Magic in Middle-earth

[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.

[Neithan]

I have just figured it out. Saruman was in the beginning already weaker than Gandalf, but he showed forth more power whereas Gandalf was more modest. Saruman had spent much of his strength in creating the Uruk Hai when he had little to spare. Therefore he was already greatly weakened when he had his confrontation with Gandalf. Whatever role the staff played; whether it was only a tool or if Saruman had put some of his power into it; Saruman had become all but useless without it because of his weakened state. I am assuming that it was not simple to obtain a replacement staff, probably the wizard had to expend some power, which Saruman no longer had. Wow, the answer has been staring me in the face and I didn't see it till now.

This being said, there is more to discuss here than staves. What about the other points I made? Do you agree? Does anyone have anything to add?

[Nukapei]

Great theory, but everyone keeps forgetting, Sauron created the Uruk-hai, not Saruman!

[Neithan]

Whatever, the point is that Saruman's power had been dissipated into his servants, regardless of who invented them.