No Living Man

[Lostgaeriel]

First of all, can a mature male hobbit be called a man?

Lolidir wrote:

bc i would consider Merry a man, wouldnt you? some may say no he was a Hobbit

Let's go to a good source on this question:

'I will vouch for him before the seat of Denethor,' said Gandalf. 'And as for valour, that cannot be computed by stature. He has passed through more battles and perils than you have, Ingold, though you be twice his height; and he comes now from the storming of Isengard, of which we bear tidings, and great weariness is on him, or I would wake him. His name is Peregrim, a very valiant man.'

'Man?' said Ingold dubiously, and the others laughed.

'Man!' cried Pippin, now thoroughly roused. 'Man! Indeed not! I am a hobbit and no more valiant than I am a man, save perhaps now and again by necessity. Do not let Gandlaf deceive you!'

If a hobbit says that a hobbit is not a man, then I think that question is settled.

This is of course the reason why we debate whose blow actually killed/destroyed the Witch King - Eowyn's or Merry's. (But that is discussed on another thread.)

But back to the initial question posed by Feanor of the Peredhil which I think I can paraphrase as 'Could the Witch King have been killed by an unliving man or unliving woman?’.

Note that Glorfindel does not include the adjective 'living' in the following excerpt from Appendix A, Annals of the Kings and Rulers; I, The Númenorean Kings; (iv) Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion (just before The Stewards section):

’Eärnur now rode back, but Glorfindel, looking into the gathering dark, said: “Do not pursue him! He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall.” These words many remembered; but Eärnur was angry desiring only to be avenged for his disgrace.

So, 'Could the Witch King have been killed by an unliving man or unliving woman?’
is not relevant to the actual 'prophecy' by Glorfindel. Sorry about that. (I really didn't know what my conclusion was going to be until I searched through the quotes.)

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Only Éowyn (with the help of Merry, of course) could have killed the Witch-King. No other.

To prophesy you have to go beyond the constraints of time and see . . . well . . . time. Case in point: Remember the vision of Ainulindalë? This is where the Ainur got some of their prophetic ability from. Add to that their personal contributions to the making of Eä, they know pretty much more about the future than anyone else in Arda.

So, when Glorfindel says, "Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall," he already saw Witch-King's fall in Minas Tirith, brought about by Éowyn. As Éowyn didn't exist yet at that time (or perhaps the vision was not clear--I don't know), I don't think he could have put a name to the face he saw.

Of course, this introduces the predestination vs. free will debate into the mix.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

Of course, this introduces the predestination vs. free will debate into the mix.

A bit more than that.

You brought up the Ainulindalë. Remember one of the major points of that first book of the Silmarillion?

Men are not bound by the Music of the Ainur. They have the power to make their own fate in the world.

So this whole matter becomes very confusing. The Witch-king, after all, is a man, albeit one immensely changed from his original, natural, form. But is his fate affected by this? Is he not free from the constraints of predestination?

And what about Éowyn and Merry? Hobbits are considered to be a sub-race of Men, and so both of these two, although not Men in the sense of the prophecy, are still Men in the sense that they are not bound by the Ainulindalë.

What I think needs to be differentiated here is the difference between HAVING to do something, and CHOOSING to do something. The Ainur, and all those bound by their Music, HAVE to do things when it tells them to. Their lives, to a certain extent, at least, are bound by it. Men (incl. women, children, and hobbits) do not have to do things.

My take on Glorfindel's prophecy therefore, is this: when Glorfindel was making his prediction, he was saying that the Witch-king would be felled "not by hand of man", because his Elven foresight told him that was how it would happen. It told him that Merry and Éowyn would CHOOSE to do what they did, thus resulting in the death of the Witch-king.

The technical aspects of what they did could have been accomplished by a couple of ordinary men. Say some Ranger of Arnor armed with the barrow-sword, and some unhorsed Gondorian knight with an ordinary sword, in much the same way that it actually happened ten centuries after Eärnur. There was nothing "magic" or harmful to the Witch-king about Merry and Éowyn being not-Men. It was simply a combination of circumstance and choice.

The Witch-king wasn't DESTINED to fall by "not-men", but Glorfindel foresaw that he WOULD. There is a distinction, although I suppose it IS a very fine one.

[Lostgaeriel]

Formendacil & Nilpaurion Felagund have said what I could not manage last nite, partly because I don't know enough about the fate/free will stuff in Ea (having not yet finished reading the Silmarillion) and because I was far too tired to compose a coherent argument. Thanks for the knowledgable & well-articulated posts.

[Lalwendë]

Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall

This is most likely some kind of foresight. It does not mention anyone specifically, and as such could easily betray that Glorfindel had some kind of knowledge of what it would take to despatch the WK. Saying that it would not be by the hand of Man might also suggest that it could be Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, Ent or even Orc who might do the deed. So though this is some kind of foresight, it is also very open to a range of possibilities.

Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!

There is another possibility of meaning behind this statement. It is in the words living man, which could also mean that no man alive at that time could hinder him. This leaves open the possibility that there may once have been or could have been in future, such a man who could have hindered him. Though whoever would be willing to try such a thing would be foolish. Certainly, one of the weapons of the WK is fear, and he would have been all too aware that it would be unlikely that any man would dare to try and stop him.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Could they have been effective in the "living Middle-earth?" Effective as in being able to kill others from another parallel dimension?

The Witch King is not exactly alive though, is he. Which probably explains why, when boosting his own ego, he didn't say "Fool! No living man can kill the likes of me! Me, the Unstoppable. Me, the Greatest. Me..." You get the idea. The question is not really that of the Witch King being killed, because he's already dead. Or at least, not living.

Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall

Like Lal said, this prophecy is rather vague. If Glorfindel had said "not by the hand of Man", it would be different. If he'd said "not by the hand of a man", it would be different. If Glorfindel said "Don't bother going after him, there's a pretty blonde chick and a midget who are going to remove him from our plane of existence in the future", I wouldn't have bothered wasting bandwidth.

Of course, this introduces the predestination vs. free will debate into the mix.

And so was it predestined that Eowyn and Merry would manage to be together at that time? Or was it pure dumb luck, and if Merry had smelled pipe-weed at the wrong moment, the world would have to wait another millenia before the right circumstances arose? Was it an exact guarantee that these two would be the ones to defeat the Wikkie (as he was so cutely nicknamed), or was the prophesy loop-holed enough that a dead guy trying to get back into Eru's good graces could fix the problem.

Certainly, one of the weapons of the WK is fear, and he would have been all too aware that it would be unlikely that any man would dare to try and stop him.

The Dead Army also wielded fear. As I recall, that was their primary weapon.

Fea

[malkatoj]

Saying 'living man' would imply that a dead man or a living non-man would be able to kill him. In this situation, one must define a man...what makes Aragorn a man? Because technically, a woman can still be called a 'man' in the sense that 'man' can mean human. In this case, a woman would not be able to hinder the Witch King, but a hobbit, dwarf or other, even in the case that he is masculine, would.

Interesting, though. I had never thought of it before.