Done if by Hand or Hew if by Sword?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

1. We don't know what spells old Telchar wrought into the blade, and the elven-smiths of Rivendell may have added some of their own. So it's entirely possible that there was some magic in the sword that would kill anybody trying to draw it except for its legitimate owner (or those authorized by him, taking into account the exceptions that Inzil points out).

Now that brings thoughts of Túrin's Gurthang (formerly known as Anglachel). Thingol gave that sword to Beleg first, and Melian was moved to say this when she looked upon it:

'There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it.'

Túrin later took it from the body of Beleg, and when Túrin sought to use it to kill himself with it, he heard a voice he perceived to come from the sword itself.

Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master....

Silm Of Túrin Turambar (both)

There was a sword which apparently held some faith for its master's hand, at least, though it's conjecture whether that was the case with Andúril.

All this actually leads into something I've long wondered about: why did Aragorn feel the need to carry Narsil with him? The work of protecting the Shire and the North had to have involved fighting from time to time. Wouldn't a usable sword have been more of an asset in those circumstances than an heirloom of such historical significance?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

There was a sword which apparently held some faith for its master's hand, at least, though it's conjecture whether that was the case with Andúril.

Well, for me the reason why I never thought of Andúril in that way is that it is basically never shown to "behave" like that. Respectively, not to "behave" in any way at all, and if Aragorn's words in front of Théoden's hall are the only thing that may point towards something like that, it seems rather feeble to me. And what Aragorn says itself evokes rather the idea of a "cursed item" like some sort of plague-infested thing, or thing of so much worth that if you touch it, you die. (We know examples of such things from the mythologies as well.) Anyway, we never hear of Aragorn having a friendly chat with Andúril, and there are no remarks like "still the smith's heart dwells in that one", as we know it from Anglachel's case.

All this actually leads into something I've long wondered about: why did Aragorn feel the need to carry Narsil with him? The work of protecting the Shire and the North had to have involved fighting from time to time. Wouldn't a usable sword have been more of an asset in those circumstances than an heirloom of such historical significance?

Well, as far as knowing Middle-Earth, I would say that heirlooms of historical significance are often far more valuable there than "practical" things. In general, just look at it. That is, nobody says that Aragorn did not have other weapon with him (I recall a thread questioning at lenghts this matter). But it is certain that the shards of Narsil were important enough, nonsensical as it seems to us (again for practical reasons: it would be even safer in Rivendell, here, what if Aragorn accidentally dropped it into some chasm or drowned it in a river?), for Aragorn to keep with him all the time.