Magic vs. Power

[Bill Ferny]

LOL, I just noticed this postscript:

P.P.S. Did the spring at Lourdes deny you, Bill?

No, I never got close enough. A vision of the Blessed Lady chucking apples at me scared me off half-way up to the grotto, so I went back to my little stand and went back to selling tap water in little plastic Mary bottles.

[Bill Ferny]

Once again Middle Earth intrudes into the real world. One of my new projects involves connections between early Christian Gnosticism and pagan/pseudo-pagan alchemy. I was immediately reminded of Tolkien in many of the connections, and I formulated a theory throughout the course of the night and this morning, rather undeveloped and hodge-podge to say the least, that touches on the issues raised in this thread.

The elves are obviously based on the Tuatha Dé Danann (Children or People of Danu) of Celtic myth. Danu is a figure associated with craftsmanship, thus the Tuatha Dé Danann can be called the people of craftsmanship. The dwarves are forged by the smith of all smiths, Aulë. The Númenóreans are known for their various crafts learned from the elves, especially ship building, in virtue of the blood of Elros. There are intrinsic parallels between alchemy and magic in LotR. Sauron is the epitome of the alchemist. In the forging of the rings of power he makes the alchemical bridge between the spiritual and material creation. The alchemist is often called the master of fire. Sauron wields fire at every turn. Even Gandalf can be seen in this light, he carries the ring of fire, and he proclaims himself the “servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor.”

In all the mythologies that I perused the alchemist figure is always otherworldly, like the Tuatha Dé Danann. Andvari the Dwarf in the Volsunga Saga, and his parallels in the German romances, is the craftsman who forges the ring of unlimited wealth. In the same, Regin who forged anew Odin’s sword into Gram, was not a man, but born long before the first men. Völund (Wayland) crafts wondrous items, interestingly enough, by the power of an otherworldly magical ring.

I wonder if we could place the Lady of the Lake into this mold as well.

Iron was one of the most influential discoveries of human history, and the art of smelting raw ore into workable iron was a secret jealously guarded; thus the origin of the “secrets” of the furnace’s fire. With such a world changing discovery at their finger tips, is it any wonder that these holders of the secrets of its creation would appear to the common person as otherworldly figures, and associate their fiery craft with sorcery and magic? However, for our present discussion, which is the mythology of Middle Earth, such a speculation does not belong. Whether or not the origin of historical alchemy/magic was based on simple natural science and pagan belief systems is of no consequence. What is of consequence is the connection between the otherworldly character of sub-creation within the fabric of the myths, themselves.

Its apparent that Tolkien may have drawn from these sources his basic conception of magic. It comes from a wisdom or secret knowledge held only by a select few (which reminds me of Christian Gnotics) and is intimately tied to sub-creation. Like the other mythologies I came across, Tolkien makes these select creatures and characters otherworldly in nature.

[Meoshi]

And he entered the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again, and because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord's favour; he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron; and he was more cruel than any orc.

'for this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word for the deceits of the Enemy.'

I would say that magic in the traditional fantasy sense (spellcasters tapping into a power that is not inherantly theirs through potions, incantations, etc.) does exist in ME- But only evildoers are foolish enough to use it. Sauron and the Witch-King trained sorcerers, teaching them to 'tap into the Melkor element', as one of you said. That power was not natural or inherant to Arda, nor inherant in the spellcasters. You wouldn't find Elves among Sauron's pupils, but only Men- Men who envied the Elves' and Numenoreans'(to some extent) inherant skill and wanted some of their own.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: Meoshi ]

[Iarwain]

Very interesting. I cannot disagree with you, Bill, because what you say is logical and fits in with the greater picture of Tolkien's works. Also, I have little to no experience in early mythology of the norse, anglo saxons and other civilizations in western Europe. A question:

You speak a lot about men and elves, what of the higher race, the ainur? I realize that they would not have any innate need or desire for the evil knowledge of sorcery, but would not some maiar have been corrupted and drawn to service beneath Sauron?

Iarwian

[Mornie Alantie]

Another thing is that Tolkien was Cotholic and belived in God. He set the power/virtue/ability in middle earth with the kind of power found in the Bible. God's all powerful power, the angels power to do his will, and that Satan and his host use that power evily. If you think about it, they are very alike. Illuvitar being all knowing and all powerful, Aunir and Elves having the power given to them, And Melkor and his host using that power evily.

God does not use occultic power or magic, he uses his divine power and same with those under him. So to say that the LOTR has the occultic power/magic is very unrealistic.

[Iarwain]

Now, another point of dispute has come up:

Which would have played a greater role in Tolkien's writing; his religious beliefs or his mythopoetic authenticity?

Iarwain

[Bill Ferny]

Meoshi, the first quote refers to the Mouth of Sauron who was a Black Númenórean. The Númenóreans, under my flimsy theory, would be the only the humans able to learn magic. My point of contention has evolved to not whether or not magic is learned per se, but that it can only be learned by a select, otherworldly, few. The second quote is a demonstration of perspective that was discussed above. However, I have a vague recollection of sorcerers under the influence of evil that were Easterlings of Rhûn. I’ve searched through a good portion of UT, but haven’t been able to find anything. Of course, if my recollection proves accurate, my theory is basically out the window.

Iarwain, the Ainur I suppose fit perfectly into this otherworldly scheme. However, I can’t really think of any mythologies that seem to reflect the Ainur/Valar theme in Tolkien (their entrance into Arda), except perhaps the Origin of Nephilim from Genesis 6;1-4:

When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose. Then the Lord said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.” At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

Since I’m on the Bible, I have a tendency to down play Tolkien’s religiosity in regards to the crafting of his mythology. It seems to me from reading HoME (and this has been debated elsewhere, and I’m open to correction and various opinions) that Tolkien began to craft his mythology using only his mythological sources, not excluding Judeo-Christian myth, but not consciously depending on that particular myth. In fact, it seems to me that his initial crafting was based almost completely on the mythologies of northern Europe. However, after reviewing his work later in the process he realized the many Christian themes he had unconsciously inserted, and “consciously in the revision” attempted to make these Christian themes more apparent and cogent. So in reply to Mornie, I would say that Tolkien first attempted to capture of the “magic” of the Edda, which is not “occult” in origin.

[Iarwain]

Great passage from Genesis, Bill. Madeleine L'Engle wrote an entire book based on information provided in that brief and mysterious statement. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I've always felt the same about Tolkien's inspiration. Even when other's have pointed out the Christian resemblance, I completely refused to believe at first. However, that does not change my view that from a spiritual aspect, "magic" in middle earth was never learned, it was practiced as an innate power from Iluvatar, or given from bent Maiar to evil men who were corrupted by Sauron. What rationality would allow power to be gained like a college degree, changing the very fibre of a being just through learning a few empty words and phrases? I do not believe that Iluvatar would allow or perform such deep changes to the innate characters of men whom he had gifted such great things.

I've always had the idea that one of the Nazgul came from the far east. I imagine their rulers would make good Nazgul (good, that is for Sauron's purposes, no one else's [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )


Iarwain

[Salocin]

As I see it there are three intertwined forms of "magic" in ME. There is the inherent abilities thet Bill and Iarwain champion, learned craftsmanship which can be compared to science, and learned magic. I will start my justification with craftsmanship as I think Bill and Iarwian have done a better job with inherent ability than I could ever do.

Any "magic" item would fall under cragtsmanship. I would argue that anyone could learn to make at least the material part of these provided they had the time to learn how. Before you stone me let me clarify a bit.

Elven Swords, lembas, Rope, Cloaks etc.- This first class of "magic items" seems to just require the knowlege of how to make them. A strong indication of this is when an elf in Lorien tell Sam that if they had known he had an interest in rope making, they could have taught him how to make it. In the case of the swords, cloaks, and maybe even the lembas, though, I suspect would take more than a Hobbit's life time to learn. One must also take into account that some people have natural skill in craftsmanship, fine sight for detail or a steady hand for example, so maybe not everyone could make them. The "magic" glowing of the swords I would attribute to science, but that is just my own oppinion and maybe they should be classified with my next group of items.

My next group includes the Palantir, Silmarils, Rings of Power, the Phial of Galadrial, and maybe even the Wizard's staffs, though the amount of power they posess inherently is highly debatable. These physical aspects of these items I would say could be made by anyone with the time to learn how, like the items above. A skilled glassmaker could make a sphere of black glass, or a glass phial, or maybe even clear crystals and a simple woodsman can make an oak staff. Their power, though, seems to depend on the power of both the creator of the object and the user. (This is why I would not put elven swords here. They seem to glow regardless of who is weilding them.) The creator appers to invest some of their own inherent power in them and sometimes looses it permenently (as in the case of Sauron forging the one ring) to the object. The user can only use the item in so far as they have power, a consept I think everyone is familiar with, at least as regards the rings and the palantir.

Finally there is learned magic. This defenitely seems to exist, though I am not sure the idea is consistent and that may be the reason for these problems. Before I try to explain my stance here, site examples, etc., I would like to explain a view of magic that I think Tolkien may have had as it is a predominant Christian idea.

There is no magic. At least not in the sense that if you do certain things and mix up a potion you can comand the elements or something like that. Many Christians would place events like these in one of too catigories:1)Events that have or will be explained by science. 2)Events that are explained by the intevention of a demon at the request of a person who is either a Satanist or thouroly decived by the devil. In this way there isn't any really "occult" magic as someone, I think it was Iarwain, defined as invisible squares holding the patchwork quilt world together. The "invisible" squares would be explained by demons.

I hope that is cohernt. I know what I mean so it is hard for me to see how one might misunderstand it. Anyways, back to Tolkien. I think the Witch King and the Mouth of Sauron would fall under category number two. Their sorcery was derived from his corruption by Sauron, a demon. The spells of Gandalf and sorcery of Beorn (I would classify the transformation into a bear as inherent ability since it is only done by him and his ofspring and therefore apears to be inheritable.) I think these are either based on the celtic idea of a druid running around controlling the elements with incantations (though even they associated spirits (demons) with the elements) or as a form of pseudoscience.

O.K., throw your stones. Lets see how many holes we can put in this [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

But seriously, I am getting a little muddeled here towards the end here and doubt a am being coherent. It all seemed like a good idea when I started [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]. I would greatly apretiat any critisism(constructive of otherwise), questions, suggestions, arguments, complaints, or queries would be greatly apretiated. If it is wrong, nothing would please me more than seeing it torn to shreads.

Iarwain- To answer your question I would say he took myths and reshaped them to his religious beliefs.

[Iarwain]

Well, Salocin, I think you are quite coherent, except perhaps where you are saying that you aren't [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. I hope my stones don't hurt too much [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

I understand what you say, and I agree with some of it (the evil in occultic magic), but with other parts I will always disagree. I do not believe that there is any form of learned magic in Middle Earth (I realize that I have already said this many many times, so I appologize for my redundance [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). The magic that we see invested in objects (palantiri, rings, etc.) is just that: invested. It is nothing more. To prevent further redundence, I'm going to stop there, because you've already read all of my arguments from before. I'm realizing that this wasn't really a post worth posting...

Iarwain

[Bill Ferny]

Beorn: after going through some Norse mythology, I’m 99% certain that he and his were based on the berzerkers who according to these mythologies had the ability to transform into wolves and bears (berzerkers wore wolf and bear skins).

As far as the Witch King and the other Nazghoulies, I would say their command of “magic” is wholly based on their existing in the shadow realm due to the nine rings, not according to any schooling they may have had at Dol Guldor High.

Good post, Salocin, very coherent. I try not to throw stones, but I do occasionally toss back apples. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[The Saucepan Man]

As far as the Witch King and the other Nazghoulies, I would say their command of “magic” is wholly based on their existing in the shadow realm due to the nine rings, not according to any schooling they may have had at Dol Guldor High.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] But what about the Minas Morgul College of Further Education? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

But, it seems that the Nine, or at least the Witch King, did become sorcerors before they became Ringwraiths. Here is a quote from the Silm:

Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerors, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them ... And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and under the domination of the One, which was Sauron's. And they became for ever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows.

Not only does this tells us that they became kings, sorcerors and great warriors before they entered the realm of shadows, but it also suggests that they did so (or at least some of them did so) before, one by one, they fell under the thraldom of the rings they bore, and thereby under the dominion of Sauron. Also it is suggested that the wills, of some at least, were good in the beginning. Quite possibly they became sorcerors while still remaining "good".

So, those that were able to use "magic" did not gain this ability by virtue of being Ringwraiths. Nor, it seems, was such an ability "imbued" in them by Sauron. They gained it while mortal and, arguably, before they fell under his dominion.

This leaves the question of whether the Rings themselves bestowed the ability to use magic. I do not think that they did. Undoubtedly, the power of the Rings assisted them in gaining kingdoms, weath, power and magic, but I do not believe that they gave them these things directly.

I therefore believe that those of the Nine who were sorcerors before they became Ringwraiths learned their sorcery as a craft.

Now, I am not saying that those who argue that there is no such thing as "learned magic" in JRRT's world are wrong. As far as I am aware, there is no conclusive evidence one way or another. It is simply my interpretation that there was such a thing.

[Iarwain]

Thank you for proving that point, Saucepan. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Now we can see that, though they were perhaps learned men, lords and knights before they recieved their gifts from Annatar, they did not change to a higher (or lower) level until they began to use the rings, which allowed them great power. This is when they became great sorcerors, kings, and heroes. Therefore, the Morgul King was not, as some have suggested, a great sorcerer before he recieved his great ring. He did not fall into shadow, but as soon as he began to misuse the power the ring gave him he began to slip into the abyss.

Another quote, from the Sil:

It was in Eregion that the counsels of Sauron were most gladly received, for in that land the Noldor desired ever to increase the skill and subtlety of their works. Moreover they were not at peace in their hearts, since they had refused to return into the West, and they desired both to stay in Middle-earth, which indeed they loved, and yet to enjoy the bliss of those that had departed. Therefore they hearkened to Sauron, and they learned of him many things, for his knowledge was great. In those days the smiths of Ost-in-Edhil surpassed all that they had contrived before; and they took thought, and they made Rings of Power. But Sauron guided their labours, and he was aware of all that they did; for his desire was to set a bond upon the Elves and to bring them under his vigilance.

Sadly this may contradict my belief of the lack of learned power. Any thoughts?

Iarwain

[ March 21, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Meoshi]

Sauron didn't teach them magic, I would say; He 'put a little of himself' into the Rings, as he did with the One, so that he would be able to control them better when he made his own- and so they would be more powerful.

[Iarwain]

I understand, Meoshi. I'm glad that my theory is still applicable. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I like the idea of people "putting themselves" into objects and crafts, it's almost like investing time or effort into a project. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Iarwain

[The Saucepan Man]

Ah now, is this conclusive proof of the existence of learned magic in JRRT's world?

From The Hobbit, Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire:

But, of course, Gandalf had made a special study of bewitchments with fire and lights (even the hobbit had never forgotten the magic fireworks at Old Took's midsummer-eve parties, as you remember).

So part of Gandalf's magic, at least, seems to have derived from study. No doubt, as a Maiar, he had the capacity for magic. But perhaps one aspect of the constraints put upon him and the other Istari when they came to ME was that they were unable to use their innate powers to the full. Maybe, therefore, Gandalf felt that he had to study to build up his powers on his arrival in ME, in order to prepare him for his mission.

[Iarwain]

Well, that finishes it! Congrats, Saucepan. We can now say with confidence that ME magic can be learned, at least by the appropriate, capable people.

Iarwain

[Bill Ferny]

There does seem to be a learning curve when it comes to magic. However, only select few with an innate, perhaps otherworldly, predisposition toward magic can learn the craft. You are right, PanMan, that there is no conclusive evidence based on the Silm’s description of the Nazgûl. Those of sorcery powers could have been Black Númenóreans possessing that predisposition as did the Witch King. Juxtapose this with the common perception of occult type magic, such as voodoo, modern day witchcraft, and New Age “powers” that can be achieved by anyone who has the right formula or the proper tarot deck or stands in the right place.

Once again the examples sited exemplify the craftsmanship model of the old alchemy mythologies. These characters learn magic and incorporate magic much like a craftsman, most notably the smith and metallurgist.

Minas Morgul College (MMC for short)… bah. Good basketball team, but lousy football. I matriculated from UEI (University of Espionage, Isengard) and we spanked them every year (orc-men linebackers, you know).

[Salocin]

The magic that we see invested in objects (palantiri, rings, etc.) is just that: invested.

I am afraid you missunderstude me. What I was saying was that power invested in palantir, rings, etc. can be "claimed" only as far as you have power yourself. I don't think I connected the learning part of magic with the magic items part at all. They are completely unrelated. You may, though, need to practice using an item to relize its full potential and the skill to make an item must be learned, but that is completely different from the existance of "learned" magic which PanMan has apparently proved conclusively.

Consiquently, you said

I understand what you say, and I agree with some of it (the evil in occultic magic), but with other parts I will always disagree. I do not believe that there is any form of learned magic in Middle Earth

and then

We can now say with confidence that ME magic can be learned

don't you find this in the least bit irronic? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway, if its proven now, is this thread now pointless?

[ March 22, 2003: Message edited by: Salocin ]

[Iarwain]

Ironic, it is indeed. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. The thread is NOT, however, pointless, because its goal was not to prove the lack of learned power in Middle-Earth. The purpose of this thread is in fact to discern the differences between occultic magic and the magic which Tolkien illustrates in his descriptions of Middle-Earth. Perhaps you should reread the previous posts in this thread? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The reason I have chosen to use the word Power is that though there is a difference between Tolkien's brand of magic and the magic used by a more classical magician, there is no word to specifically describe that difference, that my reason for starting this thread; to discern from Tolkien and the occult.

Also, Saucepan has merely shown us that magic can be learned, to what degree and by whom we have not yet decided. It is possible that only the powerful of Arda could learn magic, and it is also possible that such learning was gained through a sort of grant, or diploma given by the Valar, or Iluvatar, the only one's powerful enough to distribute new power into a being. We can also look at Saucepan's quote and say that these "bewitchments" were probably just discoveries about the materials used to make fireworks, mixed with Gandalf's previoius innate power. So, you can clearly see that this thread is not outdated, nor is my argument inapplicable. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]


Iarwain

[ March 22, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Also, Saucepan has merely shown us that magic can be learned, to what degree and by whom we have not yet decided.

Ah, but its not for us to decide. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

The evidence we have so far is that:

1) one or more of the Nine became sorcerors at some point after having been given a Ring of Power by Sauron but before becoming a Ringwraith; and

2) Gandalf learned "bewitchments" involving fire and lights which he used to bring lightning bolts down on the goblins in the Misty Mountains and set light to fir-cones to throw at the Wargs, as well as making fireworks.

The fact that the Nine became sorcerors means that it was not only those of divine origin, such as Gandalf, who were able to learn magic. Those of the Nine who became sorcerors were mortal when they did so. That leaves two possibilities. Either Sauron invested them with their magical abilities, or they learned them independently. Since there is, as far as I am aware, nothing to establish the former, I choose to believe the latter. It is therefore my interpretation that the ability to use magic could, in ME, be learned by anyone with suitable aptitude. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Bill Ferny]

It is therefore my interpretation that the ability to use magic could, in ME, be learned by anyone with suitable aptitude.

What constitutes this aptitude? What do you mean by aptitude? intelligence? knowledge? wisdom? psychic prowess?

The only indication from the corpus that I can find is that the aptitude to use magic is dependant on racial stock.

[The Saucepan Man]

Drat. I knew someone would ask that, and I could have laid pretty good odds on it being you, Bill. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Hmm, access to the means to learn and the intelligence to use it. That, I suppose, makes it like any other craft, but that ties in with my own idea of "learned magic" in a world such as ME. Those with the ability to teach magic of this kind would no doubt have been pretty rare, thus the scarcity of sorcerors.

The idea of whether particular racial stocks might be precluded from learning magic is an interesting one. I agree that it is difficult to imagine Hobbits or Dwarves becoming sorcerors. Perhaps they just never had the inclination to do so and, in the case of Hobbits at least, had no access to those able and willing to teach them.

Mind you, a Hobbit sorceror may have gone down well in the Shire. The ability to conjure food and beer would have commanded great respect. And imagine how popular the creator of the "Bowl of Everlasting Mushrooms" would be. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Iarwain]

Saucepan, your argument is pure logic, and for once I refuse to take the path that logic has provided, so here's a detour.

I'm not trying to argue for the sake of annoying you, and I know that every theory has holes in it, but we've already established that Gandalf could set things alight without necessarily learning any new magic, he set the trees on fire during another warg attack in FotR, and I believe we have also established that this is part of his innate power over his surroundings. You make a specific point, Saucepan, in saying that one or more of the Nine became sorcerers after recieving their rings. Does this not further prove my point: that mortals could not gain any considerable amount of power without a boost (aka a ring), and that sorcery by a mortal would be impossible if the mortal acted on his/her own.

A person who has an IQ of, say 46 is not likely to bring that number up to more than maybe 55, unless they get a Flowers for Algernon type brain surgery (the equivalent of a ring of power) that raises their IQ a drastic 50 points or more (depending on the person.

Now, I see the point you are trying to make through this idea: that the pre-wraith sorcerers must have had to learn their skills, as they were not yet well aquainted with the world of the unseen. But, couldn't you look at this as a simple stage of adjustment when the the Nine were realizing their new skills. And now I have just proven your point.

Power can be learned in Middle-Earth, it has to be learned in order to make the existence of the Rings of Power possible.

Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others. Yet even so, as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger? Did you see my ring? ' she asked turning again to Sam.

It is imperitive, therefore, that we recognize the need for ringbearers to learn to use their power, for how else would the rings pose any threat at all to those around them?

Finally Enlightened,
Iarwain

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[burrahobbit]

I consider Magic to be the use of spells, incantations, or other occultic means for to make something happen, physical or not.

That is a tautology and an equivocation.

There is no magic in Tolkien's work because magic is the occult and the occult is not in Tolkien's work.

You're using the word in a way that Tolkien never did.

Tolkien's work says that there is magic in Tolkien's work, Tolkien's work says that there are spells in Tolkien's work. That's good enough for me.

[The Saucepan Man]

You make a specific point, Saucepan, in saying that one or more of the Nine became sorcerers after recieving their rings. Does this not further prove my point: that mortals could not gain any considerable amount of power without a boost (aka a ring), and that sorcery by a mortal would be impossible if the mortal acted on his/her own.

Well, I see it like this. The Rings of Power gave the Nine the opportunity to become sorcerors, but they did not make them sorcerors. Possessing the Rings of Power no doubt allowed them to acquire great wealth and status. And this allowed them to come by the means to become sorcerors. Yearning for further power, they would no doubt have been attracted by the idea of being able to use magic. And, having become great rulers, they would have had the wherewithal to seek out those who were able to teach them magic.

Of course, this is only my interpretation, but it is one that I feel happy to stick with in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[Salocin]

1) one or more of the Nine became sorcerors at some point after having been given a Ring of Power by Sauron but before becoming a Ringwraith; and

2) Gandalf learned "bewitchments" involving fire and lights which he used to bring lightning bolts down on the goblins in the Misty Mountains and set light to fir-cones to throw at the Wargs, as well as making fireworks.

I think you forgot one piece of evidence we have:

3)Beorn is described as a sorceror and had (at least) skin changing abilities. That ability, though, was most likely inherent in all Beornlings and therefore probably not part of his sorcery. The fact remains that he was a sorceror and, as far as we know, did not posses some item of great power that allowed him to learn as we suspect the Witch King might have.

And, having become great rulers, they would have had the wherewithal to seek out those who were able to teach them magic

Thats all well and good except there is no evidence of people for them to seek out aside from Sauron that is but I don't think he is what you are refering to since they would not have to seek him out.

Oh, here is another bit of evidence we have:

4)The Mouth of Sauron was a great Black Numenorean sorcerer. Aperently thousands of years old (he extended his life by some unknown magic, maybe a connection to the life extending properties that Sauron gave the rings of power?) it is unclear whether he became a sorcerer under Sauron or went into Sauron's service because he was a sorcerer.

There, I think that is all the references to sorcerers in ME.

[The Saucepan Man]

Beorn is described as a sorceror and had (at least) skin changing abilities.

I did not include Beorn, because he is not evidence of the existence of "learned magic". I agree that his magical powers were probably inherent. I am not saying that all who are described as sorcerors necessarily acquire their magic through study.

The Mouth of Sauron was a great Black Numenorean sorcerer.

Yes, you are right Salocin. I should have included the Mouth of Sauron. But, he falls into the same category as the pre-Nazgul Nine. It is, as you say, unclear whether he became a sorcerer under Sauron or went into Sauron's service because he was a sorcerer. Accordingly, he neither proves nor disproves my theory.

[Iarwain]

I finally understand Saucepan, I agree with you.

Burrahobbit, I'm a very impatient person, that is one of my greatest faults. You are making the relationships in all the places that I do not wish you to. Strip away the words, and look at their mere meanings and then, perhaps, you will precieve what I am saying. You are right, there is a big difference between my definition of Magic and Tolkien's.

Iarwain

[Kalessin]

Just a couple of small points ...

A person who has an IQ of, say 46 is not likely to bring that number up to more than maybe 55, unless they get a Flowers for Algernon type brain surgery (the equivalent of a ring of power) that raises their IQ a drastic 50 points or more (depending on the person.

Now, Flowers for Algernon is a wonderful book, full of pathos and some searing insights into the relationship between 'cerebral' intelligence, emotions and empathy, among other things. However, I would argue strongly that someone's IQ can be raised dramatically without occult or surgical means. After all, what an IQ test measures is your competence at taking IQ tests. As an example, tests such as "SMILE is to LAUGH as WILT is to COLLAPSE - true or false?" are to do with vocabulary, which is something that can be learned. Thus a 12 year old that reads a lot may well have a higher IQ than a 30 year old that has never bothered. I am generally unhappy with IQ tests being seen as a measure of intelligence, and only too aware of the profoundly flawed racial and cultural elitism that has attached itself to this method. None of which, of course, is actually central to the novel.

About magic and power, Tolkien wrote -

... With the aid of Sauron's lore they (Elves) made Rings of Power ('power' is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except when applied to the gods).

... but also they (rings) enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination ...

This quote from his letter to Milton Waldman seems to imply that Tolkien applies a traditional, pejorative Christian view to 'magic' as a form of the occult. He also says -

... and so to the Machine (or Magic). By the last I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of the developments of the inherent inner powers or talents, or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating ... The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised.

I have not used 'magic' consistently ... but the Elves are there to demonstrate the difference ... their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete ... And it's object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination ...

This, therefore is the heart of Tolkien's definition.

Now, I actually tend to disagree on a philosophical level with his idealised conception of Art as epitomised by the Elves. In my view, being more effortless, quick and complete is not necessarily being delivered of limitations. It is those limitations that in fact define self-expression as art. But this is a debate that takes us into the nature of divinity and other such interminable topics.

The key point is that magic is in effect characterised not by what it is, but what it serves. Technology that fuels an unjust repression is as much 'magic' in Tolkien's world as the Ring of Power.

This is what makes Lord of the Rings compelling as a narrative, and gives it great spiritual conviction. That heroism - or moral depth - is measured not in terms of power, or in what one can achieve through artefact. It is not measured in terms of victory, or the end justifying the means. The fact is that the moral protagonists in LotR fight only with what they already have - and all artificial enhancements or 'magic' inevitably corrupt and are, finally, self-defeating.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[burrahobbit]

Quite, Kalessin. You've said some things that I meant to (re: Algernon), and better than I would have if I'd tried.

I'd only like to add that...

You are right, there is a big difference between my definition of Magic and Tolkien's.

When talking about Tolkien's stuff, Tolkien's definitions win.

[Meoshi]

All artificial enhancements corrupt? What about Galadriel using Nenya?

[Iarwain]

But when we are talking in my terms, Burrahobbit, my definitions win. I choose the words with which to present my arguement, not an old philologist who died nigh on thirty years ago. Perhaps Tolkien did have a greater understanding of the words, their histories and their meanings, but that has absolutely NO relavence when I am merely trying to make a point without being picked on by someone who cannot get past the book definitions of some meaningless vocal representations and into the ideas that they represent. Just try, Burrahobbit, try to understand the thoughts that I am trying to present in our clumsy English language with all of its precarious inarticulacies.

[burrahobbit]

The Books is for advanced discussions of crap Iarwain made up.

[burrahobbit]

You seem to have completely missed the point, Iarwain. You have your opinions about things, and that is all well and good, but we are not here to discuss your opinions, but instead Tolkien's opinions. There are certain facts of the matter (as far as a fiction can be said to contain facts), and all of those facts come from one source, which is not Iarwain (and also is not burrahobbit or practically anything else). The only sourse that matters when you're talking about Tolkien's stuff is Tolkien. And, in case any of us were still confused, Iarwain is not Tolkien. (Neither is burrahobbit or Kalessin or anyone else.)The only definitions that we need to consider in this context are the ones that Tolkien put forth.

And in this context Tolkien said that that there is magic all over the place, even occult style magic.

[Kalessin]

Calm down [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I choose the words with which to present my arguement, not an old philologist who died nigh on thirty years ago. Perhaps Tolkien did have a greater understanding of the words, their histories and their meanings, but that has absolutely NO relavence when I am merely trying to make a point without being picked on by someone who cannot get past the book definitions of some meaningless vocal representations and into the ideas that they represent

I think this dismissal of Tolkien is hardly necessary. Since we are discussing his work, and presumably we enjoy, appreciate and value his writing, then we should acknowledge that his intent and considered meaning is relevant to our interpretation of the work.

If he specifically says, for example, that Lord of the Rings is not Biblical allegory (as he does), then it's not really satisfactory to say "Well I think it is and since he's a dead old philologist it doesn't matter what he thought". Equally, Tolkien's definition of magic and power are central to this thread, since his understanding of these terms and how they apply in his work will have directly influenced the narrative, and it is this narrative that we are discussing.

I am not sure which "meaningless vocal definitions" you are referring to, but my quotes were from Tolkien's letter to a publisher and I think provide a useful insight into the the nature and role of magic and power in his work - and the "ideas that they represent". If you want a separate discussion on either occultism or the technicalities of magic as an empirical phenomenon (or not) per se, that's fine, I am sure there is an interesting range of views to explore - however, if the question is how these issues appear and apply in Tolkien's works, that what Tolkien wrote and why is pretty relevant [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

One interesting aspect is that, as pointed out, Tolkien is working from a general premise that magic is a means of enhancement through artefact or articificial means, or that such means are used to gain domination. Yet there are occasional cases where such artefacts or means appear to be used for good ends. However, I think these are by a vast margin in the minority.

In LotR, the clearest example of Tolkien's view is exemplified by Pippin's experience with the Palantir. Pippin is solidly good and virtuous being from that most virtuous race of hobbits, and yet - he finds himself inexplicably tempted by the Palantir, to the extent that he steals it from Gandalf. He is then traumatised by using it, and has to be in effect 'forgiven' by Gandalf. In fact, Gandalf concludes (in hope, perhaps) that the enemy will gain no advantage from the incident.

Two of Tolkien's clear themes - that evil is self-defeating, and that agents of domination can corrupt even the most worthy soul - are at work here, as is the interpretation of magic and power that exist throughout the work.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[Iarwain]

I appologize, everyone. Let me try, once again, to explain what I am trying to say. Tolkien said that there was magic in middle earth. He said this in the books and he said it frequently. It is ture then, it has to be true, that there is magic in Middle-Earth, magic, that is, by Tolkien's definition. The word is, however, very loose in definition, and therefore other ideas about the nature of "magic" are possible. When I was responding to you about my use of the word, Burrahobbit, I was not trying to say that Tolkien was wrong, I was just trying to say that my definition may differ from Tolkien's (it differs greatly), and that I am by no means talking as if I am Tolkien or that I am even using his definitions. I'm stuck in a predicament, you see, where everyone around me is taking my use of a single word to mean something that I do not consider it to mean. I'm sure now that none of you will ever be able to understand anything further that I say in this thread, because of the confusion over word usage and definition. It's really too bad...

[Salocin]

I did not include Beorn, because he is not evidence of the existence of "learned magic". I agree that his magical powers were probably inherent.

All I am saying is that I think being a sorceror constitutes more than just skin changing, although that is the only power we are explicitly told of, and that that is the only power I believe he has inherently. Any other sorceries he knows would have to be learned ones.

But when we are talking in my terms, Burrahobbit, my definitions win. I choose the words with which to present my arguement, not an old philologist who died nigh on thirty years ago.

I think this dismissal of Tolkien is hardly necessary. Since we are discussing his work, and presumably we enjoy, appreciate and value his writing, then we should acknowledge that his intent and considered meaning is relevant to our interpretation of the work....
...Tolkien's definition of magic and power are central to this thread, since his understanding of these terms and how they apply in his work will have directly influenced the narrative, and it is this narrative that we are discussing.

The only definitions that we need to consider in this context are the ones that Tolkien put forth.

I believe there is a slight misunderstanding here (maybe I am the one misunderstanding). It seems to me Iarwain is saying that he will define the terminoligy in his discution, not that he will define Tolkien's terminology. I think we all know Tolkien did not use "power" and "magic" as we are here, but Iarwain clearly stated at the begining of the topic that these were merely temporary definitions to be used in this topic for lack of better ones. We have now been shown that Tolkien, at least in some cases, would refer to the type of magic I tried to define as craftsmanship (and a little of the inherent magic in elves), as art.

And in this context Tolkien said that that there is magic all over the place, even occult style magic.

I do not see were where he said there was occult style magic, please clerify Burrahobbit.

[Iarwain]

And Salocin saves the day!!!! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Thank you, oh so much! I'm glad that someone finally understands. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

It seems to me Iarwain is saying that he will define the terminoligy (sic) in his discution (sic), not that he will define Tolkien's terminology. I think we all know Tolkien did not use "power" and "magic" as we are here, but Iarwain clearly stated at the begining of the topic that these were merely temporary definitions to be used in this topic for lack of better ones. We have now been shown that Tolkien, at least in some cases, would refer to the type of magic I tried to define as craftsmanship (and a little of the inherent magic in elves), as art.

Um, well, okay. So this thread is actually just about what you guys think about magic and power, and nothing to do with Tolkien, right? Hmm ... just don't let the moderators see you [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Anyway, count me in.

The whole concept of 'magic' generally is very interesting. An ancient phenomenon, in these times it attracts and repels those of a particular pagan or Christian sensibility respectively.

In Harry Potter it is a whimsical, postmodern device for exploring the wish-fulfilment of children constricted by insecurity and the mundane. In Le Guin's Earthsea series it is the harnessing of unseen energies in the context of a spiritual and supra-physical balance (a kind of Taoist reading). In the Jewish Kabbala mysticism abounds and manifests in the fiery gyroscopes and innumerable eyes of Metatron. In the Perrault fairy tales it is the deus ex machina by which wicked and benevolent witches alike sway the adventure. For the Aztecs, it was the product of hallucinogenic flora that liberated priest-castes from the senses and the body.

It is also adjectival - for example, this thread is 'magical'. It is intuitive, archetypal and yet subjective, and cannot really be constrained by a tight technical definition. However precise your definition is, whatever happens outside that definition is itself magic. It slips beyond understanding like a serpent, or through our fingers like sand.

The only definition of magic that works is itself. Magic is magic. To be firmly rooted, to be something we can explain or frame, makes it something else.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]