Cursing In the Books

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, I think, as it has been said in the very beginning, Morgoth's curse is a bit specific (and you could say that about any course that would come from a Vala, Maia or a being of similar power). Because essentially, it differs from let's say Mim's curse in the sense that Morgoth actually has the power to make his curse come true.

At the same time, we could ask however about Saruman's curse of the Shire. Remember?

Originally Posted by RotK

"But do not think that when I lost all my goods I lost all my power! Whoever strikes me shall be accursed. And if my blood stains the Shire, it shall wither and never again be healed."

That one more of the aspects of Saruman which just makes me love his character, because there are so many things which "outreach" his frame and the frame of the story. So, of course we might ask - why didn't this come true? Because the feeling we get from the Scouring is that, effectively, the Shire was healed. However, of course, it is easy - at least in my opinion - to find an answer: it was not the Hobbits who struck Saruman down, so there was no reason for the curse to turn upon them or their land. This would, in turn, mean that curses are not as "mechanical" and "blind" as we know them from many other, e.g. ancient Greek tales - so it does not come into effect only mechanically, if Saruman's blood stains the Shire, but if it's in tune with the intent - i.e. the punishment of those who have killed him. If it wasn't the Shirelings, there is no reason to harm the Shire.

For that matter, of course this "curse" is an unusual one as well. First, it very likely might have been just a threat from powerless Saruman to prevent himself from being killed by the Hobbits. Secondly however, if it come down to that, I somehow believe that he would have been able to bring harm upon the Shire. That however leads us to realise - if we go with the scheme of how curses might work as I have outlined in my posts above - that he has no "right" to curse the Shire only out of spite (by the "curse law"), the only wrong the Shire would have done to him would be killing him (if it happened), but then again, Saruman has already done quite a lot of harm to the Shire before, so does he have the "right" to do more if the Shire takes a revenge on him? I would find it more likely that if some Hobbit wished "if he makes us his thralls, may his own thrall turn upon him!", he would have all "right" for his curse to come true.

But here again we come to that Saruman was a Maia - so I think his curse, if it were to come into effect, would have its base not in the general "curse law", but in the same spirit as Morgoth's - in his own personal power. And this power he can use as he sees fit, also to bring harm upon the land. It is probable that his death would somehow "amplify" the power of the curse (because if Saruman had enough power to do such a thing while he was alive, there's no reason why he couldn't have been walking around Rohan cursing fields or something like that). I think that's also a thing present in the folklore and old tales which Tolkien possibly might have used, had he stumbled upon such a situation during his writing (and this curse of Saruman itself proves, in my opinion, that he actually would, because he used it here - only it didn't meet its end), like "and with his last words, the Dark Lord said: 'Now thou hast killed me, but here be my revenge: All thy kingdom shall fall into dust in a thousand years!'" And so it would eventually happen...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I tend to think that Saruman's curse didn't work because he no longer had the power to back it up. As Gandalf had said earlier, he was a serpent who still had one tooth, the power of his voice. Other power he might have had in his embodied form as an Istar was no longer accessible to him with his expulsion from the order. Cursing the Shire was, I think, done for the purely petty purpose of frightening the Hobbits who had already seen the horrors done to the Shire at Saruman's behest. If it came to pass, it might have done so because the fear Saruman awakened in the Hobbits could make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they had believed he had the power to make the curse real, they might neglect the Shire, thinking that anything they tried was doomed to failure because of the "curse." Fortunately, the Hobbits were sensible enough to not let that happen.

As to the general efficacy of curses, I would think that some of the same factors that make oaths binding would also come into play. We know that part of what made the oath of Feanor so powerful and terrible was the fact that he called upon Eru and the Valar as witnesses to it. They are very real powers in Arda (heck, if TH is to be believed, some Vala has the job of enforcing the rules of riddle games). An oath is not the same as a curse, of course, so I doubt that Eru or the Valar would be inclined to make every curse called in their name come to pass. Some that are particularly justified, however, they might. When Melkor and Sauron retained enough power of their own, they were probably capable of making sure the curses they called down upon others actually happened. "Durin's beard," however, would not have the power to make a curse effective. "Mahal's beard," on the other hand, would invoke Aule, and if he thought the curse a valid one, he might act on it.

[Inziladun]

Very nice responses.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

As far as the Dead Men of Dunharrow are concerned, there was, for all we know, only One who could (at least temporarily) deny them the Gift of Ilúvatar. So we should probably read Isildur's curse as an appeal to Eru, and suppose that Eru, judging that the appeal was justified, decided to grant it by fulfilling the curse.
I wonder, however, what part, if any, guilty conscience on the side of the Oathbreakers themselves played in this. If they felt - as well they might - that they had deserved Isildur's curse by breaking their oath, they may not have felt free to move on as long as they had unfinished business in this world. Again, Eru probably agreed with their judgement of themselves, but what if He hadn't?

Interesting notion about the Dead Men of Dunharrow possibly staying put on their own, out of a sense that Isildur was right to curse them, and they really had committed a serious sin by breaking an oath.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Mîm's curse, I think, is quite another matter. Implicit assent by the cursed person doesn't seem to have played any part in its fulfilment: even if Andróg felt any guilt about the slaying of Khîm, it's hard to conceive how this could have affected the manner of his own death. And as for intervention by Eru in this case, this is hard to reconcile with his portrayal in the Silmarillion as a remote deity who doesn't meddle with His creation except in special cases after a special appeal from the Valar. (Yes, I know, somebody's going to tell me that He pushed Gollum over the brink at Sammath Naur, and I concede that this reading is possible but would argue that it's not necessary.) So either Eru isn't quite as remote from His creation as we are led to believe, or there's something else at work here.

There's also that counterpoint to Mîm's curse, in which Andróg tries to return the favour:

'The curse of a Dwarf never dies, they say; but a Man's too may come home. May he die with a dart in his throat!'

In UT, an alternate version of Andróg's curse reads: 'May he lack a bow at need, ere his end'. Mím could well have wished for a bow as he faced an angry Húrin at Nargothrond.
If 'the curse of a Dwarf never dies' had become a saying in Middle-earth, maybe that speaks for Aulë having some unusual interest in his children, and interceding on their behalf on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Basically I think the thing is that it has to be "meant seriously", and also, it probably needs to have some "logical grounding". The first thing, in my opinion, would disqualify the quote presented by Inzil about Thorin, as there it was definitely spoken in affect and Thorin did not really sort of mean it. Or: he would probably say it differently had he not been in affect. Whereas many curses of course are spoken in affect - looking into old tales, that's actually when they are usually spoken - however I would think that at least in M-E, they might be disqualified if the person who spoke them would not say the some thing after it has calmed down. I.e. Mim would still want Andróg to die, but Thorin won't probably want his beard to wither (if nothing else then also for that it won't be a very effective punishment. If Thorin really hated Gandalf for what he did, he'd probably wish to Gandalf to get an apprentice who would prove as useless as Bilbo did to him, or something like that).

I mainly put Thorin's in there as an illustration that two Dwarves got two different results with their curses. Thorin's might not seem to be quite as seriously made as Mîm's, but then again Thorin did appear to be angry enough to toss poor Bilbo down the mountainside.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But here again we come to that Saruman was a Maia - so I think his curse, if it were to come into effect, would have its base not in the general "curse law", but in the same spirit as Morgoth's - in his own personal power. And this power he can use as he sees fit, also to bring harm upon the land. It is probable that his death would somehow "amplify" the power of the curse (because if Saruman had enough power to do such a thing while he was alive, there's no reason why he couldn't have been walking around Rohan cursing fields or something like that). I think that's also a thing present in the folklore and old tales which Tolkien possibly might have used, had he stumbled upon such a situation during his writing (and this curse of Saruman itself proves, in my opinion, that he actually would, because he used it here - only it didn't meet its end), like "and with his last words, the Dark Lord said: 'Now thou hast killed me, but here be my revenge: All thy kingdom shall fall into dust in a thousand years!'" And so it would eventually happen...

To me, Saruman's threat that:

'Whoever strikes me shall be accursed. And if my blood stains the Shire, it shall wither and never again be healed.'

was part empty threat, part truth.
Frodo divined which was which:

'Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice, which can still daunt you and deceive you, if you let it.

But still, Frodo cautioned against killing Saruman.

'He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against'.

Frodo perceived that Saruman had not the power to make the Shire 'wither', but striking him, one of the 'angelic' Maia, was an act that would probably not have been taken lightly by Higher Authority, since the Hobbits had it in their power to show him mercy, and their killing him would have been an act of pure revenge. I do think whoever hurt his body in that circumstance would have been 'accursed'.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If 'the curse of a Dwarf never dies' had become a saying in Middle-earth, maybe that speaks for Aulë having some unusual interest in his children, and interceding on their behalf on a regular basis.

I'd see this proverbial longevity of Dwarven curses as a nod to Nordic mythology, where curses by Dwarves working havoc over a lengthy period of time are a somewhat recurring motif. The most famous example would be the Dwarf Andvari (in Reginsmál and Völsunga saga) who, when the Gods took his treasure from him, cursed the gold (which would later end up as the hoard of the Nibelungs) and especially the ring Andvaranaut, so that it would cause the death of all its subsequent owners; and so it happened. Another example is given here .
Unlike Mîm's curse on Andróg, of course, both these curses were attached to items either wrought or formerly owned by the respective Dwarf. But now I think of it - is this just phantom memory again, or does some variant to the Silmarillion text in HoME (or possibly CoH?) mention that Mîm cursed the Nauglamír when Húrin slew him in Nargothrond, and that curse contributed to the ruin of Doriath? If so, this would be a nice parallel to the story of Andvari - with the exception that Mîm wasn't the rightful owner of the necklace, so "karmic balance" wouldn't play a part in the fulfilling of the curse.

About Morgoth's curse - if we accept that he had the power to make his curse come true, don't we thereby agree that he was indeed, as he claimed in the Narn, "Master of the fates of Arda", and that Húrin's defiant words "You cannot see them, or govern them from afar: not while you keep this shape, and desire still to be a King visible upon earth" were mistaken?
As I see it, all Morgoth could do was, so to speak, set the frame conditions for his curse to be fulfilled - but Túrin had lots of chances to escape it at every turn of the way, if he had made some better choices. (Btw, the fact that he didn't still doesn't make him a jerk for me!)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

About Morgoth's curse - if we accept that he had the power to make his curse come true, don't we thereby agree that he was indeed, as he claimed in the Narn, "Master of the fates of Arda", and that Húrin's defiant words "You cannot see them, or govern them from afar: not while you keep this shape, and desire still to be a King visible upon earth" were mistaken?
As I see it, all Morgoth could do was, so to speak, set the frame conditions for his curse to be fulfilled - but Túrin had lots of chances to escape it at every turn of the way, if he had made some better choices. (Btw, the fact that he didn't still doesn't make him a jerk for me!)

Well, I'm not saying Morgoth could have brought about such havoc on anyone's life. That truly would have given him power worthy of what he boasted to Húrin.
But a great deal of the ruin wrought on Túrin was accomplished by Glaurung, who was acting on Morgoth's instructions. If not for Glaurung, could the curse have been realised?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Well, I'm not saying Morgoth could have brought about such havoc on anyone's life. That truly would have given him power worthy of what he boasted to Húrin.
But a great deal of the ruin wrought on Túrin was accomplished by Glaurung, who was acting on Morgoth's instructions. If not for Glaurung, could the curse have been realised?

That's why I think Morgoth's curse does not really qualify as "curse" with the same meaning as e.g. in Isildur's or Mim's case.

Let me present my current theory summed up (it is largely a repetition of what I have said above, but I am trying to put it in a little bit more coherent picture - let's see if I succeed):

We have stumbled upon several cathegories of "curses". But what is a "true curse" in my opinion, is when somebody says "may you X for the Y that you have done" (that's the core point of the curse, of course there can be more amendments and addittions, usually for example if the curse is spoken beforehand, then there might be "if you do Y...", but these two basic elements are in some form always present there). Usually, "X" and "Y" are similar in effect (e.g. Khim dies by bow, Andróg dies by bow). Also, I believe there is always a chance to lift the curse somehow - if somebody somehow compensates for the "Y". This is a speculation based on e.g. the case of the Oathbreakers and on my belief that the curses generally all operate on the same law. This "law" is simply a metaphysical law which works generally in Middle-Earth and "checks" if you can make the curse, but is not purely mechanical and takes into account wider circumstances, not just cause-effect.

Examples: Mim's curse qualifies perfectly, Isildur's one as well (I don't think I need to explain this). The rest of the curses we have been speaking about here basically can be divided into two categories, and they do not fulfil the rules of "true" curses.

Thorin's curse to Gandalf for giving him Bilbo as a companion violates the "code" in several ways. First, there is very little logical "Y-X" relationship between what Gandalf (through Bilbo) caused to Thorin and having a beard withered. Second, according to the "law of curses", it's hard to see that Gandalf would be in any way responsible for Bilbo's behavior in this particular case (however, this particular point I think is the most disputable, as after all, Gandalf probably knew or even planned something like that). Nevertheless, thirdly and most importantly, Thorin probably didn't mean it, or wouldn't have said the same thing if not in the momentary affect. Like I said above, in his right mind he would either have cursed Bilbo himself ("may your Bag End be robbed when you're not at home" - now had he said that, it would actually fit the story rather well, wouldn't it?) or not pronounced the curse at all (more sort of out of resignation than for forgiving Bilbo/Gandalf).

So this curse belonged to the cathegory "would be a true curse, if only it had better grounds". Morgoth's curse is something different - it's not a curse at all, it is a mixture of evil spell (i.e. curse in the meaning of spell, not manipulating somebody's "karmic law" to allow a curse to work on him just like that) and making things look like a "true curse" in Húrin's eyes. There is fundamentally lacking the cause, "Y", for Morgoth to curse Túrin. In other words: Morgoth, with all his boasting, does not have the power to manipulate the "curse policy" of Middle-Earth, he can only concentrate his evil will to bring harm to somebody. And that can be done in a quite prosaic way: sending Glaurung or Orcs to chase after a certain person etc. Morgoth was also of course intentionally twisting the perception of many events in Húrin's eyes to make them look worse than they actually were. If you substract all Morgoth's (Glaurungs etc.) intentional contribution with the aim to harm the Children of Húrin from Túrin's tale, I think you won't get much more than a set of coincidences which were brought to their evil end by Túrin's own foolishness. If you want to see a curse in it (and that's what Morgoth wants you to see), it's easy to see it that way. But that's only Morgoth's trick to make it seem that he somehow has the power to wilfully curse (in the sense of "true curse") anybody he wants, which is a tool to intimidate his opponents. "Master of Fates!" Yes, Morgoth can accomplish a lot with his evil will, he is a Vala after all, but that comes from his power - and has nothing to do with the "balance" maintaining the cause and effect of curses, that is something even Morgoth cannot influence. (If he could, he could have easily cursed all Elves and Men and be done with it, with curses being so powerful as we see it.)

And, at last, to mention Saruman's curse, which could as well have been an empty threat, but assuming it was not, I believe it violated the "curse law" needed for it to work as a "true curse" in several ways. Most of all, there was no "Y-X" relationship on whose basis Saruman could have the "right" to curse the Shire, taking into account that Saruman himself had harmed the Shire already. So the "balance of the scales" was on his side, actually. So if Saruman wanted to harm the Shire in any way, I think he would have had to use his own power (which he, most likely, didn't have) - the same thing as Morgoth did.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

About Morgoth's curse - if we accept that he had the power to make his curse come true, don't we thereby agree that he was indeed, as he claimed in the Narn, "Master of the fates of Arda", and that Húrin's defiant words "You cannot see them, or govern them from afar: not while you keep this shape, and desire still to be a King visible upon earth" were mistaken?
As I see it, all Morgoth could do was, so to speak, set the frame conditions for his curse to be fulfilled - but Túrin had lots of chances to escape it at every turn of the way, if he had made some better choices. (Btw, the fact that he didn't still doesn't make him a jerk for me!)

Morgoth may have had enough power to make some of his curses real, but not enough, necessarily, to make him truly "Master of the Fates of Arda." A short-term curse, so to speak, on one individual, may not require the same kind of power as a long-term curse, on an entire race, for instance. To become Master of Arda, Melkor had to pour his power into the very fabric of the world, losing it for himself -- and even though he succeeded in tainting Arda, it was not enough to completely eradicate the world, or even the good in it.

With Turin, I tend to think that it was a little bit of Morgoth's curse genuinely in action, nudging some circumstances so that what was really the worst choice seemed like the best. Morgoth didn't need to keep this up forever; after a while, making bad choices can become a habit (and lord knows, my own family's history is adequate proof of that! ). To Hurin, watching this, he would certainly believe that this was all Morgoth's doing, and Morgoth would have done nothing to disabuse him of this notion. And even so, Morgoth could not take away Turin's gift of free will. He could only point him in the wrong direction, which sometimes is all the curse a person needs to make it come to pass.