For the Love of Galadriel (Middle-earth’s Ultimate Muse?)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This topic is based on the lecture “Galadriel and Her Lovers”, given by Beth Russell during ‘Tolkien 2005’ in Birmingham, England last month. Lalwendë, davem and I heard it and were impressed by the fascinating thoughts she expressed.


Though Galadriel loved and married Celeborn, her beauty, especially that of her hair, attracted others. Three of them are mentioned in Tolkien’s works, and their love for Galadriel had fateful and wide-reaching consequences. She inspired each of them to creative activity, thereby (though unintentionally, perhaps) fulfilling the function of a Muse, in my opinion. (...though Ms. Russell did not agree with that term when I asked her about it.)

We know that Elven marriage was forever, a never-ending union of immortals. So when Galadriel married Celeborn, she became unattainable to others. Their marriage was one of equality, retaining the independence and individuality of each partner, with both using their different abilities and strengths in cooperation, even though they did not always agree.


Interestingly, the first other male who desired Galadriel was her uncle Fëanor, offspring of the only Elven marriage that did not last forever. In the Unfinished Tales, ‘The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’, we read:

Even among the Eldar she was accounted beautiful, and her hair was held a marvel unmatched. It was golden like the hair of her father and of her foremother Indis, but richer and more radiant, for its gold was touched by some memory of the starlike silver of her mother; and the Eldar said that the light of the Two Trees, Laurelin and Telperion, had been snared in her tresses. Many thought that this saying first gave to Fëanor the thought of imprisoning and blending the light of the Trees that later took shape in his hands as the Silmarils. For Fëanor beheld the hair of Galadriel with wonder and delight. He begged three times for a tress, but Galadriel would not give him even one hair.

One can’t help but wonder what would happened – or been prevented – if Galadriel has granted his request, but apparently she was right not to do so. After all, in folklore the possession of a piece of one’s body was thought to give the owner power over the person involved! Fëanor’s possessiveness hints at an admiration that could possibly have been lustful – in that case, an incestuous, adulterous passion, Ms. Russell said. And this possessiveness, whether of his father’s love, the light of the Trees, or Galadriel’s hair, was his downfall.

Later Galadriel herself was creative, reminiscent of Fëanor as he should have been. After all, just before the above passage, we read in UT:

Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Fëanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years.

Her Phial recaptured the light of a Silmaril, yet she did not keep it for herself possessively, but gave it to Frodo, who would need it to guide and aid him. Her Mirror, like the Palantíri, showed far-off places and events, yet it was not of a hard crystal substance, but moveable, renewable. And her denial of the One Ring showed that she rejected possessiveness, even to the point of renouncing her right to rule in Middle-earth and leaving the realm she so loved.


According to the UT, Celebrimbor, Fëanor’s grandson, was Celeborn’s rival for Galadriel’s hand. His love for her prompted him to make the Elessar, the first of his mighty and creative works (though there are varying accounts of this ‘fact’ ). Here is the relevant passage in UT, ‘The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’:

‘I would have trees and grass about me that do not die…’ (Galadriel)
…you know that I love you (though you turned to Celeborn of the Trees), and for that love I will do what I can, if haply by my art your grief can be lessened.’… (Celebrimbor)
Therefore he took thought, and began a long and delicate labour, and so for Galadriel he made the greatest of his works (save the Three Rings only)…
Wielding the Elessar all things grew fair about Galadriel…

Later, influenced and taught by Sauron, he went on to forge the Rings of Power. One of them, Nenya, he gave to Galadriel, so that she could continue and increase the preservation of her realm in Lórien. Again, these creative works were fraught with perils, being made from a desire for power and under Sauron’s tutelage.

We know of the fatal effects that both the Silmarils and the Rings of Power had in Middle-earth, but what effect did they and the Elves who made them have on Galadriel? Her first fall, rebellion against the Valar and departure from Valinor, resulted from the influence of Fëanor and the Silmarils; the account of this (the first half of her life) is told in the Silmarillion (also in the Unfinished Tales). Ms. Russell said that her relationship to Celebrimbor resulted in her second fall; however, as my notes don’t have a specific reference, I’m not sure what she meant. Perhaps Lal and davem will know, or others can give references with which I’m not familiar.

The creations of both Elves ignited wars in which both died. Not very encouraging for a Muse, is it?!


But there was one more person, very different, whom she inspired to creative activity near the end of her time in Middle-earth – Gimli, the Dwarf. His love for her was the courtly, idealised love that is found in medieval times. It was not possessive, and her fidelity to her husband was unquestionable. It came as a result of her knowledge of his race (she was formerly allied with the Dwarves) and its consequence was his reconciling friendship with Legolas and the honour of being the only Dwarf ever titled “Elf-friend”.

He did not covet a possession, being content with the relationship as such, but as a sign of trust was allowed to name his own gift – and his request was both humble and audacious! The gift he was given was greater than he requested – three strands of Galadriel’s hair. He later encased them in crystal as a treasured symbol of friendship between Dwarves and Elves. It’s interesting to speculate whether he made three crystals, one for each hair – that would be a parallel to the Silmarils: not as great, but not perilous either.

Though Galadriel left Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age, some of the creations she inspired stayed on: the Elessar remained with Aragorn (as did her granddaughter Arwen, perhaps ‘inheriting’ her role as Queen?), and Gimli’s crystal(s) with her hair. The Phial, with its last remnant of Silmaril light, left, as did the Rings of Power.


In the light of these thoughts, Galadriel becomes even more important within the context of Tolkien’s Legendarium, having a pivotal role in all Three Ages. How do you see her importance for the history of Middle-earth in the light of this theme? Could we speculate that her creative influence still lingers on in today’s world?

[Lhunardawen]

As I am still held in awe of that post, Esty, I cannot yet express my thoughts. But I have one question:

The Phial, with its last remnant of Silmaril light, left, as did the Rings of Power.

Was it not rescued from Mount Doom along with Sam's box by Gandalf? I don't have the books with me, so I'm not so sure...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

I have one question: Was it not rescued from Mount Doom along with Sam's box by Gandalf? I don't have the books with me, so I'm not so sure...

Yes, the Phial survived Mt. Doom, but Frodo took it with him when he sailed to Valinor. (see 'The Grey Havens', RotK)

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Yes, the Phial survived Mt. Doom, but Frodo took it with him when he sailed to Valinor. (see 'The Grey Havens', RotK)

Oh. Right. Thanks.

[davem]

Its interesting that Feanor requests a lock of Galadriel's hair but as far as we are told he does not offer anything in return. Celebrimbor, out of love, makes for her the Elessar & later Nenya. Gimli also requests a hair of her head, but only after she has offered him a gift & asked him to name it.

It seems that in the first two cases it is Galadriel who is approached by others & asked for something (probably in Feanor's case it was as much a 'demand' as a request), while in the case of Gimli he has come before her initially asking, & expecting, nothing. His love for her is entirely selfless & he gets more than he asks for (or expects).

I think its also important that when asked what he would do with her gift he tells her that it is to be a symbol of friendship between his people & hers, not a personal possession which he will keep only to himself - as Feanor did with the Silmarils.

One thing does strike me - in many ways what she herself creates (Mirror, Phial) is 'merely' a version of what Feanor created (Palatiri, Silmaril). She is less possessive of 'her' things - being more like Aule & the other Noldor in that, but the things she creates seem less 'permanent', & have as a principal element water, something which has no real 'form' & can be poured away.

Perhaps this choice of substance is reflective of the personalities of her lovers & her own. They seek to produce things which will be hard, solid, weighty & enduring, things that they can (hopefully) count on being around as long as they are (or longer in Gimli's case). She creates things which are about as transitory as possible (ok the Phial is pretty solid as an object, but that is merely the container for her actual creation - the water bearing light of Earendel). I can't help feeling that this reflects her spiritual 'state' by the end of the Third Age. She no longer seeks the permanence of things around her. She has learned to 'let go'. Her giving up of the Elessar to Aragorn seems to me just as significant as her refusing the One Ring - both are symbolic of her knowledge that the desire for permanence is a mistake.

I strongly suspect that if Gimli had told her (or if she had felt) that he wanted her hair in a possessive way - as did Feanor, or that his love for her involved any element of desire - as with Celebrimbor, she would have refused him outright.

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=davem]
It seems that in the first two cases it is Galadriel who is approached by others & asked for something (probably in Feanor's case it was as much a 'demand' as a request), QUOTE]

Beg, does not to me imply "demand".... irritating persistence maybe.

[drigel]

A most excellent thread! I agree with everyones assertions here. Contemplating Galadriel-as-Muse, I always think about Frodo and Sam's last stage of their journey to mount doom. In that bleak place, there are so many references to the Lady, and there are also many times her gifts were used to either help them practically, or (in some cases - more importantly) spiritually.

. 'If only the Lady could see us or hear us, I'd say to her: "Your Ladyship, all we want is light and water: just clean water and plain daylight, better than any jewels, begging your pardon." But it's a long way to Lorien.'

wonderful

[davem]

[QUOTE=Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

It seems that in the first two cases it is Galadriel who is approached by others & asked for something (probably in Feanor's case it was as much a 'demand' as a request), QUOTE]

Beg, does not to me imply "demand".... irritating persistence maybe.

I was basing my assertion on the statement in UT that after Feanor's 'requests' he & Galadriel were 'unfriends forever'. This seems an OTT response to 'irritating persistence'.

[Dimcollowen]

Well...i never thought of Galadriel as Muse.....I don't think she is a muse.....I think she is more of a Goddess....of sorts then a muse.....I don't know how to describe what i think of her......its very difficult.....i don't think i could describe it to you.....if you want me try...give a holla!!

[Bêthberry]

An excellent topic for discussion, Estelyn! What really intrigues me for starters is something you suggest about the difference between your approach/view and that of Beth Russell.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

This topic is based on the lecture “Galadriel and Her Lovers”, given by Beth Russell during ‘Tolkien 2005’ in Birmingham, England last month. Lalwendë, davem and I heard it and were impressed by the fascinating thoughts she expressed.


Though Galadriel loved and married Celeborn, her beauty, especially that of her hair, attracted others. Three of them are mentioned in Tolkien’s works, and their love for Galadriel had fateful and wide-reaching consequences. She inspired each of them to creative activity, thereby (though unintentionally, perhaps) fulfilling the function of a Muse, in my opinion. (...though Ms. Russell did not agree with that term when I asked her about it.)

What were Ms. Russell's reasons for not accepting the term 'muse'? See, I am all intrigued by the difference between the title of her lecture and the title of your thread.

I wonder if the question doesn't turn on just what a 'muse' is. In Greek mythology, the nine (or three, depending on which age one is reading) were daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne ('memory') who inspired mental activity in men. Two aspects are important. First, it was mental activity they inspired. And second, they themselves were not desired. They were not the loved ones, but their effect was. They provided inspiration for thinking and were channels of thought from the gods.

They were not the only forms of female inspiration in classical mythology. There were for instance sirens ( women who combined human and animal form) who drove mariners to their doom and succubi (demons in female form) who visited men in their sleep. These inspired not mental endeavour but bodily functions with various consequences. And they appear to have been desired for themselves.

This represents the classic split in Western Culture between the body and the mind and it went on, I think, in the tradition of the muse as it developed in at least English literature, which is the one I probably can recall the best. I'm thinking of writers such as Spencer who felt fully confident being able to write glowing prefaces to married women in thanks for their inspiration without any second thoughts about impropriety.

But what Russell seems to be getting at with her word "lovers"--which I note davem has used as well--is that Galadriel was involved in some kind of sexual dynamic. Even Russell's use of "fall" is (I'm betting) significant here with all our connotations of Eve, fall, and sexual doom.

Was this why Russell would reject the use of 'muse', that it is associated so thoroughly with mental aspects solely and sidesteps any sexual implications?

After all, the very negative aspects you yourself point out:

Originally Posted by Estelyn

The creations of both Elves ignited wars in which both died. Not very encouraging for a Muse, is it?!

It's a far step from these sorts of inspirations to the final Marian imagery which Tolkien strove to incorporate in his later years in the Galadriel figure, but I think it is fascinating in terms of various kinds of female figures in mythology.

[davem]

But what Russell seems to be getting at with her word "lovers"--which I note davem has used as well--is that Galadriel was involved in some kind of sexual dynamic. Even Russell's use of "fall" is (I'm betting) significant here with all our connotations of Eve, fall, and sexual doom.

Was this why Russell would reject the use of 'muse', that it is associated so thoroughly with mental aspects solely and sidesteps any sexual implications?

My feeling was that Russell used the term 'lovers' in order to be provocative. As far as we know there was no sexual desire on Feanor's part - & the 'incest' idea is pure speculation - though Galadriel's reaction seems to imply there was more going on there than his simply wanting a lock of hair from her. Celebrimbor's feelings must have had some physical aspect - his mention of Celeborn in their conversation seems pretty much to confirm this. With Gimli, however, I don't get any sense that there was a sexual dimension - which for all its idealisation of the beloved was definitely present in the Courtly Love tradition - witness the 'archetype' of such things, Lancelot & Guinevere. If Galadriel did take on aspects of the Virgin in Tolkien's later writings it was there in potential in Gimli's love for her.

It is only Gimli's creation which is brought into being out of a selfless love -Feanor's love is either for Galadriel or, more probably, for himself, Celebrimbor's love is for Galadriel. What both have in common is that their desire for her is subsumed into their creation of Silmarils/Elessar/rings - their unfulfilled desires lead them to produce their greatest creations, but those things are not what they originally wanted. Its as if the things they create also contain their creator's desire & hence ignite desire in others. Gimli alone creates something which is without any element of personal desire - its purpose is to bring about & sustain peaceful co-existence between his people & the Elves. It is the one Galadriel inspired creation of which she would truly approve. I think this fact may account for the devastation brought about by the creations of Feanor & Celebrimbor

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Esty

Interestingly, the first other male who desired Galadriel was her uncle Fëanor, offspring of the only Elven marriage that did not last forever. In the Unfinished Tales, ‘The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’, we read:

Quote:
Even among the Eldar she was accounted beautiful, and her hair was held a marvel unmatched. It was golden like the hair of her father and of her foremother Indis, but richer and more radiant, for its gold was touched by some memory of the starlike silver of her mother; and the Eldar said that the light of the Two Trees, Laurelin and Telperion, had been snared in her tresses. Many thought that this saying first gave to Fëanor the thought of imprisoning and blending the light of the Trees that later took shape in his hands as the Silmarils. For Fëanor beheld the hair of Galadriel with wonder and delight. He begged three times for a tress, but Galadriel would not give him even one hair.

One can’t help but wonder what would happened – or been prevented – if Galadriel has granted his request, but apparently she was right not to do so. After all, in folklore the possession of a piece of one’s body was thought to give the owner power over the person involved! Fëanor’s possessiveness hints at an admiration that could possibly have been lustful – in that case, an incestuous, adulterous passion, Ms. Russell said. And this possessiveness, whether of his father’s love, the light of the Trees, or Galadriel’s hair, was his downfall.

I think that maybe it was a good thing that Galadriel refused Feanor her hair, as if he had not been refused it, would he have then gone on to create the Silmarils? Yes, their creation, or rather, the desire of them, caused so much conflict, but they also preserved the Light of the Two Trees which were then destroyed. The other instance of the Light being preserved was in the form of the Sun and Moon; the silmarils were therefore an earthly or earthbound version of these.

I note that it is a saying amongst the Eldar that Galadriel's hair held the Light of the Two Trees; that it was a saying, hints that it was not necessarily a fact. Feanor was clearly inspired by the sight of Galadriel's hair and he wanted some of it; that he was refused it may have caused him to go on and create the Silmarils instead. Or perhaps he simply wished to have some of her hair in order to work out exactly how to capture the Light from the Trees?

For myself, I do not see anything sinister or untoward in his desire for a few strands of her hair. He was clearly inspired by the beauty of it, and I can imagine that Galadriel even when young may have wished to be admired for something other than her beauty; her power later in life does not rest on her looks, it rests on what she can do and on her leadership. This makes me think of the Yeats poem:

FOR ANNE GREGORY

``Never shall a young man,
Thrown into despair
By those great honey-colored
Ramparts at your ear,
Love you for yourself alone
And not your yellow hair.''

``But I can get a hair-dye
And set such color there,
Brown, or black, or carrot
That young men in despair
May love me for myself alone
And not my yellow hair.''

``I heard an old religious man
But yesternight declare
That he had found a text to prove
That only God, my dear,
Could love you for yourself alone
And not your yellow hair.''

William Butler Yeats

I note that it is much later in her life that she encounters Gimli. She is now secure in her own strengths and capabilities and has little to 'prove'; she is accepted as incredibly powerful. It is at this stage in her life that she can accept the worship given to her beauty with good grace.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I note that it is much later in her life that she encounters Gimli. She is now secure in her own strengths and capabilities and has little to 'prove'; she is accepted as incredibly powerful. It is at this stage in her life that she can accept the worship given to her beauty with good grace.

And, going along with your general theme, although Gimli admires Galadriel's beauty, it is NOT the beauty which first made him love her. It was her kind words, and repudiation of the general Elven antipathy towards the Dwarves. Note that we only hear Gimli speaking of her beauty AFTER she wins his heart, so to speak.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

they also preserved the Light of the Two Trees which were then destroyed. The other instance of the Light being preserved was in the form of the Sun and Moon; the silmarils were therefore an earthly or earthbound version of these.

And yet the Silmarils were lost forever.

I note that it is a saying amongst the Eldar that Galadriel's hair held the Light of the Two Trees; that it was a saying, hints that it was not necessarily a fact.

I would take it as a fact. In Gimli's crystals the memory of the light of the Two Trees was preserved in Middle-earth forever, & in the White Tree of Gondor & the Mallorn of the Shire, so was their form.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Perhaps this choice of substance is reflective of the personalities of her lovers & her own.

Originally Posted by davem

My feeling was that Russell used the term 'lovers' in order to be provocative.

Why then did davem use the term 'lover's?


Are all of you saying this love of Galadriel was not a pure thing, could not be a pure thing? Are you saying she couldn't be a muse like the classical muses or those who poets used to personify their inspiration?

What is interesting is that Galadriel herself creates objects--as davem has mentioned--who was her "muse"?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why then did davem use the term 'lover's?

'Lovers' doesn't necessarily have to have a sexual connotation. I was using it in the sense of those who loved her.

What is interesting is that Galadriel herself creates objects--as davem has mentioned--who was her "muse"?

Well, she does tell Frodo that the Eye of Sauron that he saw 'is also in my mind.' It seems that all she does is inspired by Sauron - maybe he was her 'muse' in that she would have done little creatively without him. I think it was Lyta on a different thread who questioned the necessity of evil in Middle-earth....

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why then did davem use the term 'lover's?

Originally Posted by davem

'Lovers' doesn't necessarily have to have a sexual connotation. I was using it in the sense of those who loved her.

I am and always have been a staunch advocate of using the word "love" (in this case, "lovers") broadly. It is only our time that has come to restrict it to a purely twosome relationship, including sex, thereby losing its many possibilities in the process.


I'm enjoying the good posts so far!

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

I wouldn't say Galadriel was a muse for ME. I'd say Galadriel was ME's Varda.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

'Lovers' doesn't necessarily have to have a sexual connotation. I was using it in the sense of those who loved her.

Originally Posted by Estelyn

I am and always have been a staunch advocate of using the word "love" (in this case, "lovers") broadly. It is only our time that has come to restrict it to a purely twosome relationship, including sex, thereby losing its many possibilities in the process.

Originally Posted by Humpty Dumpty

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

[Lalwendë]

Bethberry - Who can tell the intellectual reasons that Beth Russell had for using the term 'lovers'? But I would suspect that using such an evocative word would make your particular talk 'stand out' amongst the myriad other things to do at Tolkien 2005. As it happens, the talk was one of the very best so if she was indeed using it to be provocative and to attract attention, as davem has suggested, then I can forgive that.

And might I also add that many far more provocative talks were given at Tolkien 2005! *cough* a certain Hobbit talk *cough*

But I do think that even if Beth Russell wanted to attract our attention, then the content of her talk centred around the sense of Galadriel having 'lovers' in the sense of 'admirers', so it was not a misleading title. She did hint at the possibility that Feanor's admiration of Galadriel's hair could have had sinister connotations but this was very much a possibility, and one that had people talking afterwards.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And, going along with your general theme, although Gimli admires Galadriel's beauty, it is NOT the beauty which first made him love her. It was her kind words, and repudiation of the general Elven antipathy towards the Dwarves. Note that we only hear Gimli speaking of her beauty AFTER she wins his heart, so to speak.

This is interesting. After all, why should Gimli find Galadriel beautiful in the sense that he found her attractive? Dwarves must have their own cultural notions of beauty, and maybe it is that he finds her graciousness and understanding to be what is truly beautiful about her?

Or do Dwarves have different cultural notions of beauty? Hmmm...

[drigel]

Or do Dwarves have different cultural notions of beauty? Hmmm...

egads
beard length, gold pinching, or perhaps the number of beer steins she could hold in one hand..?..?

Are you saying she couldn't be a muse like the classical muses or those who poets used to personify their inspiration?

In terms of the work, clearly fair is fair, which has many connotations. As to the muse catagory, I would say elves in general from the 1st to early 4th ages to be the "classical" variety (from a non elf perspective). Some more so than others. Practically speaking, they were more common at that time, their civilizations more dominant. But as the 4th age drew on, and - well - up to present day - I would put them in the "poets used to personify..." heap. They were rare, seldom seen, and most likely considered to be (like opium in the 19th century) very dangerous and deadly, but if one had some luck, creatively rewarding and inspiring in a perilous kind of fashion

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Bethberry - Who can tell the intellectual reasons that Beth Russell had for using the term 'lovers'? But I would suspect that using such an evocative word would make your particular talk 'stand out' amongst the myriad other things to do at Tolkien 2005. As it happens, the talk was one of the very best so if she was indeed using it to be provocative and to attract attention, as davem has suggested, then I can forgive that.

And might I also add that many far more provocative talks were given at Tolkien 2005! *cough* a certain Hobbit talk *cough*

But I do think that even if Beth Russell wanted to attract our attention, then the content of her talk centred around the sense of Galadriel having 'lovers' in the sense of 'admirers', so it was not a misleading title. She did hint at the possibility that Feanor's admiration of Galadriel's hair could have had sinister connotations but this was very much a possibility, and one that had people talking afterwards.

If you are talking about ascertaining with complete assurance Russell's authorial intent I would agree that could well be impossible.

However, to suggest that a lecturer would not, somewhere in the lecture, refer to or suggest how the title related to the actual lecture, seems a tad disingenuous to me--or perhaps I should say the claim lacks candor or frankness. Even something as mundane as "Well, now that I have all your attention..." would suggest humorously her real interest. But certainly the way she constructed her argument and her examples would go far towards clarifying what her interest was.

I certainly don't wish to belabour the point--and I can quite see how she could have used it flippantly--but none of you who were in attendance--you, Lal, or davem or Estelyn has answered my question: Why did Russell reject Estelyn's claim that Galadriel was a muse? Did Russell define 'muse' differently than Estelyn? Was the focus and purport of her lecture different from that of this thread? If we are to discuss whether Galadriel was "the ultimate muse", we ought to know what we mean by muse, what other options exist for the ways in which Galadriel is 'involved with' Middle-earth, who other candidates are. If Russell didn't see Galadriel as being the inspirator as Estelyn did, what did Russell see Galadriel as?

Originally Posted by Estelyn

I am and always have been a staunch advocate of using the word "love" (in this case, "lovers") broadly. It is only our time that has come to restrict it to a purely twosome relationship, including sex, thereby losing its many possibilities in the process.

With all due respect to your position, it is also possible to debate that 'love' was previously never used as broadly as you suggest, that it harboured an unspoken secret which was regarded as dirty and shameful. The English noun does more than double duty of course, standing in for eros, agape, charity, caritous, carnality, sensuality, chastity, benevolence, grace. The very fact that the same word can signify the opposites of the charity and carnality is itself very suggestive.

If it is true--and I think it can certainly be argued--that 'our time' has restricted the meaning of love to sexual love only, perhaps that is in itself evidence not of greater meaning in previous time but of the lack of openness in earlier uses of the word. Sometimes silence about a subject in fact speaks more loudly about its presence than direct acknowledgement would. Through coded language, restrictions, underscored omissions, sudden contradictions, greatly nuanced differences and arguments, the real or fabricated presence was danced around so much that it finally broke forth in torrents of public recognition and acknowledgement. There's a description of an elbow in George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss that is astounding for its eroticism, and every word and every nuance as clean as any most prudish Victorian reader would want it.

But my point is not to insist upon any one particular use of 'lovers' which Estelyn cleverly disguised in her initial post. It was really just ruminating on why Russell rejected Esty's interpretation that Galadriel was a muse.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

But my point is not to insist upon any one particular use of 'lovers' which Estelyn cleverly disguised in her initial post. It was really just ruminating on why Russell rejected Esty's interpretation that Galadriel was a muse.

The only problem I can see with the idea of Galadriel as 'muse' is that unlike the Muses of antiquity Galadriel is a person in her own right (within the secondary world). It may be that she recieved an Anima projection from Feanor, Celebrimbor & Gimli, because according to Jung that is the role the Anima plays for a man. Yet, that would not make Galadriel herself into a muse - because as a real, living Elf woman she would be far more complex than that.

So, Galadriel has her own existence as a flawed, fallen being within Middle-earth, but to those who 'loved' her she took on a numinosity in their minds. I put 'loved' in quotes there because the only ones who could have been said to love her in the true sense were those who knew her as a person in her own right - principally Celeborn, Celebrian, Elrond & Arwen. For the others, she would have been a symbol of something 'other'. What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

One could argue that what Feanor (possibly), Celebrimbor & Gimli 'loved' was what Galadriel symbolised for them, rather than the Elven maiden 'clothed in simple white'. Lots of 'projections' going on.

[drigel]

The whole idea of muses to me is an attempt to describe the fleeting and rare spark that divines inspiration. It takes many forms. I suppose the Greeks needed personification for this divinity. Of course it's a woman.

I would think, from a mortal's POV, all Eldar from the 1st age on produced inspiration on many levels, if one would aspire to a higher level of personal or spiritual state. At the macro level would be a desire for a higher state of civilization or culture.

What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

As the (arguably) sole representative of an active Eldar in a leadership position, G certainly could be considered goddess like. Not only in her personal attributes, but what that represented, and what others would heap on her, in terms of what she represented. Not her fault, but there is an almost goddess like love for her.

[Lyta_Underhill]

What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

Indeed, Galadriel seems to have emerged into the active secondary world of Middle Earth and then faded back into the 'cauldron of story,' perhaps much on a theme of the elder race 'fading' at the end of the Third Age. His tales are shot through with the theme of the Faerie aspect of this world passing away, of the desire to follow but never being fully able to, the frustration of the "Sea Bell" rising when the desire is too great and the pleasant tantalizing hints of "news from Bree" which puts this Faerie realm where it seems to fit best, in the imagination and on the edge of reality.

Galadriel's position seems very much goddess-like, as she comes into contact with few who live in Middle Earth, and none who meet her ever forget her. They are all moved by her power and all love her. It is interesting to note Frodo's complete willingness to give up the One Ring to her. In this moment, he worships her and also feels her power, she is a goddess to his mind. She does not so much inspire him to create and to reach greater heights but enjoins him to keep to his quest by revealing her own vulnerability (and strength). She becomes real in this sense, rather than an abstract quality. Sam, on the other hand, seems to reject the unreal (scary!) aspects of 'elvish magic' once he has seen them, opting instead for the real 'earth magic,' if you will, of the realm of Lothlorien, loving the Lady for her living works, taking away her image in his mind and applying it with inspiration in the Shire. It seems that Galadriel takes on more of a "muse-like" aspect with regard to Samwise, as his creations in the Shire each have a grain of Galadriel's gift, much like the germ of an inspiration. Of course, this is not absolute in its definition, as there is a full blown mallorn tree growing in the Party Field, an unmistakable sign of the Lady's direct influence.

Galadriel does seem to change her aspect as time wears on, and I suppose one who wielded temporal power, even as she kept her realm as non-temporal as possible, would fade into myth, as the Elves fade from the story, the Fourth Age begins, and the Lady's works fade; all that is left to Middle Earth is memory and inspiration. For those who have personal experience of the Lady of the Golden Wood, the inspiration becomes more like a loss, and most follow the image West into memory or myth, if you will. Gimli, for his devotion, is allowed to follow Galadriel to the West, a boon not granted to those in the primary world, who must sit and watch things pass away and retain their inspirational qualities.

I'm not sure what I am trying to say in this rambling post, but I have very much enjoyed this thread so far, and look forward to reading more! Bear with the hobbit's crackpot theories if you will, and maybe there is something between the lines!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In my introductory post, I mentioned that I didn't remember what would be considered the second fall of Galadriel. I've just read Michael Martinez' article on Celeborn; he says something that throws a bit of light onto that question:

...the Rings of Power were originally a second act of Elvish rebellion.

That's not a major point in this topic, but an interesting aspect.


I've enjoyed reading the various thoughts you've all shared! As to the uses of the terms "muse" and "love(r)", it seems to me that Bêthberry found the right quote by another Oxford professor:

Originally Posted by Humpty Dumpty

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'