Magic in Middle-earth

[Michael Wilhelmson]

It's also entirely possible that "magic" refers to two different things. The Lorien elves used advanced camoflauge, extremely nutrional food, and other types of technology Tolkien could have easily seen or even used in the Great War. What the Fellowship saw as magic, could easily have been a form of modern invention, like the Dwarves, or the Numenoreans.
Examples include:

Orthanc- Unbreakable Numenorean stone
Mythryl- invincible rings
Blasting-Fire- All too well described by Peter Jackson's movies
Fireworks


Real "magic" probably refers to what we consider to be magical. That is, the powers of the Eldar in the old days and the Valar, both in Creation and Middle-Earth

Wizardry- Used by both wizards and elf-lords
Rings
Alien life to ME- Mallorns, the white tree
"Genetic" Engineering- Orcs, Trolls, Fel Beasts, Uruks, Wargs
Phial of Galadriel
Undeath- Natural (Oathbreakers, ghosts) or artifical (Nazgul, wraiths)
Elf-ships

[Gurthang]

Originally posted by Neithan

So what about the Wizards' staff? Well this is a more difficult question and I have to resort to wild speculation in order to explain it.

I've been in a discussion about Gandalf's staff before. If you want to read it, it is this thread.

My thoughts on the wizard's staves is that they are merely tools. In themselves, they are really nothing special. But in the hand of a master (being a wizard), they can be used to more effectively administer magic. So if the staff is broken, it doesn't make the wizard less powerful, it just lessens his ability to transfer his power to the physical.

Originally posted by Neithan

Gandalf used magic against the Balrog after his staff was broken.

He still had the Ring of Fire. He could have used that in much the same way that he was using his staff. It gave him a way to turn his power into 'magic'.

Now, one thing that I think has been overlooked: Dragon magic. It is known that Dragons can cast spells with their eyes, simply by looking at a person and enchanting them. But where does that ability fall in with the other forms of magic that Neithan listed above?

The spell casting ability of Dragons is very unique, in that the casting is very physical (the Dragon has to actually look to enchant), but the effect is closer to an illusionary effect, meaning it effects the victim's minds. This is very strange. It seems completely backwards. With elves, wizards, and men, the casting is spiritual, and the result is physical. With Dragons, the casting bound to the physical, but the results are on a spiritual/mental level.

This creates a dilemma in the magic theory that we have created. I'd personally have to put Dragon magic in its own category. It seems closer to the 'true magic' that we think of than any of the other examples.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I ask forgiveness in advance, as I know this post wanders all over the place...

Tolkien, obviously, knew very well what a ‘spel’ was: a discourse or narrative told by someone. In the case of the magical spells “cast” by his characters, then, they are not doing anything ‘un’ or even ‘supernatural’ they are just telling particular kinds of stories or narratives.

I like your treatment of the word "spell" here, Fordim. It reminds me of the times I spent listening to my husband deliver lectures to students. He convinced them to enjoy learning, and many of his students were aghast after the fact that medieval literature could be so interesting and even relevant! In this way, he is a magician, since your average college freshman might not utter the terms "Freshman Composition" and "fun" in the same breath.

Just as the ‘magic’ that lies behind the Lorien cloaks or the One Ring are really just forms of ‘technology’ that we don’t understand, so too are the spells cast really just forms (or even dialects) of language that we don’t know. In effect, when Gandalf casts his spell on the door he is speaking a ‘stone-language’ and ‘convincing’ the door to remain shut.

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?" in reference to the palantir? It makes me wonder what kind of convincing the seeing stones are doing. Obviously they are touching the mind of the user himself, and ones such as Saruman and Denethor, who did not possess the deep art, fall prey to the dangers of "magic" within the Stone itself. And what of Sauron's seeming "mastery" of the Stone? I'd say it is nothing more than an amplification and transmission of his basic nature, and all he does through the Stone is in keeping with the blindness and malice of his black soul. One wonders what "spel" was possessed and used by Fëanor when he created the stones; Gandalf himself wonders at the possibility of using the stone to look back at the West and see Fëanor at work. He wonders at the initial nature of the stone and not at how it might be used for his own benefit, as do Saruman and Denethor. And the fact that Aragorn has a rightful claim to its use is interesting as well, as it must tie in to the "spel" laid upon the Stones when they were gifted to Elendil. Art deeper than we ourselves possess, indeed!

Neithan: But this doesn't explain how Saruman lost his powers when his staff was broken. It could be that the staff breaking was only a cover for what happened under the surface. But why would Saruman keep up the act of using a staff after becoming a traitor, and I don't think that there is any precedent for one Maiar taking away another's power.

It is my conjecture that Gandalf spoke matter of factly when he says "Your staff is broken." The actual breaking simply reflects the state in which Saruman already finds himself. Saruman might have been maintaining an illusion with his voice and appearance for the benefit of Theoden and the assembled group, but Gandalf simply speaks a truth that uncovers a veil thrown rather feebly by Saruman, and the staff, which was, in fact, already broken, is now obviously broken to all who look upon it. Perhaps also, the staff is what we might call a "convincer." If the fearsome nature of a wizard brandishing his staff and uttering a "spel" is not convincing enough, he can use it to knock the unbeliever over the head!

Thanks also for the link to davem's illuminating post, Fordim!

from davem's post on the other thread: This is interesting, as it seems to show two kinds of magic at work - spell-casting, & the word of Command. It seems that casting spells is easier than speaking a word of Command. It appears the latter is reserved for extreme circumstances.

Somehow this distinction makes perfect sense in many realms. It would, for instance, take a whole lot more energy to force a chemical reaction that was not thermodynamically favorable than it would be to bring one about that was possible and only needed a bit of a push to reach its proper delta S I think the term is (thermodynamics class was sometime in the 1980's...showing my age and creaky brain here...). Anyway, my point is that since nature and reality is large and tends toward one thing, the attempt to wrench it away from its natural state and turn it another way must be taxing indeed and carry with it many unforeseen and dire consequences. In yet another flight off the deep end, I have heard Wiccans tell of curses cast in order to bring an evil fate on another person. Such spells were said to rebound ten times upon the caster if they were not justified. I'd say this fate befell Sauron not only in the drowning of Numenor, but for once and all when his whole "Ring strategy" backfired spectacularly.

It all seems to tie in to being "with Nature" or "against Nature." I hope I've actually said something useful in this post, as it has been all over the place and for that, I apologize.

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lyta

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?" in reference to the palantir? It makes me wonder what kind of convincing the seeing stones are doing. Obviously they are touching the mind of the user himself, and ones such as Saruman and Denethor, who did not possess the deep art, fall prey to the dangers of "magic" within the Stone itself.

Perhaps the 'art' to which Gandalf refers isncludes Osanwe (or should that be 'sanwe'?). Maybe the stones amplify the individual's innate ability to communicate by thought, but therein lies the danger of them - simply, by amplifying that ability they make the individual more vulnerable to a more powerful mind. The individual using a stone is 'stretching' himself, & in doing so making himself more open to anyone at the other end. Perhaps it is necessary to withold ones 'unwill' to a greater extent when using these 'amplifiers'?

Another question which occurs is whether such use would strengthen or actually weaken the individual's innate capacity for thought communication if used regularly. Maybe the use of such artificial means of communication caused the innate ability to atrophy, & perhaps this also lead to a weakening of the capacity for 'unwill'?

One could extend the idea - was the use of 'unnatural' magic (ie magic which has to be learned & mastered, rather than 'magical' abilities the individual is born with) equally 'weakening' for the individual. I'm thinking specifically of the Elves' use of their Rings - did they weaken their natural 'skills' by using these artificial means to power? At the very least one could say that such 'short cuts' made for 'long delays'.

I would conjecture that Gandalf is warning against the dangers of dependence on technology, on the 'Machine'. Easy access to power is seductive but eventually it corrupts - by weakening the individual if not by 'corrupting' them. The danger of any 'power' which is not in born is simply that - if its not innate then the ability to control it isn't innate either....

[Neithan]

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?"

I had a somewhat simpler interpretation, Gandalf could be saying that if you don't know how it works then don't try to use it, good advice if you ask me.

As to "Dragon magic", I think that when Turin was "hypnotized" by the Dragon it was using "mind magic" (sanwe) which is one of the types I described.

The reason I didn't think that the staffs were merely tools, other than the fact that Saruman seemed to lose power when it was broken, was that the Ainur did not normally seem to need them. There is no mention of the Valar or Maiar using them other than the Istari. Also the Wizards seemed attached to one staff, Gandalf got a new one but that was after he came back as Gandalf the White so it only makes sense that he would get a new one. If they were just useful tools then Saruman probably would have gotten a new one as well. If someone can give a theory, other than my (seemingly far-fetched) one, that explains all of these things, then I would be more than happy to change my views.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Maybe the use of such artificial means of communication caused the innate ability to atrophy, & perhaps this also lead to a weakening of the capacity for 'unwill'?

Resulting in the effect of opening the mind so much that the brains fall out...I think this is a state of mind I've been familiar with for most of my life. I have not read the HoME series with references to Osanwe, but your explanation seems logical, davem. One would have to open one's mind to focus on the "farther and farther away" as Saruman did, until his gaze fell upon Mordor, "and then he was caught."
Perhaps a good example of the difference in how the experienced and inexperienced view the "magic" of Osanwe could be related in the two instances:

Gandalf: "The Ring has now passed beyond my help, or the help of any of the Company that set out from Rivendell. Very nearly it was revealed to the Enemy, but it escaped. I had some part in that: for I sat in a high place, and I strove with the Dark Tower, and the Shadow passed."

Frodo : He heard himself crying out: Never, never! Or was it: Verily I come, I come to you? He could not tell. Then as a flash from some other point of power there came to his mind another thought: Take it off! Take it off! Fool, take it off! Take off the Ring!
The two powers strove in him. For a moment, perfectly balanced between their piercing points, he writhed, tormented. Suddenly he was aware of himself again. Frodo, neither the Voice nor the Eye: free to choose, and with one remaining instant in which to do so. He took the Ring off his finger. He was kneeling in clear sunlight before the high seat. A black shadow seemed to pass like an arm above him; it missed Amon Hen and groped out west, and faded. Then all the sky was clean and blue and birds sang in every tree.

In this same engagement with the Dark Lord, Gandalf relates his struggle and his direct action against Sauron, whereas Frodo seems to lose all awareness of himself and only comes back to it when he heeds the thought "Fool, take it off!"
Certainly without the help of the experienced Gandalf, Frodo might have been lost in this struggle--this art beyond his ken.

I'm thinking specifically of the Elves' use of their Rings - did they weaken their natural 'skills' by using these artificial means to power? At the very least one could say that such 'short cuts' made for 'long delays'.

It is interesting that these "short cuts" are what modern, "civilized" society appears to be all about. Gandalf did well to warn against the dangers of mechanisation, perhaps both in thought and in the material world. I mean, why leave Isengard if you can simply use the palantir and gaze where you will? Why engage in a long and hopeless battle with Mordor, when you can take the Ring and gain instant victory? It is a short cut of thought, a lazy way out of a situation, but only in the imagination. In reality, it would indeed make for more than just a long delay. I'm sure Boromir had no idea of just how he would have used the Ring, only that it was mighty and therefore must be obtained for Gondor. I can't help but wonder what Boromir would have done if the One Ring was a nuclear weapon...*snerk*

It has taken me way too long to post this (I think I've had this screen up for over an hour...), so I'll leave off. Better to leave what thoughts remain to simmer in the stew for awhile! (This is also due to the fact that I got pulled into reading the "Rings of Power and Osanwe-Kenta" thread...if only there were more time in the world!)

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. Speaking of "innate" as you did at the end of your post, davem, it is interesting to think of this in terms of the Ring's total lack of effect on Tom Bombadil. I tend to think he is the embodiment of "innate," as in "of nature." Thus Sauron's "art" is totally inconsequential when it comes up against the greater force of nature itself...just one of the stewing thoughts...bye now!

[Formendacil]

Here's a thought I had concerning the staffs of Gandalf and Saruman (and the other wizards).

Personally, I don't think that staffs were necessary to the working of Gandalf's (or any wizard's) magic. To me, this is proven by Gandalf's action against the Balrog, after the staff was broken. The staff might have been a useful tool to help disguise the user's power from ordinary men, and maybe it actually was some help in focussing the power. Who knows?

My idea is that the main purpose for the staff was as a symbol of each's wizard's commission as one of the Istari. Something like a rod of office (such as the stewards carried). The rod doesn't contain the steward's authority, it merely acts as a symbol of it. Thus, if a wizard loses his staff (or breaks it, whatever), it is sufficient to simply acquire a new one.

However, it is a very different case when Gandalf divests Saruman of his staff, and breaks it. Gandalf has been sent back as the new leader of the Istari. He is now Saruman's superior. Just as ceremonially taking back of the rod from Faramir divested him of his power as steward, so too did Gandalf's taking of Saruman's staff rob him of his power as one of the Istari.

Anyways, that's the thought I had. Take it or leave it as you see fit.