Done if by Hand or Hew if by Sword?

[alatar]

Andúril, the Flame of the West, forged from the shards of Narsil (and that sword fashioned by the dwarven hands of Telchar), inspired friends and frightened foes. With this sword Aragorn wins the Battle of Helm's Deep, breaks the Siege of Minas Tirith and assaults the Black Gate of Mordor (with help).

So the sword and the hand that wielded it saw much work (and blood) in the closing days of the Third Age.

But what did Aragorn mean, when laying his sword beside the door of Meduseld at King Théoden's command, that:

Originally Posted by Aragorn

"But I command you not to touch it, nor to permit any other to lay hand on it....Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil's sword, save Elendil's heir."

Did Aragorn mean that the sword would not permit anyone's touch save one from his lineage, or did Aragorn mean to execute anyone that touched his sword?

Whichever, then the next question would be, why? Sure, I want to keep the kids out of my stuff, but if Aragorn meant the latter, why so severe a punishment?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

Did Aragorn mean that the sword would not permit anyone's touch save one from his lineage, or did Aragorn mean to execute anyone that touched his sword?

Whichever, then the next question would be, why? Sure, I want to keep the kids out of my stuff, but if Aragorn meant the latter, why so severe a punishment?

I would say the latter, or at least that's how I read it. As for why, Aragorn seemed somehow upset in Théoden's house overall (maybe the several-day long run on the plains, his failure as the leader of the fellowship have fallen upon him all at once, so he focused also strongly on "okay, I screwed up everything, now I need to at least fulfil my destiny as the heir of Isildur!")... But I think the touchiness about the sword could have had something to do with the fact that the sword was connected to so many prophecies. Of course, nobody says Aragorn would really do it, I personally rather doubt (and I think every sane person would) that Aragorn would come out chopping the heads of Théoden's doormen, however, it was worth the threat in his opinion, to underline the importance of the sword to him. I guess we need to take this a bit metaphorically, come on - I don't think Aragorn would do anything to people touching it, if it came to that (he'd look at them nastily, probably), but he would certainly be enraged beyond imagination if he found that his sword has been stolen or that the guards somehow decided meanwhile to lock the travelers' weapons in the armory, just for "safety measures".

[Bêthberry]

I think this is ancient epic warrior speech on Aragorn's part, meant to intimidate the guards and possibly to suggest some sort of omen or prophecy concerning the safe keeping of the sword.

Or maybe, like the nouveau riche, Aragorn is struggling to find his own manner of expression of his lineage.

[Inziladun]

I think Legate has the right of it.
Obviously those not in Elendil's line had touched it before. The shards of Narsil had been brought to Rivendell after Isildur's death by a 'nobody' esquire. Also, Elven-smiths had reforged it in Rivendell, and you'd think that might involve laying hands on it (unless Aragorn was paranoid enough to want to hold it while they did their thing).

[davem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrfing :

The Dwarves made the sword (Tyrfing), and it shone and gleamed like fire. However, in revenge they cursed it so that it would kill a man every time it was drawn and that it would be the cause of three great evils. They finally cursed it so that it would also kill Svafrlami himself.

When Svafrlami heard the curses he tried to slay Dvalin, but the Dwarf disappeared into the rock and the sword was driven deep into the rock missing its victim.

Svafrlami was killed by the berserker Arngrim who took the sword in his turn. After Arngrim, it was worn by Angantyr and his eleven brothers. They were all slain at Samsø, by the Swedish champion Hjalmar, and his Norwegian sworn brother Orvar-Odd; but Hjalmar, being wounded by Tyrfing, has only time to sing his death-song before he dies, and asks Orvar-Odd to bring his body to Ingeborg at Uppsala.

Angantyr's daughter, Hervor (by his wife Tofa) is brought up as a bond-maid, in ignorance of her parentage. When at last she learns it, she arms herself as a shieldmaiden, and goes to Munarvoe in Samsø, in quest of the dwarf-cursed weapon. She finds it and marries Hofund. They have two sons, Heidrek and Angantyr. Hervor secretly gave her son the sword Tyrfing. While Angantyr and Heidrek walked, Heidrek wanted to have a look at the sword. Since he had unsheathed it, the curse the Dwarves had put on the sword made Heidrek kill his brother Angantyr.

Heidrek became king of the Goths. During a voyage, Heidrek camped at the Carpathians (Harvaða fjöllum, cf. Grimm's law). He was accompanied by eight mounted thralls, and when Heidrek slept at night, the thralls broke into his tent and took Tyrfing and slew Heidrek. This was the last one of Tyrfing's three evil deeds. Heidrek's son Angantyr caught the thralls, killed them and reclaimed the magic sword, and the curse had ceased.

All this & a Shieldmaiden too...

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I would say the latter ... Of course, nobody says Aragorn would really do it, I personally rather doubt (and I think every sane person would) that Aragorn would come out chopping the heads of Théoden's doormen, however, it was worth the threat in his opinion, to underline the importance of the sword to him...

But do you think Aragorn would make a threat or promise without the intention to follow through on it? You know, saying "I'm going to kill anyone who touches my sword!" though he only means he'd be really, really angry... I don't, which is why I favour the curse thing, though I agree it's poorly supported by the text, disregarding the mythological parallels Davem and Pitchwife brought up.

Inzil, the thread that discusses whether Aragorn actually carried the shards is here.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

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.

Oh, I agree. I simply thought it interesting that either an intelligence in Gurthang (Eöl's), or perhaps Túrin's guilty conscience recognised Túrin as not being the sword's legitimate owner.

Originally Posted by skip spence

Inzil, the thread that discusses whether Aragorn actually carried the shards is here.

Thanks. I figured there was one around somewhere.

[alatar]

Thanks all for your informative posts (and now we all know to avoid poor davem until we know that he's flu free ).

Don't think that Narsil/Anduril was cursed like Tyrfing or Gurthang. Yet it may still have had some magical property that could have harmed anyone not related to Elendil.

What humans handled Narsil/Anduril, as I would think that Dwarves and Elves would be immune to whatever spells they may have presumably wove into the item? Was Ohtar 'part of the family?' Even if he weren't, Narsil's 'light' was extinguished (obviously) when he handled the shards.

But what if the blade isn't in itself lethal to touch?

So then we have Aragorn all a'huff about anyone touching his sword. Was this because the bearer would then be considered 'royalty?' That doesn't seem sensible. Also, Aragorn makes too much about leaving his sword, more than one would expect, especially after Gandalf cautions the group about speaking any haughty words to King Theoden. Is this just a result of Aragorn's weariness, where he not only disregards Gandalf's wisdom but also wants to begin asserting his claim to some station - not wanting to be mistaken for wizard ragtag?

But this is the same Aragorn who says that he'd leave any sword at the door, even if visiting some peasant's hut, but not *this* sword.

It just seems too important a scene to be easily dismissed.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

What humans handled Narsil/Anduril, as I would think that Dwarves and Elves would be immune to whatever spells they may have presumably wove into the item? Was Ohtar 'part of the family?' Even if he weren't, Narsil's 'light' was extinguished (obviously) when he handled the shards.

As far as I know, 'Ohtar' was the only Man to touch Narsil after Elendil's death apart from Isildur and the latter's descendants. It is said in UT that 'Ohtar' was actually the title of the person and not his actual name. However, it also says in Footnote 17 of the essay The Disaster of the Gladden Fields, that Ohtar was 'of [Isildur's] own kin'. Whether that means royal blood or not, who knows?

Originally Posted by alatar

So then we have Aragorn all a'huff about anyone touching his sword. Was this because the bearer would then be considered 'royalty?' That doesn't seem sensible. Also, Aragorn makes too much about leaving his sword, more than one would expect, especially after Gandalf cautions the group about speaking any haughty words to King Theoden. Is this just a result of Aragorn's weariness, where he not only disregards Gandalf's wisdom but also wants to begin asserting his claim to some station - not wanting to be mistaken for wizard ragtag?

It appears that Aragorn takes his reponsibilities as the Heir of Isildur very seriously, to say the least. The Sword That Was Broken was probably the most recognisable symbol of his lineage. He showed it to the Hobbits in Bree when his identity was questioned. He did the same at the Council of Elrond to aid in proving himself to Boromir.
Perhaps he did simply want to impress upon Háma and the Rohirrim the value he placed in the lineage of the sword in the hope (apparently well-founded) that no one would molest it, and extra care would be taken to guard it, since he was urged by Gandalf to bow to Théoden's wished for that time.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

But do you think Aragorn would make a threat or promise without the intention to follow through on it? You know, saying "I'm going to kill anyone who touches my sword!" though he only means he'd be really, really angry...

Well, for one, note that he did not say "I am going to kill you", but he said the obscure "whoever touches it will die". Mainly though, you never have used any exaggerated sayings like that? Or heard them at least? I would be puzzled, because I think it's quite normal and I don't get why people won't see it in cases like this and take everything literally. Like, somebody says "oh but if you screw up your job this time again, your boss is going to rip your head off", while in the end (at least normally) no decapitations occur. Also, for the guards, the intimidation itself is enough, and that is what I think Aragorn is betting on. Just imagine yourself in that situation, if the blade would really be so important to you. You basically count on that the guys will NOT touch it, and the stage "what if they did" does not even cross your mind - nor theirs (which is the reason why you are saying the threat). Now if it happened, it would have turned into a bit of a different situation, it would be a change of roles, you would need to be confronted with the fact that the guys are not taking you seriously. It would be something like: "Oh yea? Scary wanderer threatening us? Boo boo, come on us, scary wanderer, we are already afraid of you!" It would be about Aragorn once again to deal with this (somehow I can well imagine such a scene in some movie). However, as the threat is enough, that means, Aragorn's personality has enough impact on the guys to decide not to mess up with him and rather obey.
If there is anything which is considered "cursed", or maybe rather just magical here, it is Legolas' bow. But only considered, mind you, by the superstitious Rohanian men (remembering all the talk about the Witch of Lórien and stuff like that):

Originally Posted by King of the Golden Hall

Then Legolas gave into his hand his silver-hafted knife, his quiver and his bow. "Keep these well," he said, "for they come from the Golden Wood and the Lady of Lothlórien gave them to me."
Wonder came into the man's eyes, and he laid the weapons hastily by the wall, as if he feared to handle them. "No man will touch them I promise you," he said.

Originally Posted by alatar

Was Ohtar 'part of the family?' Even if he weren't, Narsil's 'light' was extinguished (obviously) when he handled the shards.

Well, if Narsil indeed had any special powers like that, I guess indeed they might not "work" as long as the sword was shattered, which would let Ohtar touch it without any problems.

But this is the same Aragorn who says that he'd leave any sword at the door, even if visiting some peasant's hut, but not *this* sword.

That just underlines the importance of it. And note, I would also consider it supporting the idea that the sword is not cursed or anything. Because if it was cursed, and whoever touched it would die, Aragorn's motive would have been different: it would be to protect poor innocent soldiers from accidentally touching it and dying, just because of ignorance. However, I think Aragorn is basically just a bit angered in this scene, so I think it fits more that he just does not want to give the sword away because he is protective of his heirloom.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by alatar

Did Aragorn mean that the sword would not permit anyone's touch save one from his lineage, or did Aragorn mean to execute anyone that touched his sword?

Whichever, then the next question would be, why? Sure, I want to keep the kids out of my stuff, but if Aragorn meant the latter, why so severe a punishment?

Interesting question, alatar. There's something to be said for either possibility.
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). If so, I think we see here a blending of two ancient literary motifs that Tolkien must have been aware of:

• Arthur's Excalibur, which could only be drawn from its anvil/stone/whateveritwas by the rightful king. Aragorn is in a way a very Arthuresque figure - both ideal kings ascending to their heritage from a rather unglamorous incognito existence, and in both cases the sword is closely connected to their royal status.
• Tyrfing, the jinxed sword of Norse legend (also forged by Dwarves!), which demanded blood every time it was drawn and had a nasty habit of turning against its wielder if it couldn't get the desired nourishment otherwise (a motif exploited ad nauseam by Michael Moorcock in Elric's Stormbringer, and handled, in my opinion, much better by Poul Anderson in The Broken Sword [!]).

(There's something similar in Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain: the sword Dyrnwyn burned anybody who tried to draw it but those of royal blood; maybe he was influenced/inspired by Aragorn's words?)
2. As the sword was so closely connected to the kingship (possibly one of the regalia of Arnor), anybody who presumed to draw Elendil's sword may have been seen as claiming to be Elendil's heir - in other words, committing high treason under the laws of the old kingdom, a crime punishable by death in most monarchies of real world history. On the other hand, if there was indeed such a law, Aragorn surely was in no position to see it carried out at Théoden's court, and any attempt at self-justice by him would have proved disastrous - not to mention that it seems highly unlike him to inflict such severe punishment on somebody who didn't know what they were doing. But it certainly didn't hurt to put some respect into those guards - in so far I agree with Legate.

(x-ed with davem, who beat me to pointing out the Tyrfing connection - as could be expected)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

(x-ed with davem, who beat me to pointing out the Tyrfing connection - as could be expected)

Yeah - but you wrote a proper post, while I just whacked on a quote from Wikipedia
.... I would have done a bit more meself, but I'm just surfacing from swine flu & my brain hurts......

[Pitchwife]

Poor you, get well soon!

[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.