinews or limbs to move about, to do stuff. In me, at least, these things are not knit together with a literal "spell" but perhaps a metaphorical one.

I wondered a lot about why Tolkien pursued his ideas about human Will and its place to living and life over the years. I've imagined that his wartime experiences and having seen how minds change in wartime situations would have had something to do with that. Having seen his dying fellows and his sense of the passage ofnlife/spirit, and his inferences about the Black Breath seem to speak about 'Will to live' and, possibly depression, when will to live falters.

I had an experience of unstoppable outpouring of grief once where I sensed the Will abandoning my body or of it not being sustaining of my body, for a short while as I wondered if I was just going to simply drop dead as my heart stopped or something. Have you ever heard of those couples where one dies of cancer and then the second, for example, shortly afterwards. Stories about twins and those moments where one feels the illness, or passage of the other. There are some mysteries of will that Tolkien, I think, sought to explore in the mythology, and variations of those with the Nazgul and the Sauronic side of the world of the living.

......cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

In adding in how Eowyn's strike, done by an ordinary blade completed the annihilation, I sensed something important in the quote,

"Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

and

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

Seems that the Men of the Westernesse had a certain realm of magical/lore capacity (e.g. Orthanc stone untouched by Ent). The blade opened a vulnerability, and one seemingly both at the local wound site, and also systemic, affecting will and body --knitting-- or at the global level. A physical blow to body, by a magical blade--a small wound--that severed will to body-undead, globally.

Though struck behind the knee, from the cut, it must have been systemic about 'Will-undead sinew'.

[Ivriniel]

Eowyn struck somewhere else--with a non-magical weapon (significant. Would her blade have done anything, without Merry's first blow. And what of the numbing of their arms after striking him? Some 'energy' or something was removed from their bodies?

And her gender, being a woman, was also somehow significant. I've always thought that. Some artefact of Sauronic influence was implicated by way of lessening or something because of her gender. Perhaps female stature and bearing had some implication for the Nazgul's history that evoked--shame--or --doubt-- or even --fear-- or possibly even 'thank friggin god, am I sick of one eye or what. I'm dunnin--yay--get on with it wench'. I imagine the Nazgul in life perpetrated sexual depravities and violences, such as taking concubines after conquests. This was part of Tolkien's mythology, as we saw with Maeglin who was subverted in the end by Melkor this way in lust for Turgon's daughter. But, on another point, I do not understand the prophesy that Glorfindel spoke of about the Witchking.

So, for Eowyn, and the Nazgul 'wyrd', I wonder then if the severing of Spell binding Will to body together with the doubt of sudden fear and shame exposed a fundamental rift in metaphysical dimensions allowing a normal blade to finish him off. Perhaps enough of 'him' came back for a short moment, and -- pow -- he copped it.

This theme of shame and critical strikes during battle, felling the other--if anyone remembers, I think it was Fingon singing in Tol Sirion in contest with Sauron, and during the Song, the critical vulnerability achieved to weaken Fingon by the verse about the Kinslaying. That was when Fingon buckled--when Sauron weakened Fingon with the naming of the shame of the kinslaying. Fingon's Will (there's that word again) faltered because of shame.

[Findegil]

Surely there he was not including the Three. Why would rings made by Elves for Elves have the power to extend the wearer's lifespan?

Why would a ring made by Sauron exclusivly for his own use have the power to extend the wearer's lifespan?
But it had this power for sure, as we see in the case of Gollum.

Originally Posted by Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, 1951:

The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the preservation or slowing of decay (i.e. change viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance – that is more or less an Elvish motive.

This is porbabaly the key to understand the effects. With this the prolongation of mortal lifespan is a given ability of all 19 Rings. We also see a hint how it functions: the Rings gives the mind the possibility to preserve the desired or loved body it does dwell in. An ability that the elves had by thier nature, but mortals had not and dwraves could not even get with the help of the rings.
In that way the wraithification of the bears seems to be very similar to elvish fading. If that is 'true' than it might be that a Ringwraith could have choosen to abondan his life and with that escape from Sauron. But as all the Rings seem to have a great adictive potential and clinging to life longer than seems reasonable is an repeating motive in Middle-Earth mrotals this becomes near to impossible once the ring has worked long enough on the mind of its bearer.

Originally Posted by Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, 1951:

The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility.

Here we come to the differnces between the Rings. Sauron did influence the nine and the seven much more than the three. So it seems that the invisibility was an ability that Sauron wished to be included. When the elves worked on their own using only the knowledge that they had learned from Sauron and not his direct help, they could eliminat the invisibility effect.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

About the connection of will to sinew, Ivriniel, I still think the meaning is more mundane than you are proposing. A deer "caught in the headlights" has had its will temporarily disconnected from its sinews (the two are no longer knit together), for example, and this for me explains why the Nazgul-lord does nothing to save himself from Eowyn (when he arguably had time to at least try and defend himself), as well as Tolkien's less poetic explanation in a letter, that if one of the Nine had been struck similarly at Weathertop, the wraith would have fallen down and the blade destroyed.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Eowyn struck somewhere else--with a non-magical weapon (significant. Would her blade have done anything, without Merry's first blow.

I think Eowyn's blade would have killed the Witch-king without Merry's strike. For me, Merry only made the wraith vulnerable to Eowyn in a tactical sense -- he could not will his body to avoid or parry her blow. Otherwise (it seems to me), if the Nazgul-lord could only be stopped by such blades, and was invulnerable to other weapons, he becomes too powerful.

Sauron himself could be bodily slain, so could Morgoth. Limiting the Nazgul to a specific weapon makes him too strong in my opinion (he already has other advantages in battle), an arguable "plot hole" even.

My reading has been "no other blade" as in: no other blade as it was employed here. In other words, even if a mightier hand had struck this particular wound (the reader already knows the particular circumstances described) with another blade, the wound would not have been so bitter. Why? Because this blade didn't need a mightier hand, nor to be struck in a more lerthal spot, to end up being bitter, as the Nazgul-lord was ultimately brought down by it, given the nature of the dagger and what happened next.

Or more clearly perhaps: I believe the message here is, even if Imrahil or Boromir had wounded the wraith in the same way, any other blade however, would have resulted in a dead Eowyn and a wounded Nazgul-lord.

Making the Witch-king invulnerable to regular weapons is problematic in my opinion. Admittedly Tolkien does seem to suggest this earlier when Gandalf tells Legolas that his arrows could not have slain one of the Nine -- but it is also Gandalf who, earlier in the story, explains that the flood cannot kill the wraiths, because they stand or fall with Sauron...

... which I take to mean that they can be what we would call "killed", or hurt, but only ultimately slain if Sauron is undone. The felling of the Witch-king was a great deed within the context of this battle, but I think he might have returned at some future point; a theory made moot by the destruction of the One however.

So I think the wraiths would be "invulnerable" in this sense, but not in the sense that they could ride into a given battle and fear no regular sword, mace or spear. The latter seems too powerful in a practical sense, and to my mind makes the coincidence of Merry having the right kind of sword "too" coincidental.

It's already coincidental enough to have Merry bearing a sword that helped so greatly, but to have been bearing the only weapon that could either kill the wraith or make it vulnerable to regular weapons, is even a step further I think.

[Belegorn]

I've got to check on the Nazgûl, but based on some instances in which the Witch-king is mentioned I doubt he is invulnerable as Galin pointed out. Take for example his fear of certain Dúnedain. Why would he fear them if he were invulnerable to most/all weapons and they were not?

"Boromir was a great captain and even the Witch-king feared him." [Appendix A: The Stewards]

I don't know of any Maiar who incarnated who were invulnerable. Even Morgoth bore wounds, limped on an injured foot, and feared to go out and fight Fingolfin. Sauron was hurt, and lost a finger, Balrogs were hurt such as Gothmog getting impaled by a helmet, dragons were hurt, Saruman was hurt and got his neck slit.

[Ivriniel]

hi there Belegorn, Findegil and Galin

@Galin

I like the "deer in headlights" metaphor, and the other one upstream somewhere.

The Deer, tho, I'd argue is 'tightly' knit to sinew in fear. Rigid in fact. I've, of a night time, often watched lights approaching in the pitch, and where there is no sound, they are quite captivating. There's the sense of not knowing what it means and which way to move as there is the sense of both 'nothing' of body and yet 'growing light'.

I wonder if it 'tunes' us into the whole 'light at the end of the tunnel' journey, life, death and all those who died for a short while who speak of light and so on? Just a thought.

@all

......cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

It does seem as tho there is reference to the effect-metaphysical of the ...breaking... the initial influence of the Ring Spell, both in its line of 'sight'/'link' from The One to any/all of The Nine. And the Numenorean Blade fashioned in Arnor "...long..." by some Smith of Lore, who "wove about" or "wound about" (I forget which, see upstream), a ...spell... to allow the blade an effect. I assume a counter-spell of some nature? Could a Man of War, c.f. Hobbit or Woman have dealt the blow-equivalent? Was there something about Hobbit-ish or Woman-ish nature that augmented the Blade's 'purpose'. Tolkien did speak of Blades of Power having purpose. Beleg's blade, for example, forged of Meteorite.

I've never been quite sure about the nature of Numenorean blades. On the one hand, less 'something' than Sting (recall Shelob's web and Sting v Numenor to cut them). Yet, Tolkien states that 'no other blade' (upon the Nazgul) would have dealt a blow so bitter.

As always with Tolkien there's always an '...iest' that has a rival. Galadriel 'mightiest' then someone 'fairest' - ha? Luthien v Galadriel. Or s/he who wrought the '--iest' this or that

[Galin]

I like the "deer in headlights" metaphor, and the other one upstream somewhere.

The Deer, tho, I'd argue is 'tightly' knit to sinew in fear. Rigid in fact. I've, of a night time, often watched lights approaching in the pitch, and where there is no sound, they are quite captivating. There's the sense of not knowing what it means and which way to move as there is the sense of both 'nothing' of body and yet 'growing light'.

Well it's not a perfect analogy, I realize. But anyway, unknit my will to my sinews (break the connection between will and body) during a battle and, no how matter how strong or how great a warrior I am, I'm now a sitting duck. I want to dodge the deadly blow, or lift my arm to try and parry it, but I can't will my limbs to move or act... even if my opponent is now not exactly moving swiftly to strike me...

Eowyn! Eowyn! cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle,...

It's even arguable that if Imrahil stuck his dagger in the Nazgul-lord's leg he (the Witch-king) might not fall down. Sure it would be painful, but in the heat of battle unless the leg is cut so that it can hardly support weight, one won't necessarily fall down, in my opinion. But this was no ordinary dagger in any case, it had a helpful effect even when not struck in a "lethal" place.

Was there something about Hobbit-ish or Woman-ish nature that augmented the Blade's 'purpose'.

Hmm, I never thought so. The Hobbit and female aspect concerns fulfilling the prophecy in my opinion.

Here I think Tolkien plays with a seeming (measure of) invulnerability. If not by the hand of M(m)an would the Witch-king fall, how would he be defeated? Well these things are often technical and tricky, and technically Merry is not a Man (although he is male), Eowyn not a man (although she belongs to the race of Men).

Not that you said otherwise about that much, in any case.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well it's not a perfect analogy-->snip

Yeah, but it's still a good analogy, and perfectly so. Your post really got me thinking about w(W)ill in a perfectly different way. I also liked what you did with (M)man - and reckon it adds to pondering the works. For a w(W)ill - one gets a different glimpse - if thinking will versus Will of Men. For men and dear is very different to Tolkien-ese Men and Deer (this one moves to Yavanna and, no doubt the Deer with lines to the Maia and First Faun of the First Age - under, perhaps Tilion's moon born, with First Touch of Valinorean knowing.

The deer and the man of the 21st century yet still both have will. And wondering about those as 'will-natural' (not will-socialised) beings yields knowing about the M(man) who was the Witch King at the end of the Third Age. It was what prompted my thoughts about 'hobbit-ish' and 'woman-ish' blows to fulfil Glorfindel's Prophesy at the Battle of Fornost. Eoywn - she claimed she 'was not a man' (or was it spoken Man).....

Then pondering the Will-Undead, there were also the Wights of the Barrow Downs, who were created, I thought, by Angmar and a part of the reason Arnor failed. The occupation of the Burial Mounds of Arnor were violated by Undead presence which somehow caused the realm to fail... Necromantic Undead Will, even in burial mounds had some pervasive influence on Arnor's strength.

snip <--It's even arguable that if Imrahil stuck his dagger in the Nazgul-lord's leg he (the Witch-king) might not fall down. Sure it would be painful, but in the heat of battle unless the leg is cut so that it can hardly support weight, one won't necessarily fall down, in my opinion. But this was no ordinary dagger in any case, it had a helpful effect even when not struck in a "lethal" place.

Well as Ivriniel (Imrahil's great great....aunt), I'd say that 'my n(N)ephew may well have had a good shot at downing him - with some Elven blood - another candidate, yes, seems like another candidate, if a Hobbit or W(w)oman were successful.

Here I think Tolkien plays with a seeming (measure of) invulnerability. If not by the hand of M(m)an would the Witch-king fall, how would he be defeated? Well these things are often technical and tricky, and technically Merry is not a Man (although he is male), Eowyn not a man (although she belongs to the race of Men).

makes sense.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Then pondering the Will-Undead, there were also the Wights of the Barrow Downs, who were created, I thought, by Angmar and a part of the reason Arnor failed. The occupation of the Burial Mounds of Arnor were violated by Undead presence which somehow caused the realm to fail... Necromantic Undead Will, even in burial mounds had some pervasive influence on Arnor's strength.

This relates back to the idea of Elves and Fading, as it is suggested in Morgoth's Ring that Undead in Middle-earth (like the Barrow-wights) tend to be "Houseless": Elvish fëa which have refused the call to Mandos and haunt Middle-earth.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

This relates back to the idea of Elves and Fading, as it is suggested in Morgoth's Ring that Undead in Middle-earth (like the Barrow-wights) tend to be "Houseless": Elvish fëa which have refused the call to Mandos and haunt Middle-earth.

I read that upstream, likening the 'process' (of Undead-ising) to The Fading. It's very interesting, don't you think. It does quite really seem the Sauronic-metaphysical variant-ish, likening 'invisibility'--or--'fading' by continued use of a Ring. I'm transported to Elrond's Houses of Healing and Frodo's 'transparency' after his healing by Elrond. A Houseless Spirit, then, does it follow that the Nine were not gathered by Mandos, and so, does this mean that Middle Earth has wandering spirits, perhaps haunting ones?

[Galin]

I've got to check on the Nazgûl, but based on some instances in which the Witch-king is mentioned I doubt he is invulnerable as Galin pointed out. Take for example his fear of certain Dúnedain. Why would he fear them if he were invulnerable to most/all weapons and they were not?

"Boromir was a great captain and even the Witch-king feared him." [Appendix A: The Stewards]

Good points, and I agree. Some have countered that the Witch-king didn't fear this Boromir personally, but feared him in the sense that he was a great captain and stategist. I don't buy that myself. Tolkien also notes that he was a man strong in body and will...

"Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-king feared him. He was noble and fair of face, a man strong in body and in will, but he received a Morgul-wound in that war which shortened his days, and he became shrunken with pain and died twelve years after his father."

One needs a strong will to first stand against the unreasoning fear a wraith imparts, then you've got a chance in battle against them. This is why I think the Witch-king feared Boromir, that he had a notably strong will, as well as physical strength. Tolkien, of course, sets up the scenario by which Eowyn will also conquer her fear, and Merry as well, enough to help her.

Some also point to:

"Over the hills of slain a hideous shape appeared: a horseman, tall, hooded, cloaked in black. Slowly, trampling the fallen, he rode forth, heeding no longer any dart. He halted and held up a long pale sword. And as he did so a great fear fell upon all, defender and foe alike; and the hands of men dropped to their sides, and no bows sang. For a moment all was still."

But this hardly proves invulnerability in my opinion, considering he heeded "no longer" any dart (which seems to suggest he had heeded them before this point). For me I think this is hubris, mixed with the Wraith's knowledge of his own effect upon Men...

... for we see, here at least, his effect will stop the bowmen from shooting in any case, at least for a time.

[Ivriniel]

thanx for the reputation posts, muchly appreciated....just writing here coz I can't allocate reputation posts, and so didn't want to seem rude. I've written to administrator to see what's happened. cheers

Originally Posted by Galin

Good points, and I agree. Some have countered that the Witch-king didn't fear this Boromir personally, but feared him in the sense that he was a great captain and stategist. I don't buy that myself. Tolkien also notes that he was a man strong in body and will...

Agree with you. I reckon the Witchking had a 'smell sense' or instinct of sorts for the mega-Numenoreans and Boromir wasn't very Numenorean. Faramir might have had a chance.

But this hardly proves invulnerability in my opinion....

I'm still wondering about 'what' weapons could have harmed him and on what terms. I'm still also allowing for a 'psychological' or 'body-material' effect of his combatant/s as influential factors.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Agree with you. I reckon the Witchking had a 'smell sense' or instinct of sorts for the mega-Numenoreans and Boromir wasn't very Numenorean. Faramir might have had a chance.

For clarity I'm arguing/agreeing that the Witch-king did fear this Boromir personally, although this is not the Boromir of the Fellowship. You might be aware of this but your addition of Faramir here made me wonder if we are talking about the same Boromir.

[Belegorn]

I don't know if the Witch-king had a sense for Dúnedain which both Boromirs were. The Boromir I had mentioned was the Steward Boromir who got stabbed by a Nazgûl when he drove them off in Ithilien. On the same issue with Dúnedain and the Witch-king he did fight them for hundreds of years in the North in Arnor and eventually destroyed Arthedain. There was also Eärnur who was clearly a mighty Dúnadan and there is no implication that the Witch-king feared him at all.

"Eärnur was a man like his father in valour [Eärnil II led Gondor's armies against the Wainriders and saved Gondor from destuction. He also had defended Gondor's southern borders], but not in wisdom. He was a man of strong body and hot mood; but he would take no wife, for his only pleasure was in fighting, or in the exercise of arms. His prowess was such that none in Gondor could stand against him in those weapon-sports in which he delighted, seeming rather a champion than a captain or king, and retaining his vigour and skill to a later age than was then usual." [Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion]

Even with all his prowess the Witch-king attacked Eärnur when his army was wiped out.

Originally Posted by Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion

he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight for him. Eärnur would have withstood him; but his horse could not endure the onset, and it swerved and bore him far away before he could master it.

This is the time when Glorfindel said he wouldn't fall by the hand of man. The Witch-king taunted Eärnur ever since until he finally could not be restrained by any of his men and went to duel him years later to his own end. I do not quite know why Boromir himself put the fear of the Valar into the Witch-king for I do not think he was the greatest Dúnadan he had ever come across. It seems most or all of the Stewards were mighty, even a shrunken Denethor ll, and clearly the kings were great warriors too.

[Mithadan]

May I respectfully make a suggestion? There are now 62 posts in this thread, which is truly admirable. However, at best, 6 posts relate to the original topic. The balance raise a variety of well-reasoned issues, but they do not respond to the topic here. Jallanite opened a new thread to discuss one of his issues. Why don't others? There are perhaps a half dozen different and discrete topics in this thread worthy of discussion.

BE BRAVE!!!!! Start a new thread to raise your issues! I couldn't care less if you copied whatever you wrote in this thread, but PLEASE start a new thread. A newcomer might read the first 3 posts and have no interest. They may never reach post 20 that raises an entirely new issue,

START A NEW THREAD!

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

I don't know if the Witch-king had a sense for Dúnedain which both Boromirs were. The Boromir I had mentioned was the Steward Boromir who got stabbed by a Nazgûl when he drove them off in Ithilien. On the same issue with Dúnedain and the Witch-king he did fight them for hundreds of years in the North in Arnor and eventually destroyed Arthedain. There was also Eärnur who was clearly a mighty Dúnadan and there is no implication that the Witch-king feared him at all.

It's been a long time since I pondered any Boromirs at all, and vaguely remember there was more than one of them. I don't like the name much and never had much inclination towards any Boromirs

but....

"Eärnur was a man like his father in valour [Eärnil II led Gondor's armies against the Wainriders and saved Gondor from destuction. He also had defended Gondor's southern borders], but not in wisdom. He was a man of strong body and hot mood; but he would take no wife, for his only pleasure was in fighting, or in the exercise of arms. His prowess was such that none in Gondor could stand against him in those weapon-sports in which he delighted, seeming rather a champion than a captain or king, and retaining his vigour and skill to a later age than was then usual." [Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion]

Even with all his prowess the Witch-king attacked Eärnur when his army was wiped out.

I think it's quite reasonable to raise the issue of Earnur and all the associated information as we ponder Witchking-isation and Wraithdom. The Eanur/nil combo got me thinking about our Last King of the Southern Realm and why he felt the call to respond to the Witchking's summons.

I wonder--perhaps old Witchy-poo-man-thing 'smelled', or unsmelled the same metaphysical 'stench' upon Earnur (hot tempered man of might and brauns, no wife, prolly not very capable of intimacy, sounds like, with a love of fighting, predominantly) as was upon the Witchking, himself. The one and the same that led to his succumbing to the call of one of the Nine. Perhaps Sauron could 'discern' by conversation, or necromantic Spell of some sort how much of a 'man's fibre' could be 'snatched' per use of his (creepy) rings based on temperament and behaviour.

I wonder then - Merry and Eowyn, again.

Merry - not really one with a 'love of battle' yet hardy was he of Spirit Will and Fibre. And Eowyn, not 'called to battle' for vanity or honour, but by cold, steel will and frail heart of lapsed love. Yet a heart that is frail, perhaps, for sensing 'stench' of the kinds of Men who 'snatch' love from her Valorous heart and so, she strove to fell that which was betrayer of her capacity to love.

Only an analysis by metaphor.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galin

For clarity I'm arguing/agreeing that the Witch-king did fear this Boromir personally, although this is not the Boromir of the Fellowship. You might be aware of this but your addition of Faramir here made me wonder if we are talking about the same Boromir.

I wasn't, actually. Thanx for prompting. I now dimly recall from a very long time ago in my readings that there was more than one Boromir. It's been a very long time since I read of the Numenorean Realms in Exile, and I never really engaged with the Stewardship mythology.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"No other blade could have dealt that foe a wound so bitter..."

Which to me says not that no other blade could wound him, just that no other blade could wound him as badly. After all, the W-K's supposed invulnerability isn't ever stated; instead what we have is a prophecy by Glorfindel, "not by the hand of man shall he fall," which is not at all the same thing as PJ's dunderheaded "No man can kill me."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Giving of rings: let's not forget that the Appendices post-dated the writing of Book I by ten years and more; there is no indication that the story of Thror giving Thrain his Ring while still on his two feet and then toddling off to Moria existed before the writing of Durin's Folk, and almost certainly wasn't yet conceived when Tolkien wrote the passage in question (heck, Moria itself didn't exist yet). At the time, to the extent he thought of it it all, he likely assumed the Ring was handed over on Thror's deathbed, or simply found among the dead king's effects, as it had been from father to son for dwarven generations.

Similarly, the passing around of the Elf-Rings seems to have arisen at the Appendices stage, or at the earliest during the writing of the final chapters in one long burst, and wasn't anything he considered while writing Chapter 2 a decade earlier.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Which to me says not that no other blade could wound him, just that no other blade could wound him as badly. After all, the W-K's supposed invulnerability isn't ever stated; instead what we have is a prophecy by Glorfindel, "not by the hand of man shall he fall," which is not at all the same thing as PJ's dunderheaded "No man can kill me."

Yes. However, there's a premise missing.

The 'blade of Arnor' argument is a two-pronged position (pardon pun) not one of '...how bitterly...' "a" blade might hurt him. 1. Spell; 2. To target an invulnerability. Devised for it, in fact, it does seem.

The Arnor blade had a counter spell that attacked something specific in the Witchking. It was about the knitting of will to undead flesh. I don't recall normal metal ever having such an imbued property in the mythology. Do you? There's part of the invulnerability addressed, by a specific reference to Lore. You may argue what a normal blade would do, and if any effect can be imputed of 'any' blade to 'knitting' (I don't think it's easy to knit a scarf with a blade).

Prophesy referring to the "hand of man" and not "a man" of course is the exact tension mounted by Tolkien. I suspect he did it on purpose. We think 'of humans with human DNA' when we read "hand of man". Yet, Eowyn played the gender card, which is rather interesting, which refers to what you said.

This must imply, then that Glorfindel's prophesy was circumscribed, in, perhaps a discernment he missed. We found that Holbytlan and female downed him. That leaves us pondering what it is about Holbytlan and women that was different. There's a lot about Halfling 'fibre' and their general resistance to Evil, and about their hardiness of body. I'm not clear what it was that Tolkien was saying about men and women (lower case 'm' and 'w') that was at work that enabled Eowyn to do something no man in the many hundreds of years of wars with Arnor could.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Yes. However, there's a premise missing.

The 'blade of Arnor' argument is a two-pronged position (pardon pun) not one of '...how bitterly...' "a" blade might hurt him. 1. Spell; 2. To target an invulnerability. Devised for it, in fact, it does seem.

The Arnor blade had a counter spell that attacked something specific in the Witchking. It was about the knitting of will to undead flesh. I don't recall normal metal ever having such an imbued property in the mythology. Do you? There's part of the invulnerability addressed, by a specific reference to Lore. You may argue what a normal blade would do, and if any effect can be imputed of 'any' blade to 'knitting' (I don't think it's easy to knit a scarf with a blade).

The blade didn't knit anything- it un-knit it.

Anyway, is your argument here that, since any effect *less* than "breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will" would be negligible, Merry's blade *may as well* have been the only one that could wound the Witch-king?

This must imply, then that Glorfindel's prophesy was circumscribed, in, perhaps a discernment he missed. We found that Holbytlan and female downed him. That leaves us pondering what it is about Holbytlan and women that was different. There's a lot about Halfling 'fibre' and their general resistance to Evil, and about their hardiness of body. I'm not clear what it was that Tolkien was saying about men and women (lower case 'm' and 'w') that was at work that enabled Eowyn to do something no man in the many hundreds of years of wars with Arnor could.

I have always taken it that Glorfindel meant, simply, that no man *would* kill the Witch-king, not that no man *could* kill him. That is, it's not that women and hobbits as groups possessed any innate Witch-king lethality, it's just that the individuals who killed him *happened* to be a woman and a hobbit. (Similarly, Macduff is not generally assumed to have had special Macbeth-killing powers as a result of being a Caesarian birth.)

[Ivriniel]

Hi Nerwin, about knitting, yes I know. It's in about a hundred places upstream together with the Canon citation which I have not bothered to re-quote, as I assumed it had been read.....that's why I suggested that one shouldn't knit with swords. (scarves, as in with wool, etc. Cuts the wool)

Interesting 'would-could' distinction. I have echoes of the same recollection. But a poster, upstream donged that on the head.

There's a canon citation, that points out that Earn(ur/il) (I forget which forgive me, anyhooz, the last King of Gondor) did not quail when Witchy Poo charged. It was the horse that blew a fuse and ran off.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Interesting 'would-could' distinction. I have echoes of the same recollection. But a poster, upstream donged that on the head.

Who was that? I can't find the post.

There's a canon citation, that points out that Earn(ur/il) (I forget which forgive me, anyhooz, the last King of Gondor) did not quail when Witchy Poo charged. It was the horse that blew a fuse and ran off.

That's correct. It was Earnur, and that was in fact the occasion of Glorfindel uttering his prophecy about "not by the hand of man will he fall".

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Who was that? I can't find the post.

That's correct. It was Earnur, and that was in fact the occasion of Glorfindel uttering his prophecy about "not by the hand of man will he fall".

A beautiful citation from Belegorn

Originally Posted by Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion
he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight for him. Eärnur would have withstood him; but his horse could not endure the onset, and it swerved and bore him far away before he could master it.

This citation 'dongs' on the head any suggestion that it was, somehow, a 'male' incapacity to 'withstand' the Witchking--in a 'Head On Up Front'. This means there was 'a man', Earnur, who could, basically, stand there, in front of witchypoo and stab at the creepy thing in front of him. "Would" a man "yes" is the answer and "could" a man (withstand), a double yes is the implication of this canon.

Soooo that leaves us wondering, again Glorfindel's words that give one a headache, because "not by the hand of man" means not "Eowyn is not of man(kind)" but "a woman I am, not a man".

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

A beautiful citation from Belegorn



This citation 'dongs' on the head any suggestion that it was, somehow, a 'male' incapacity to 'withstand' the Witchking--in a 'Head On Up Front'. This means there was 'a man', Earnur, who could, basically, stand there, in front of witchypoo and stab at the creepy thing in front of him. "Would" a man "yes" is the answer and "could" a man (withstand), a double yes is the implication of this canon.

Soooo that leaves us wondering, again Glorfindel's words that give one a headache, because "not by the hand of man" means not "Eowyn is not of man(kind)" but "a woman I am, not a man".

But are you saying this somehow disproves my point? I never said males were inherently unable to withstand the Witch-king- where did you get that idea?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But are you saying this somehow disproves my point? I never said males were inherently unable to withstand the Witch-king- where did you get that idea?

believe me, I'm confused as well

There's so many materials here. Um, not so much 'disproves' the point, but implies that the rendering of Glorfindel's prophesy as about "..not by the hand of man..." has more than one emphasis.

I re-read your post 'just happened to be' a woman and a hobbit. I get where you went. It converges with part of the point I made. In one sense out of two.

It's the part you've lifted out 'special properties' as meaning that it is 'not' necessary that women and hobbits possess them that leaves this question.

What is Eowyn? (okay now I'm going to laughing hysterically). Is she not of man? As a woman, she 'just happens' to not be a man - soooo - doesn't this mean that people (or things) 'not men' that can slay a Nazgul have 'something'? Some joo joo, or some facet of mind, or some bearing, or some facility, or something?

Otherwise, why couldn't 'men' achieve it?

[Nerwen]

Okay. It seems I haven't actually got my point across to you. It's not about the wordplay on "Man/man", it's about cause and effect.

Here's an example that leaves out the semantical issue:

Let us suppose there's a fellow named Joe who is both aquaphobic and superstitious. Joe consults Madame Zelda, the fortune teller, who shuffles her Tarot deck, reads the leftover tea-leaves in Joe's cup and examines the lines on his palm.

Joe, she says, is not fated to drown.

Ecstatic, Joe trips on his way out, falls down the stairs, breaks his neck and dies.

Thus, the prophecy is fulfilled.

1. Was Joe a special kind of being with immunity to drowning?
2. Was he uniquely vulnerable to stairs?

Do you see what I'm getting at now?



*(3. (Optional) Will Hollywood film this tragic story as "The Fault in Our Stairs?")

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Okay. It seems I haven't actually got my point across to you. It's not about the wordplay on "Man/man", it's about cause and effect.

Here's an example that leaves out the semantical issue:

Let us suppose there's a fellow named Joe who is both aquaphobic and superstitious. Joe consults Madame Zelda, the fortune teller, who shuffles her Tarot deck, reads the leftover tea-leaves in Joe's cup and examines the lines on his palm.

Joe, she says, is not fated to drown.

Ecstatic, Joe trips on his way out, falls down the stairs, breaks his neck and dies.

Thus, the prophecy is fulfilled.

1. Was Joe a special kind of being with immunity to drowning?
2. Was he uniquely vulnerable to stairs?

Do you see what I'm getting at now?



*(3. (Optional) Will Hollywood film this tragic story as "The Fault in Our Stairs?")

not logic *screams* And causation, reversal.

If A does not imply B, this does not mean that the presence of B implies an absence of A....

hahahaha omg! I'm back at Uni.

Yes of course! Jo had special powers to avoid drowning which was why he fell down the stairs. hahaha

*composes self* (seriously, I just ceased laughing)

Yes, of course, the prophesy's range/domain and its inclusive and exclusive areas are quite precisely the issue.

*rubs temples* *waves finger at Glorifinel*

"now, Mr Elfy - you should have been clearer about context in your words. Were you locking, explicitly, the terms 'by the hand of man' to what - exactly! Or to 'what not!'"

[Ivriniel]

My stomach hurts from laughing!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

*rubs temples* *waves finger at Glorifinel*

"now, Mr Elfy - you should have been clearer about context in your words. Were you locking, explicitly, the terms 'by the hand of man' to what - exactly! Or to 'what not!'"

Glorfindel: No. And yes.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Glorfindel: No. And yes.

Hahaha High five sista!!!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"The Arnor blade had a counter spell that attacked something specific in the Witchking. It was about the knitting of will to undead flesh. I don't recall normal metal ever having such an imbued property in the mythology. Do you? There's part of the invulnerability addressed, by a specific reference to Lore. You may argue what a normal blade would do, and if any effect can be imputed of 'any' blade to 'knitting' (I don't think it's easy to knit a scarf with a blade)"

I don't think that any sort of "invulnerability" is implied, though. Suppose Alice were to stab Bob with a poisoned knife: the fact that the poison harms him doesn't imply that he's invulnerable to stab wounds!

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I have always taken it that Glorfindel meant, simply, that no man *would* kill the Witch-king, not that no man *could* kill him. That is, it's not that women and hobbits as groups possessed any innate Witch-king lethality, it's just that the individuals who killed him *happened* to be a woman and a hobbit. (Similarly, Macduff is not generally assumed to have had special Macbeth-killing powers as a result of being a Caesarian birth.)

I agree. Good note on Macbeth too. It nicely illustrates the "technicalities" of these kinds of things. Macduff still had a mother of course, he was just not "born" in the usual way.