Wizard Gone Missing

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien had no notion of LotR when The Hobbit was published, nor did the revision of The Hobbit in the early 60's change Gandalf.

I think it is sufficient to the discussion that Gandalf became more serious toward the end of the Hobbit on the merits of the thing growing from a 13 Dwarf gambit into a touchy inter-cultural (and inter-species) negotiation in which justice and compassion became issues. That is enough for me to understand the seriousness in Gandalf after Smaug is killed.

Therefore, it seems to me that we can dispense with such considerations as the white counsel and getting rid of Sauron for making the wizard more serious, being add-ins due to LotR.

As to the term "Nordic Wizard," I have a problem. "European" doesn't suffice because a Celtic magician is not the same thing, for example. The whole milieu of the Celtic mythos has a different feel. The Wizard introduced early in The Hobbit is not druidic ala Celtic.

There are, however consonances between Gandalf and Merlin of the Arthurian legends, and we know that the Arthurian legends are derived from the Celtic. This can be accounted for because the writers of the Arthurian tales did have a European sensibility as opposed to a purely Celtic.

At any rate, what I'm really getting at is that the Wizard introduced in the beginning of The Hobbit could have jumped out of a fairy tale by Jacob Grimm. So could the Dwarves. I can imagine Arthur Rackham doing some fascinating sketches of The Unexpected Party.

Legate, I remain unconvinced by the "personality growth" argument. It isn't necessary to explain Gandalf's seriousness toward the end of The Hobbit. Nor does it apply (to my mind) to the differences in Gandalf because he is Istari in LotR. We're not talking about a personality change at all. Gandalf really doesn't change in character, except to be known better.

What changes is the evocation of the Wizard at the hands of the author, as a wizard.

We have essentially two different wizards. They're close enough in their evocation that we readily accept the change. Nevertheless, gone is the Germanic (better word?) wizard of European lore and legend, and present is Tolkien's Olorin, a Maiar and Istari who is, frankly, immortal though incarnated. The wizard in The Unexpected Party may not be your average human being, may not be human at all .... but he might be, and most certainly he is mysterious. The feel is completely different.

Note the difference from the language itself: Olorin, Istari, Maiar ... versus Gandalf, wizard, seeming positively sorcerous. Language is, Tolkien told us, the means of incantation.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

At any rate, what I'm really getting at is that the Wizard introduced in the beginning of The Hobbit could have jumped out of a fairy tale by Jacob Grimm. So could the Dwarves.

Yes. Of course. That's what I thought and what I imagined you meant under that term. "A classic European fairy-tale wizard" then. In any case, that's playing with words. The main point is that we know what we mean. The old bearded guy, preferably in a pointed hat and with a staff, who does some extraordinary things.

Legate, I remain unconvinced by the "personality growth" argument. It isn't necessary to explain Gandalf's seriousness toward the end of The Hobbit. Nor does it apply (to my mind) to the differences in Gandalf because he is Istari in LotR. We're not talking about a personality change at all. Gandalf really doesn't change in character, except to be known better.

Okay, your eloquence in the last post has somewhat confused me So I'm not sure I understand anymore what you were trying to say (at least in the last post. Previously I think it was pretty clear). But I can respond at least to this, since that (I think ) I understand:

I was not talking about any "personality growth". Certainly not "growth". Merely a "change". You behave differently on a holiday, and differently in the middle of a war. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not determined by the time, only by the space or the situation. I don't mean that with the start of the War of the Ring, Gandalf suddenly became more serious. No. He was serious all the time when not on a holiday, if I can put it that way. I think Gandalf was really very much "situational". You can see it especially if you compare e.g. the way he talked to Hobbits (or silly Dwarves or Butterbur etc) and the others (Aragorn or Denethor or whoever). He basically behaved differently in different situations. And among Hobbits, he had this "classical fairytale wizard"-image, because he did not need to maintain the "serious attire". That's what I would say.

[littlemanpoet]

Maybe it's just that Tolkien niggled too much. I wish Gandalf had stayed mysterious instead of having his backstory all laid out with all that Istari/Maiar stuff.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Maybe it's just that Tolkien niggled too much. I wish Gandalf had stayed mysterious instead of having his backstory all laid out with all that Istari/Maiar stuff.

In that case though, wouldn't Tolkien have run the risk of Gandalf being the "usual" storybook wizard?
To me, the information about why he was there, his limitations, and sacrifices, are what makes him so endearing.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

In that case though, wouldn't Tolkien have run the risk of Gandalf being the "usual" storybook wizard?
To me, the information about why he was there, his limitations, and sacrifices, are what makes him so endearing.

Exactly. I would support that. This added a completely different dimension to Gandalf. And when you think about it, it is "latently" there from start, or there is "room" for it. It does not in any way disturb his personality, quite the opposite, expands it in wonderful way. Gandalf becomes much more "three-dimensional" that way than if he was just an "archetypal wizard" (boring, eventually).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

In that case though, wouldn't Tolkien have run the risk of Gandalf being the "usual" storybook wizard?
To me, the information about why he was there, his limitations, and sacrifices, are what makes him so endearing.

I'd say that such a question underestimates Tolkien. What you are suggesting is that trading in mystery for endearment is a good exchange in your opinion. I contend that the trade-off isn't necessary.

Originally Posted by Jallanite

I am not sure what you are talking about with your “Celtic wizard” and “Germanic wizard″. There are lots of Germanic tales and lots of Celtic tales and the wizards in them are not alike, or perhaps better, very much alike. I don’t see this distinction you are making. You need to indicate which wizards you are talking about in which stories.

It's a minor issue; at the risk of going off on a major and useless tangent, the Celtic wizard is druidic, his milieu that of human sacrifice and unity with nature. The Germanic/Nordic (I must include the term) wizard with control of the elements - earth, wind, fire, ice, etc. Both have staves of oak, but their use of them is different in the general way I've described above.

The pictures you link are interesting. It's hard to know what was symbolized in medieval paintings and what was not; that is to say, did the red cloak mean anything more than its color? As for the late 1800s pictures, they reflect the Celtic strangeness that I think Tolkien didn't care for.

I'm not convinced that it's an issue of mysteriousness. I think of Gandalf outside the gate of Moria and there he seems very Germanic. So too on the Bridge of Khazad-dum. Even more so in his first treatment of Wormtongue and Theoden. Even the name, "stormcrow" is delightfully reminiscent of that Germanic feel. I suppose I pretty much like the portrayal of Gandalf throughout LotR. What I find disappointing is what one learns about him from the Silmarillion.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I'd say that such a question underestimates Tolkien. What you are suggesting is that trading in mystery for endearment is a good exchange in your opinion. I contend that the trade-off isn't necessary.

Well, weren't you saying that Tolkien hadn't managed to successfully meld the "mystery" and the history?
I personally don't think the exchange was really done. I see "mystery" Gandalf in places later in the book, such as when he's up in the tree about to hurtle down on the goblins and wargs "like a thunderbolt". That to me is pretty evocative of "old-time' wizards.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I'd say that such a question underestimates Tolkien. What you are suggesting is that trading in mystery for endearment is a good exchange in your opinion. I contend that the trade-off isn't necessary.

I never suggested that at all. Never. I just suggested that some people prefer an origin and some people don’t.

It's a minor issue; at the risk of going off on a major and useless tangent, the Celtic wizard is druidic, his milieu that of human sacrifice and unity with nature. The Germanic/Nordic (I must include the term) wizard with control of the elements - earth, wind, fire, ice, etc. Both have staves of oak, but their use of them is different in the general way I've described above.

Not a clue what you are talking about. Have you gotten your ideas from some single idiosyncratic book? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid#I..._Welsh_records for druids in medieval Irish and Welsh tales. Which medieval story has a Germanic or Celtic wizard that has control of the elements “earth, wind, fire, ice, etc.” If it is just one story, that proves nothing, as it was general medieval European belief that everything was composed of the basic elements earth, water, air, and fire. I don’t see any particular difference why earth, air, water, and fire might not be mentioned in a story about either Celtic or Germanic wizards, although I don’t recall such a story. Wizards are far more common in Irish and Welsh tales than in Germanic tales if that counts. The druidic wizards of Irish legend are sometimes connected with sacrifice as the tales are set in pagan times. Medieval Germanic wizards are rare outside of Arthurian tales and I only recall two explicit Germanic non-Arthurian wizards, neither much like Gandalf. I am sure there are some more that I don’t now recall.,

The pictures you link are interesting. It's hard to know what was symbolized in medieval paintings and what was not; that is to say, did the red cloak mean anything more than its color? As for the late 1800s pictures, they reflect the Celtic strangeness that I think Tolkien didn't care for.

What are you talking about? My point is that the pointed hat is a modern idea, not found very much in genuine medieval pictures. And the wand or staff given to Merlin in some modern pictures is also not in most medieval pictures of Merlin or other wizards. Tolkien presumably included them because he wanted Gandalf to appear immediately as an iconic wizard as an iconic wizard appears in relatively modern sources.

I'm not convinced that it's an issue of mysteriousness. I think of Gandalf outside the gate of Moria and there he seems very Germanic. So too on the Bridge of Khazad-dum. Even more so in his first treatment of Wormtongue and Theoden. Even the name, "stormcrow" is delightfully reminiscent of that Germanic feel. I suppose I pretty much like the portrayal of Gandalf throughout LotR.

Was Merlin mysterious? Not much more than Gandalf. Merlin was the son of some sort of incubus or devil by a mortal woman. Most other wizards, whether Celtic or Germanic are mysterious as it is not explained where they got their powers from. Sometimes it is just explained that they got their knowledge from study.

The epithet stormcrow should sound Germanic as it was applied to Gandalf by the Rohirrim and so is to be understood as a translated Old English name.

What I find disappointing is what one learns about him from the Silmarillion.

There are are only two sentences about Olórin in The Silmarillion near the end of the section “Of the Maiar” in the “Valaquenta”. Gandalf as Olórin otherwise is mentioned once in the text of The Lord of the Rings and also in Appendix B which tells the most.

I was hoping you could say what you mean by a Germanic and Celtic wizard, but apparently you can’t, other than that a wizard feels either Germanic or Celtic to you, but possibly to no-one else.

[Formendacil]

For what it's worth, the "mysterious wizard Gandalf" that Elempi identifies with the first section of The Hobbit (prior to his return at the Lonely Mountain) belongs entirely to the earlier draft of the book where the wizard was called Bladorthin and "Gandalf" was the name of the Dwarf we know as Thorin.

The new names arrived around the time Thorin & Co. reached the Lonely Mountain--thus freeing up the name "Bladorthin" to belong to the king of the undelivered spears--and when the wizard returned to the stage he was Gandalf.

It's interesting to me that Elempi sees "Nordic/Germanic" writ heavily on the older parts of the wizard because in those parts of the story (and they are not greatly different from the finished book) he bears an Elvish name! Tolkien didn't change his name to the Norse "Gandalfr" until he reached the point where LMP thinks the Norse-ness waned.

(N.B. All the above derives from reading Rateliff's [i]History of the Hobbit[/b].)

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As to the term "Nordic Wizard," I have a problem. "European" doesn't suffice because a Celtic magician is not the same thing, for example. The whole milieu of the Celtic mythos has a different feel. The Wizard introduced early in The Hobbit is not druidic ala Celtic.

There are, however consonances between Gandalf and Merlin of the Arthurian legends, and we know that the Arthurian legends are derived from the Celtic. This can be accounted for because the writers of the Arthurian tales did have a European sensibility as opposed to a purely Celtic.

…

We have essentially two different wizards. They're close enough in their evocation that we readily accept the change. Nevertheless, gone is the Germanic (better word?) wizard of European lore and legend, and present is Tolkien's Olorin, a Maiar and Istari who is, frankly, immortal though incarnated. The wizard in The Unexpected Party may not be your average human being, may not be human at all .... but he might be, and most certainly he is mysterious. The feel is completely different.

Note the difference from the language itself: Olorin, Istari, Maiar ... versus Gandalf, wizard, seeming positively sorcerous. Language is, Tolkien told us, the means of incantation.

I am not sure what you are talking about with your “Celtic wizard” and “Germanic wizard″. There are lots of Germanic tales and lots of Celtic tales and the wizards in them are not alike, or perhaps better, very much alike. I don’t see this distinction you are making. You need to indicate which wizards you are talking about in which stories.

Gandalf’s mysterious references reminds me of Taliesin in Hanes Taliesin (http://www.masseiana.org/hanes_taliesin.htm ) if that is what you are talking about. But that is only one poem and almost all the stuff about who Gandalf really was is in the Appendices and in material not published in Tolkien’s lifetime.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

The main point is that we know what we mean. The old bearded guy, preferably in a pointed hat and with a staff, who does some extraordinary things.

The difficulty is that I don’t know what you mean. Merlin’s modern iconography is that of an “old bearded guy … in a pointed hat and with a staff”, but that is not from the actual tales at all.

See, for example this medieval picture which lacks pointed hat and staff: http://books.google.ca/books?id=-Mz3...page&q&f=false . Or see more modern images by Aubrey Beardsley which also lack the beard at http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illu...rdsley/12.html and http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/aubr...and-nimue-1894 .

Tolkien apparently described Gandalf as he did because he wanted to use what has become the iconic Merlin image somewhat as a cartoonist who draws Sherlock Holmes will draw him in a deerstalker hat, because then he will be more likely to be recognized.

It sounds to me like some readers would have preferred to have kept Gandalf mysterious. Tolkien chose to reveal a lot, which bothers them. But other readers would like more to be revealed. The author can’t please everyone so he pleases himself.