Magic in Middle-earth

[Nukapei]

I've been thinking (never a good thing! ) about the difference between modern fantasy epics and Lord of the Rings, and one thing that really stuck out in my mind was their different approaches to magic. Whereas most modern fantasies are so chock-full of magic it's hard to breathe, Tolkien is much more subtle in his magic usage. The only things I could think about that were "magical" were the Rings of Power, and the Istari.

Then I got to thinking about Lúthien, and the way she used magic in helping Beren steal the Silmaril from Morgoth, including rescuing him from Sauron. Now I am confused. What role does magic play in Middle-earth? Obviously it can be wielded by semi-divine beings (like the Maia, and the Istari), and contained in an object to be wielded by those who control it (like Lúthien and her suit, and Frodo and the Ring), but what else? Is it the object or the person that has the magic?

[Neithan]

An interesting topic, nonetheless for having been discussed before. The nature of Tolkien's magic is very different than that of other fantasy books. I already posted something about the nature of magic in another thread so allow me to reproduce it here.

----------------------------------------------------

Magic, I believe, refers always to those things that the speaker does not understand. Therefore the word is used for many different things that are not really related at all. Here I will describe several different forms of "magic" as I see them.

Dwarf: the Dwarves are said to use magic especially when making secret doors. I think that Dwarf magic is nothing more than a type of technology as Mithalwen said earlier.

Ents: the drink that Treebeard gave the hobbits could be said to be magical, but it seems only natural that "tree people" would have such drinks.

Elves: they seem to have great skill in making things: the cloaks, the gems of the Noldor, the Ships of the Teleri, and the Palántiri stones for example. Those Elves who beheld the light of the two trees also had a power within them that repelled evil. Also they could sing songs of power, more on this in a minute.

Tom Bombadil: Tom was one with the land he inhabited, it's life was his. He was master of everything that dwelled in said land and everything he commanded happened.

Valar/Maiar: they shaped the world and their power flowed in every inch of it. Therefore they could, to some extent (depending on their personal power), command the matter of the world. They also sang songs of power.

Music and Magic: Although I can not claim to fully understand how this worked, music had power in Tolkiens world. The foundation of the world was the music of the Ainur, and Sauron had a contest with Finrod using songs of power. And Tom Bombadil used songs of a sort to. There were other examples of course but you get the idea.

This is not a complete list by any means (and you could probably have an entire thread for each type of magic and how they worked) but I was just trying to get the point across that what is referred to as "magic" is not one thing but many different things.

Also, I think that the different kinds of "magic" could be learned by the other races, so that "Dwarf Magic" could be learned by Elves for example. However there are exeptions to this, Tom Bombadil for example. Also there are some things that the Ainur could do that lesser beings could not because they don't have the power required.

---------------------------------------------------------

Luthien is a mix between an Elf and a Maia so her powers would reflect that.
Of course there is much more to discuss about magic than what is contained in that rather condensed and simplified version.

[Nukapei]

Umm . . . wow. Thanks, Neithan, for that concise and well-written post. That's very helpful! And, you're right, most of what we call "magic" is nothing more than technology or just what we don't understand.

And I'm sorry to repeat the subject. I looked, but couldn't find a thread on magic. And I always remember that Search option after I make a complete fool of myself by repeating a subject people just finished a big debate about last week! (I've actually been chewed out before for this, but it didn't seem to work!)

Thanks again!

[Neithan]

And I'm sorry to repeat the subject.

Just because it has been discussed before doesn't mean we can't say anything new on the subject. I am going to browse through some of the Magic threads for inspiration but in the meantime, if anyone wants give their own thoughts on magic or argue with or expand on what I said then they should go for it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neithan

I am going to browse through some of the Magic threads for inspiration

To assist browsing, here are some of the highlights:

Magic v Power
The Istari’s Magic ……. And other beings?
Magic in Middle-earth
Music and Magic in Middle Earth
Differences in magic

Not all of the threads that have explored Tolkien's depiction of magic by any means, but a good selection nevertheless.

In addition, here are Tolkien's own thoughts on the nature of magic in LotR, from The Letters:

I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and other show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a psuedo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy.' Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life.'

Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil effects - because 'magicians,' who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological: the tyrant lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.

Letter #155 (draft letter to Naomi Mitchison)

Traditionally, I believe, the terms magia and goeteia are used to distinguish between "Angelic magic" on the one hand and "Demonic magic" on the other. It appears from this passage, however, that Tolkien is using them to distinguish between that magic which affects the world physically, and that which does not but which is merely illusionary.

[Neithan]

Thank you SpM for the links and the quote.
Just a quick thought before I plunge into the threads,

I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word

I think that Tolkien is acknowleging that the different kinds of "magic" are not necessarily related. It does seem that I will have to revise my ideas on how the magic of the Ainur works though.

[Nukapei]

Thanks, Saucepan Man, for that Tolkien quote. When one doesn't understand something, it's usually best to go to the source! But that's more-or-less how I had pictured magic being used in Middle-earth -- it's there, but as more of a last-resort type thing. However, I, like Neithan, will now have to revise my views of the different types of magic!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Seems to me the more I read and think about this topic the less it seems that there is magic in Middle-earth. There is only the Lore, Art and Knowledge of the West which is present in various forms.

I mean, I honestly can't think of a single 'magical' character, item or anything that doesn't owe its descent to the West: either via Morgoth and Sauron, the Istari, or the Noldor. There's nothing strictly speaking magical about any of what they do: there are only well crafted objects, manifestations of their own natural powers or abilities, etc.

Seems to me, that in the East of Middle-earth, where none of these powers are known -- except for Sauron -- there would be no 'magic' except for the dark perversions and illusions practiced by the Dark Lord.

[radagastly]

Fordim

Seems to me, that in the East of Middle-earth, where none of these powers are known -- except for Sauron -- there would be no 'magic' except for the dark perversions and illusions practiced by the Dark Lord.

Don't forget Alatar and Pollando. They were wizards, after all, and if they failed of their mission as Tolkien surmised, and abandoned the restrictions that brought Gandalf to success, then no doubt they had some real magic, er nature, to show the Eastern people.

[The Saucepan Man]

There's nothing strictly speaking magical about any of what they do: there are only well crafted objects, manifestations of their own natural powers or abilities, etc.

What is magic if not the manifestation of the natural powers or abilities of someone or something? Surely, in its most basic form, magic is simply a term for that which cannot be explained. Once it can be explained, it is no longer magical. Hence Galadriel's fountain appears magical to Frodo and Sam, but she does not view it in the same way.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

What is magic if not the manifestation of the natural powers or abilities of someone or something? Surely, in its most basic form, magic is simply a term for that which cannot be explained. Once it can be explained, it is no longer magical. Hence Galadriel's fountain appears magical to Frodo and Sam, but she does not view it in the same way.

That's my point. All that is considered magical in Middle-earth is really 'just' the expression of the natural powers or abilities brought by those who have been to the West. And they got it from the Valar, who got it from Illuvatar, who created the natural world and everything in it -- to the magic we see is just another part of the created nature. It's just a part of nature that is 'out of place' in Middle-earth insofar as it more properly belongs to the West.

[The Saucepan Man]

Then we are in agreement. Save, perhaps, on one point:

Originally Posted by Fordim

It's just a part of nature that is 'out of place' in Middle-earth insofar as it more properly belongs to the West.

I wouldn't even say that magic is necessarily out of place in Middle-earth. The natural powers and abilities of Elves are sometimes referred to as magic (from the perspective of other races), and they awoke in Middle-earth. Or would you say that all such powers were taught to them by the Lords of the West, and that they had no innate "magical" powers or abilities of their own?

I think that the powers of any race which cannot be explained by another might potentially be referred to by those others as "magic". Was it Gandalf who said that there is a magic of sorts in the Shire? The natural powers of Hobbits which are not present, or not as developed, in other races. Their indomitability, their toughness in a pinch, their loyalty and friendship and their humility (which enables them to better withstand the "magical" deceptions of the One Ring, since there is little that it can offer them). And then there is their ability to move quietly and "disappear" (without the aid of any magical Ring) when they do not want to be seen. That too might be described as a magic of sorts.

So, yes, I would describe magic as the innate (or learned) abilities and powers of a being which is perceived as inexplicable by beings of a different order. But I do not think it exclusive (in origin) to the Undying Lands (although all such power does, of course, ultimately originate from Iluvatar).

[Gurthang]

But you must also remember that Man and Elves came from Eru, also, so they may have had some 'magic' in them from the start. It does seem that men possess very little(if any) magic, but that may come from them being much younger than Elves.

In some cases, 'magic' does seem to simply stem from technology. For instance, Sauron's ringcraft was something developed and refined. That doesn't sound like magic. It sounds more like the painstaking work that it took to harness electricity.

But I think there is a line where 'magic' becomes the magic that we think of. Luthien singing and putting Morgoth to sleep would be an example of this. The 'light-up" ability of swords like Narsil and Sting is another. These seem like magic magic to us, but may not have to the elves.

It's kind of like magic tricks. All magicians know that their tricks are just that: tricks. It seems like magic to those who don't know how it's done. They see the trick, and say, "That's magic!". But anyone who knows how the trick is done knows the truth. They can see that it's just an illusion, so it isn't magic to them.

[Neithan]

And then there is their ability to move quietly and "disappear" (without the aid of any magical Ring) when they do not want to be seen. That too might be described as a magic of sorts.

I assume you got that idea from the prologue to LotR? Yes, I was going to point it out when I posted my revised summary of magic but you beat me to it.

By the way I will post the revised summary as soon as I have time. Which may be a while because it is going to be long and take quite a while to do.

[Rumil]

I've been wondering too about the magic of Thranduil's wood elves. If you remember, in the hobbit, the Dwarves and Bilbo wander into an elven 'party', the lights are all suddenly extinguished and the interlopers immediately fall asleep. This sounds much like a traditional Dungeons and Dragons first level sleep spell to me! In character it seems closer to Gandalf's 'practical magic' eg. commanding the wood to burst into flame, while different from Galadriel's more mysterious 'item-associated magic'. Also there is no mention of Bilbo et al being sung at in the manner of Luthien.

The wood elves were noted as being less wise than Elrond's people and maybe this explains their willingness to use magic at the drop of a hat. I wonder if the magic ability was confined to certain of the silvan elves, as, for example, Legolas appears not to have overtly used magic. Maybe his snow-running trick had a spot of elven magic behind it, maybe his sharp eyesight and accuracy with the bow was similarly enhanced, I'm not sure. I'd guess that if he did have magic ability he would have avoided using it to keep from calling attention to the party, as Gandalf appears to imply, on Caradhras, that the use of magic can be detected easily by other magic-users.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hello there Rumil. Good to see you again.

Originally Posted by Rumil

Maybe his snow-running trick had a spot of elven magic behind it, maybe his sharp eyesight and accuracy with the bow was similarly enhanced, I'm not sure.

Which rather underlines the point: they may have seemed like magic to others but, to Legolas, they were simply his natural abilities.

[Fingolfin II]

These magic threads are all very interesting. Neithan, I think the bit about Hobbits that SpM was referring to was somewhere in the start of The Hobbit. I don't own a copy (lost mine years ago), but I'm pretty sure Tolkien actually uses the word magic and says that the only magic Hobbits have is the 'everyday' type to disappear 'when huge, big folk like you and me come blundering along' (something like that, anyway). I liked your analysis on the type of 'magic' the different races/powers of the world wielded, if any. I'll throw another example of magic into the fray; Finrod bewitched his company and himself to take on the exact appearance of orcs- pretty decent.

[Neithan]

From FotR, Prologue, 1 Concerning Hobbits, pg 20

They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical.

Of course he may have mentioned it in the Hobbit as well, I can't remember.

[Garen LiLorian]

Although everything you've said is reasonable, I remain unconvinced. There are several times when the people in question call what they are doing magic. Like, for example, the dwarf song in the hobbit; The Dwarves of yore made mighty spells, and Gandalf puts 'a shutting spell' (in his own words) on the door in Moria, and says at the west-gate of Moria 'I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves or Men or Orcs, that was ever used for such a purpose.'

Now, it seems fairly reasonable that, whether magic consists of just knowing something extra, or actual spells (although, I don't really see the difference) if the person doing the spell calls it magic, than so can we.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

It’s interesting that you cite those particular instances of magic Garen insofar as they are “spells”. The earliest appearance of the word spel in English was in none other than Tolkien’s favourite work, Beowulf where it means a narrative or prolonged (and learned?) discourse, and sometimes, even, a sermon. Now, as time went on, “spell” began to become more and more closely associated with magical incantations, but the references to story or narrative, and even to time (“let’s sit here for a spell”) remain.

Tolkien, obviously, knew very well what a ‘spel’ was: a discourse or narrative told by someone. In the case of the magical spells “cast” by his characters, then, they are not doing anything ‘un’ or even ‘supernatural’ they are just telling particular kinds of stories or narratives. More intriguingly, they are doing so with an idea to instruct. In all the instances of spel in Beowulf the word is used not just to tell a story, but a story that is being told with a specific purpose: there is a point to the telling, and this point is invariably to provoke action from the listener, or to sway their opinion.

So these narratives, or discourses (or sermons?) that people give to inanimate objects in Middle-earth are being told in order to ‘convince’ or to sway these inanimate objects to behave in particular ways. Just as the ‘magic’ that lies behind the Lorien cloaks or the One Ring are really just forms of ‘technology’ that we don’t understand, so too are the spells cast really just forms (or even dialects) of language that we don’t know. In effect, when Gandalf casts his spell on the door he is speaking a ‘stone-language’ and ‘convincing’ the door to remain shut.

(As I write this, I seem to recall davem making very much this same point in another thread, somewhere, sometime. Should try to dig that up and reference it here.)

[Garen LiLorian]

Most instructive, Fordim. I learn something new every day around here.
And, although that all makes sense, why does Tolkien then only use 'spell' in a context that could mean magic? At other times, when the 'convincing' is a bit more mundane, there is no mention of spells. (See Theoden and Bilbo) Indeed, with Bilbo, although Gandalf does a good deal of convincing, he later tells Frodo that Bilbo gave up the ring of his own accord. I don't actually know what that might mean, but it seems to be significant somehow. I mean, if he was compelled by spell to give up the ring, gandalf says that it would break him. (well, actually Frodo. But, since Frodo had had the ring at that point for about 24 hours, we may assume that it would have broken Bilbo as well)
Although, I still don't really get why spel makes it not magic. Wherever the word came from, it certainly now carries the magic connotation. I can't remember where the quote is from, but I've always agreed with whoever said "ninety nine percent of magic is simply knowing one extra fact)

[Essex]

Whenever we speak of magin in LOTR, I always think of Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog, not at the Brdige, but by the Doors of Balin's Tomb.

'But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.....Then something came into the chamber – I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell.

What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces...... Ah! I have never felt so spent, but it is passing.

This Word of Command always fascinates me, and I've never been able to find anything else about them. (I know Gandalf uses a Word of Command to light up the wood on Caradrhas, but I think we're talking different levels of spell here!)

Anyone ever found anything that mentions these 'Words of Command'?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I have found the post by davem in which he addresses pretty much all the same things I do above, but in a much more compelling and fully developed manner.

quel suprise

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Interesting observations, Fordim, and thanks for the post by davem. That's really quite a gem.

The only thing I have to add to this line of inquiry is the fact that some of the creatures that used these kinds of magic are the kinds that would have the natural affinity with the material they're using. For instance, one never sees a dwarf using anything like magic on wood or trees. Dwarves, naturally enough, are able to "convince" stone to obey them; which only makes sense considering the circumstances surrounding the awakening of the Fathers and that their creator was Aule. Likewise the Ents have the affinity for trees, an obvious choice for those created at the request of Yavanna.

[Neithan]

O.K., this is kinda rushed but if I don't do this now then it will never get done.

As stated before several times (by me, Fordim, and Saucepan Man) magic is a word that is used to describe things which we do not understand. In this post I will be using it to refer to anything that the hobbits would describe as "magical".

Let's start with the power of the Ainur. The Ainur were spiritual in nature. That is, they were not incarnates. When we, as incarnates, want to effect the physical world in some way, moving an object for example, we use our physical strength to pick it up and put it somewhere else. The more physical strength we have, the more we can lift/move. The Ainur, when not clothed, have no physical form in which to interact with their environment, so their spirits have the ability to interact directly without the assistance of a body, this is what is referred to as their magic. Just as we use technology in conjunction with our physical strength to achieve great things, so could they use their knowledge with their inner strength to do things.
So now that we have the basics we can talk about the different forms and uses of the Ainur's magic. As the quote provided by Saucepan Man says, the magic that I have described above can be divided into two catagories, magia (physical) and goeteia (illusionary), or if you prefer the "powers of mind and hand" that the Wizards had. An example of magia would be the conjuring of fire, and example of goeteia would be the disguises of Luthien and Felegund in the story of Beren and Luthien. The quote gives a good account of the two types so I will not go further here.
There is also a third type of magic. This kind has no effect on the physical world. It is a mental power. I believe that Osanwe-Kenta describes the ability to look into another's mind and sometimes even change what is there. This can be blocked however by closing one's mind. Nothing can penetrate a closed mind. Incarnates find it more difficult to use this ability because the body dims the thoughts of others. Communication between the minds of two incarnates is very difficult but can be aided by affinity, urgency, or authority.

There is also the role of music and the "word of command". Here is a quote from FotR when Gandalf fights the Balrog for control of the door,

Gimli took his arm & helped him down to a seat on the step. 'What happened away up there at the door?' he asked. 'Did you meet the beaterof drums?'
'I do not know,' answered Gandalf. 'But I found myself faced by something that I have not met before.I could think of nothing to do but to try & put a shutting spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly takes time, & even then the door can be broken by strength...
Then something came into the chamber- I felt it through the door, & the orcs themselves were afraid & fell silent.It laid hold of the iron ring, & then it percieved me & my spell.
What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge.The counter spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control & began to open.I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door broke in pieces.'

When Gandalf speaks of "spells" and says that he knows many of them, what I think he means is that he knows many ways in which to use his power to gain the desired effect. Just as we do with technology, for example if we wanted to contact someone we have regular phones, cell phones, email, text messaging, and other ways in which to do so.
Now we come to the "word of command". When an Ainu uses his/her magic, presumably only thoughts are required. So they are channeling their power through their thoughts, words help focus thoughts hence it is sometimes easier to work out a problem if you are speaking your thoughts out loud or writing them down. The word of command works in much the same way, the casters thoughts become more focused and so their magic gets an extra boost. Music is the next level, it brings you to a higher plain of thought and also gives you not only words but also purposeful rythm to focus your thoughts.

So what about the Wizards' staff? Well this is a more difficult question and I have to resort to wild speculation in order to explain it.
This is what we know about the staffs:

1) That the Wizards seemed to use them when casting spells.

2) That Saruman seemed to lose a part of his power when his staff was broken.

3) That Gandalf used magic against the Balrog after his staff was broken.

Well, my first thought was that the staffs could just be for show, to give people "something else that would seem to explain" their powers, like Gandalf did with the smoke when Bilbo disappeared at his party. But this doesn't explain how Saruman lost his powers when his staff was broken. It could be that the staff breaking was only a cover for what happened under the surface. But why would Saruman keep up the act of using a staff after becoming a traitor, and I don't think that there is any precedent for one Maiar taking away another's power. I think it more likely that, since the Istari are said to be going to Middle Earth "with the consent of Eru" then Eru tied these staffs to their powers. Gandalf could still use quite a bit of his magic without a staff because as they became more corrupt the staffs became more bound to them. So Gandalf could do more without his staff. Another explanation could be that Eru intervened and allowed Gandalf to use magic. All of this is far-fetched but it is the best explanation that I could come up with. You can criticise the theory all you want but until someone comes up with a better theory that takes into account all of the evidence I am sticking by it.

So that about covers the Ainur, time to move on to Elves. First I must explain that the powers mentioned above do not apply only to the Ainur. They can be learned by other races. Incarnates find it more difficult to perform this kind of magic because their spirits are bound to their bodies and also because they have much less potent spirits (presumably Ainur who become incarnated find it somewhat more difficult to perform magic "around" the body as well). The High Elves were tutored by the Valar and so were much more learned than other types, this combined with the fact that those who saw the light of the Trees had some small portion of the power of the Ainur within them, made them much more adept at this type of magic than other races. The Sindarin were the next in line. They did not have the power of those who had beheld the light of the Trees, but they did have Melian to teach them. They learned many things from her and their "magic" was that they could use this knowledge, mainly to create wonderful items (something that the High Elves could also do), but they could also use the "Ainur magic" to a small extent. Last there came the Silvan Elves. These had an amazing knowledge of the woodlands of Middle Earth that came from the long ages that they lived there. They used this knowledge to create many things.

Men also could learn to do these things though their spirits were weaker and their knowledge was limited by their shorter lifespans.

Dwarves, like I said before, used mainly their knowledge and technology to do the things that they did. They may also have had some spiritual ability mixed with it.

A note on things like miruvor and lembas, they were basically created by using herbs or whatever that had medicinal properties there need not have been any "spellwork" involved.

Note: I organized this post by race which may be misleading, there is no reason that one race could not learn the magic that is primarily used by another.

PS- I avioded using any "technical" terms so that anyone would be able to understand what I am saying. Also I summerized from Osanwe-Kenta because I didn't want to make this post longer by stuffing it full of quotes.

PPS-

Originally posted by Fingolfin II
I think the bit about Hobbits that SpM was referring to was somewhere in the start of The Hobbit.

We were both right, I just checked out The Hobbit and it basically says the same thing that was in the Prologue to LotR.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

It's also entirely possible that "magic" refers to two different things. The Lorien elves used advanced camoflauge, extremely nutrional food, and other types of technology Tolkien could have easily seen or even used in the Great War. What the Fellowship saw as magic, could easily have been a form of modern invention, like the Dwarves, or the Numenoreans.
Examples include:

Orthanc- Unbreakable Numenorean stone
Mythryl- invincible rings
Blasting-Fire- All too well described by Peter Jackson's movies
Fireworks


Real "magic" probably refers to what we consider to be magical. That is, the powers of the Eldar in the old days and the Valar, both in Creation and Middle-Earth

Wizardry- Used by both wizards and elf-lords
Rings
Alien life to ME- Mallorns, the white tree
"Genetic" Engineering- Orcs, Trolls, Fel Beasts, Uruks, Wargs
Phial of Galadriel
Undeath- Natural (Oathbreakers, ghosts) or artifical (Nazgul, wraiths)
Elf-ships

[Gurthang]

Originally posted by Neithan

So what about the Wizards' staff? Well this is a more difficult question and I have to resort to wild speculation in order to explain it.

I've been in a discussion about Gandalf's staff before. If you want to read it, it is this thread.

My thoughts on the wizard's staves is that they are merely tools. In themselves, they are really nothing special. But in the hand of a master (being a wizard), they can be used to more effectively administer magic. So if the staff is broken, it doesn't make the wizard less powerful, it just lessens his ability to transfer his power to the physical.

Originally posted by Neithan

Gandalf used magic against the Balrog after his staff was broken.

He still had the Ring of Fire. He could have used that in much the same way that he was using his staff. It gave him a way to turn his power into 'magic'.

Now, one thing that I think has been overlooked: Dragon magic. It is known that Dragons can cast spells with their eyes, simply by looking at a person and enchanting them. But where does that ability fall in with the other forms of magic that Neithan listed above?

The spell casting ability of Dragons is very unique, in that the casting is very physical (the Dragon has to actually look to enchant), but the effect is closer to an illusionary effect, meaning it effects the victim's minds. This is very strange. It seems completely backwards. With elves, wizards, and men, the casting is spiritual, and the result is physical. With Dragons, the casting bound to the physical, but the results are on a spiritual/mental level.

This creates a dilemma in the magic theory that we have created. I'd personally have to put Dragon magic in its own category. It seems closer to the 'true magic' that we think of than any of the other examples.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I ask forgiveness in advance, as I know this post wanders all over the place...

Tolkien, obviously, knew very well what a ‘spel’ was: a discourse or narrative told by someone. In the case of the magical spells “cast” by his characters, then, they are not doing anything ‘un’ or even ‘supernatural’ they are just telling particular kinds of stories or narratives.

I like your treatment of the word "spell" here, Fordim. It reminds me of the times I spent listening to my husband deliver lectures to students. He convinced them to enjoy learning, and many of his students were aghast after the fact that medieval literature could be so interesting and even relevant! In this way, he is a magician, since your average college freshman might not utter the terms "Freshman Composition" and "fun" in the same breath.

Just as the ‘magic’ that lies behind the Lorien cloaks or the One Ring are really just forms of ‘technology’ that we don’t understand, so too are the spells cast really just forms (or even dialects) of language that we don’t know. In effect, when Gandalf casts his spell on the door he is speaking a ‘stone-language’ and ‘convincing’ the door to remain shut.

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?" in reference to the palantir? It makes me wonder what kind of convincing the seeing stones are doing. Obviously they are touching the mind of the user himself, and ones such as Saruman and Denethor, who did not possess the deep art, fall prey to the dangers of "magic" within the Stone itself. And what of Sauron's seeming "mastery" of the Stone? I'd say it is nothing more than an amplification and transmission of his basic nature, and all he does through the Stone is in keeping with the blindness and malice of his black soul. One wonders what "spel" was possessed and used by Fëanor when he created the stones; Gandalf himself wonders at the possibility of using the stone to look back at the West and see Fëanor at work. He wonders at the initial nature of the stone and not at how it might be used for his own benefit, as do Saruman and Denethor. And the fact that Aragorn has a rightful claim to its use is interesting as well, as it must tie in to the "spel" laid upon the Stones when they were gifted to Elendil. Art deeper than we ourselves possess, indeed!

Neithan: But this doesn't explain how Saruman lost his powers when his staff was broken. It could be that the staff breaking was only a cover for what happened under the surface. But why would Saruman keep up the act of using a staff after becoming a traitor, and I don't think that there is any precedent for one Maiar taking away another's power.

It is my conjecture that Gandalf spoke matter of factly when he says "Your staff is broken." The actual breaking simply reflects the state in which Saruman already finds himself. Saruman might have been maintaining an illusion with his voice and appearance for the benefit of Theoden and the assembled group, but Gandalf simply speaks a truth that uncovers a veil thrown rather feebly by Saruman, and the staff, which was, in fact, already broken, is now obviously broken to all who look upon it. Perhaps also, the staff is what we might call a "convincer." If the fearsome nature of a wizard brandishing his staff and uttering a "spel" is not convincing enough, he can use it to knock the unbeliever over the head!

Thanks also for the link to davem's illuminating post, Fordim!

from davem's post on the other thread: This is interesting, as it seems to show two kinds of magic at work - spell-casting, & the word of Command. It seems that casting spells is easier than speaking a word of Command. It appears the latter is reserved for extreme circumstances.

Somehow this distinction makes perfect sense in many realms. It would, for instance, take a whole lot more energy to force a chemical reaction that was not thermodynamically favorable than it would be to bring one about that was possible and only needed a bit of a push to reach its proper delta S I think the term is (thermodynamics class was sometime in the 1980's...showing my age and creaky brain here...). Anyway, my point is that since nature and reality is large and tends toward one thing, the attempt to wrench it away from its natural state and turn it another way must be taxing indeed and carry with it many unforeseen and dire consequences. In yet another flight off the deep end, I have heard Wiccans tell of curses cast in order to bring an evil fate on another person. Such spells were said to rebound ten times upon the caster if they were not justified. I'd say this fate befell Sauron not only in the drowning of Numenor, but for once and all when his whole "Ring strategy" backfired spectacularly.

It all seems to tie in to being "with Nature" or "against Nature." I hope I've actually said something useful in this post, as it has been all over the place and for that, I apologize.

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lyta

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?" in reference to the palantir? It makes me wonder what kind of convincing the seeing stones are doing. Obviously they are touching the mind of the user himself, and ones such as Saruman and Denethor, who did not possess the deep art, fall prey to the dangers of "magic" within the Stone itself.

Perhaps the 'art' to which Gandalf refers isncludes Osanwe (or should that be 'sanwe'?). Maybe the stones amplify the individual's innate ability to communicate by thought, but therein lies the danger of them - simply, by amplifying that ability they make the individual more vulnerable to a more powerful mind. The individual using a stone is 'stretching' himself, & in doing so making himself more open to anyone at the other end. Perhaps it is necessary to withold ones 'unwill' to a greater extent when using these 'amplifiers'?

Another question which occurs is whether such use would strengthen or actually weaken the individual's innate capacity for thought communication if used regularly. Maybe the use of such artificial means of communication caused the innate ability to atrophy, & perhaps this also lead to a weakening of the capacity for 'unwill'?

One could extend the idea - was the use of 'unnatural' magic (ie magic which has to be learned & mastered, rather than 'magical' abilities the individual is born with) equally 'weakening' for the individual. I'm thinking specifically of the Elves' use of their Rings - did they weaken their natural 'skills' by using these artificial means to power? At the very least one could say that such 'short cuts' made for 'long delays'.

I would conjecture that Gandalf is warning against the dangers of dependence on technology, on the 'Machine'. Easy access to power is seductive but eventually it corrupts - by weakening the individual if not by 'corrupting' them. The danger of any 'power' which is not in born is simply that - if its not innate then the ability to control it isn't innate either....

[Neithan]

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?"

I had a somewhat simpler interpretation, Gandalf could be saying that if you don't know how it works then don't try to use it, good advice if you ask me.

As to "Dragon magic", I think that when Turin was "hypnotized" by the Dragon it was using "mind magic" (sanwe) which is one of the types I described.

The reason I didn't think that the staffs were merely tools, other than the fact that Saruman seemed to lose power when it was broken, was that the Ainur did not normally seem to need them. There is no mention of the Valar or Maiar using them other than the Istari. Also the Wizards seemed attached to one staff, Gandalf got a new one but that was after he came back as Gandalf the White so it only makes sense that he would get a new one. If they were just useful tools then Saruman probably would have gotten a new one as well. If someone can give a theory, other than my (seemingly far-fetched) one, that explains all of these things, then I would be more than happy to change my views.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Maybe the use of such artificial means of communication caused the innate ability to atrophy, & perhaps this also lead to a weakening of the capacity for 'unwill'?

Resulting in the effect of opening the mind so much that the brains fall out...I think this is a state of mind I've been familiar with for most of my life. I have not read the HoME series with references to Osanwe, but your explanation seems logical, davem. One would have to open one's mind to focus on the "farther and farther away" as Saruman did, until his gaze fell upon Mordor, "and then he was caught."
Perhaps a good example of the difference in how the experienced and inexperienced view the "magic" of Osanwe could be related in the two instances:

Gandalf: "The Ring has now passed beyond my help, or the help of any of the Company that set out from Rivendell. Very nearly it was revealed to the Enemy, but it escaped. I had some part in that: for I sat in a high place, and I strove with the Dark Tower, and the Shadow passed."

Frodo : He heard himself crying out: Never, never! Or was it: Verily I come, I come to you? He could not tell. Then as a flash from some other point of power there came to his mind another thought: Take it off! Take it off! Fool, take it off! Take off the Ring!
The two powers strove in him. For a moment, perfectly balanced between their piercing points, he writhed, tormented. Suddenly he was aware of himself again. Frodo, neither the Voice nor the Eye: free to choose, and with one remaining instant in which to do so. He took the Ring off his finger. He was kneeling in clear sunlight before the high seat. A black shadow seemed to pass like an arm above him; it missed Amon Hen and groped out west, and faded. Then all the sky was clean and blue and birds sang in every tree.

In this same engagement with the Dark Lord, Gandalf relates his struggle and his direct action against Sauron, whereas Frodo seems to lose all awareness of himself and only comes back to it when he heeds the thought "Fool, take it off!"
Certainly without the help of the experienced Gandalf, Frodo might have been lost in this struggle--this art beyond his ken.

I'm thinking specifically of the Elves' use of their Rings - did they weaken their natural 'skills' by using these artificial means to power? At the very least one could say that such 'short cuts' made for 'long delays'.

It is interesting that these "short cuts" are what modern, "civilized" society appears to be all about. Gandalf did well to warn against the dangers of mechanisation, perhaps both in thought and in the material world. I mean, why leave Isengard if you can simply use the palantir and gaze where you will? Why engage in a long and hopeless battle with Mordor, when you can take the Ring and gain instant victory? It is a short cut of thought, a lazy way out of a situation, but only in the imagination. In reality, it would indeed make for more than just a long delay. I'm sure Boromir had no idea of just how he would have used the Ring, only that it was mighty and therefore must be obtained for Gondor. I can't help but wonder what Boromir would have done if the One Ring was a nuclear weapon...*snerk*

It has taken me way too long to post this (I think I've had this screen up for over an hour...), so I'll leave off. Better to leave what thoughts remain to simmer in the stew for awhile! (This is also due to the fact that I got pulled into reading the "Rings of Power and Osanwe-Kenta" thread...if only there were more time in the world!)

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. Speaking of "innate" as you did at the end of your post, davem, it is interesting to think of this in terms of the Ring's total lack of effect on Tom Bombadil. I tend to think he is the embodiment of "innate," as in "of nature." Thus Sauron's "art" is totally inconsequential when it comes up against the greater force of nature itself...just one of the stewing thoughts...bye now!

[Formendacil]

Here's a thought I had concerning the staffs of Gandalf and Saruman (and the other wizards).

Personally, I don't think that staffs were necessary to the working of Gandalf's (or any wizard's) magic. To me, this is proven by Gandalf's action against the Balrog, after the staff was broken. The staff might have been a useful tool to help disguise the user's power from ordinary men, and maybe it actually was some help in focussing the power. Who knows?

My idea is that the main purpose for the staff was as a symbol of each's wizard's commission as one of the Istari. Something like a rod of office (such as the stewards carried). The rod doesn't contain the steward's authority, it merely acts as a symbol of it. Thus, if a wizard loses his staff (or breaks it, whatever), it is sufficient to simply acquire a new one.

However, it is a very different case when Gandalf divests Saruman of his staff, and breaks it. Gandalf has been sent back as the new leader of the Istari. He is now Saruman's superior. Just as ceremonially taking back of the rod from Faramir divested him of his power as steward, so too did Gandalf's taking of Saruman's staff rob him of his power as one of the Istari.

Anyways, that's the thought I had. Take it or leave it as you see fit.

[Neithan]

I have just figured it out. Saruman was in the beginning already weaker than Gandalf, but he showed forth more power whereas Gandalf was more modest. Saruman had spent much of his strength in creating the Uruk Hai when he had little to spare. Therefore he was already greatly weakened when he had his confrontation with Gandalf. Whatever role the staff played; whether it was only a tool or if Saruman had put some of his power into it; Saruman had become all but useless without it because of his weakened state. I am assuming that it was not simple to obtain a replacement staff, probably the wizard had to expend some power, which Saruman no longer had. Wow, the answer has been staring me in the face and I didn't see it till now.

This being said, there is more to discuss here than staves. What about the other points I made? Do you agree? Does anyone have anything to add?

[Nukapei]

Great theory, but everyone keeps forgetting, Sauron created the Uruk-hai, not Saruman!

[Neithan]

Whatever, the point is that Saruman's power had been dissipated into his servants, regardless of who invented them.

[Mithalwen]

bump!

[aiea]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Quote:
I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and other show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a psuedo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy.' Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life.'

Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil effects - because 'magicians,' who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so).
But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological: the tyrant lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.

Letter #155 (draft letter to Naomi Mitchison)

I don't think you missed the most important part
The major difference it is
Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives-
and

The basic motive for magia is immediacy---reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect.

And then there is the contradiction on se because:
a magia, producing real results --- for specific beneficent purposes.

But who decide what is beneficent ?
"Own power" doesn't mean automatically evil... it is more dangerous when people believe they yet know what is beneficent for others...
So magia it is obtain in the most effective way a desired result... And it has to do with time.
I f i wish fruits i can force the tree results with some kind of magic fertilizer , hormones and my aim could be a very beneficial for others too (there is hungry people).
For other fruit eaters not for the tree !
And this fruit shall loose some natural magic force that is its "consonance" ,Harmony with the Whole.
But the real consonance with eternity with the whole is to do nothing !
The first magic was cast with the command word "EA"and it caused clash between forces,but it has inside the Will of Iluvatar that is Light, Good.,Love..
Every time one tries to do something one could to do with his personal,individual, exclusive way the will of Iluvatar.
The bigger the purpose the bigger the magic to made it effective. But Good and Evil are very dangerous labels.

The magic knowledge to did the 3 elven rings it is the same that did the One.
To preserve is a way to rule.
The little prince put the rose,"its "rose under a crystal bell to preserve it from winds and worms, but she asked to take off it because she shall die without rain...
But sparingly, for a short term it was a right magic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mirror of Galadriel and Palantirs.
You don't know what they show you.
It is all true, in the field of possibility.
But you have a strong Faith and Hope and Mission to look at it.
Denethor(no hope) and Saruman (no Faith) have seen that all the tentative to block Sauron militar forces shall be vain.
So to ally with him to try to preserve (Order (other 2 term than now i not remember) the new world or fall in desperation it is a "True" vision.
To hurry up to help Home is the right decision for Sam Gamgee if he not see all the context.
Revelation is always a shock to whom we seldom are ready!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 7 rings worked very alike the 3. It shorten the the idea or desire and the result or effect. But for a man preserve himself means become a wraith. And to exercise power means be subject to a Real power.
The One (ring)is the imperfect image of the One (Eru)...
How a man could imagine Absolute Power without surrender to him ? So he needs
a surrogate, an Idol. And that works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The wizard staff
A symbol of the forces that they mastered in themselves:but a material symbol so them could use that kind of energies) believe that they had 5 different stones on them)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were not just the 20 rings,but many lesser rings.
Gandalf believed Bilbo ring for a minor one . These could give invisibility so them always worked with Light...

[blantyr]

Interesting thread.

There seems to be a working definition of the word ‘magic’ here, meaning something that is not understood. I feel a need to distinguish between something that can be explained by ordinary skills and physics and something where the mind through an act of will suspends the normal rules of physics. ‘Spell craft’ might not be the ideal choice of wording, but for sake of clarity I’ll use it rather than argue about the definition of ‘magic.’

Now, a good deal of what goes on in Tolkien’s fiction might well be explained by physics and skill without the need to say some sort of spell craft or spell craftsmanship is present. Lembas might be nutritious, tasteful and long lasting due to ingredients and recipe. The elven boats given the Fellowship might just be well ballasted with well designed hull curves and solid construction. The cloaks might just be carefully woven and dyed just the right color. When Gandalf lit the fire in the mountain pass above Moria, he might have had a little lighting fluid and a piece of flint at the bottom of his staff. When Gandalf rescued Faramir on the Pelennor Fields, he might have been using a laser pistol that he carries for special occasions. A lot of stuff might be attributed to physics and technology rather than spell craft.

My personal choice in reading Tolkien is to embrace the spell craft. I think we can agree that the laser pistol conjecture is absurd? I like that the spell craft and craftsmanship of Middle Earth is generally subtle, that it might not be noticed if you aren’t looking, that even if you are looking it might not be certain that it is there. Still, when reading the books, when Gandalf says ‘You shall not pass!’ or Aragorn speaks a prophecy, the hair on the back of one’s neck ought to tickle a bit. I for one wouldn’t find it as much fun to read the books assuming no sort of spell craft is present.

At the same time, I think Saruman knew how to make and use gunpowder. Especially as he was not present at Helm’s Deep, I’d think that the explosions were physics rather than spell craft. Still, I’m not sure. It is quite possible that we might never be sure. I can applaud Tolkien’s ability to be ambiguous, to make one wonder, or to allow each reader to jump to the conclusion he is most comfortable with. This might be said to be a good thing. At the same time, it makes it unlikely that this thread and similar threads are likely to come to a firm rigid conclusion with all questions answered.

I might also distinguish between a need to have firm rules and well understood definitions of spell craft in a role playing game while it is quite possible to leave things ambiguous in a novel. I’m currently involved in a role playing game with reasonably well defined rules regarding spells. The author of said rules and the game master running our game had to provide answers to a lot of the questions raised in this thread. Still, I doubt very much that they could defend all of their answers in an adversarial debate. It seems appropriate, if one is to use spell craft in a role playing game, that players understand what they can and cannot do with their spells. Rigid and fixed rules seem advisable, though the dice often add a degree of uncertainty.

For an author of fiction, especially when one is portraying subtle Tolkienesque spell craft, rigid fixed predictable rules might make things too mechanical, lessen the sense of wonder, or distract the reader into the mechanics of the spell rather than the characters or the story. An author can be more ambiguous than a game master. He doesn’t have to prove he has dotted each I and crossed each T. Still, an author has to be consistent enough not to turn off the reader. One must maintain suspension of disbelief.

I might come back and say I agree with this person’s spin, and can quibble with that person’s. Lots of interesting observations and conjectures in this thread.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by blantyr

My personal choice in reading Tolkien is to embrace the spell craft. I think we can agree that the laser pistol conjecture is absurd? I like that the spell craft and craftsmanship of Middle Earth is generally subtle, that it might not be noticed if you aren’t looking, that even if you are looking it might not be certain that it is there. Still, when reading the books, when Gandalf says ‘You shall not pass!’ or Aragorn speaks a prophecy, the hair on the back of one’s neck ought to tickle a bit. I for one wouldn’t find it as much fun to read the books assuming no sort of spell craft is present....

I might also distinguish between a need to have firm rules and well understood definitions of spell craft in a role playing game while it is quite possible to leave things ambiguous in a novel. I’m currently involved in a role playing game with reasonably well defined rules regarding spells. The author of said rules and the game master running our game had to provide answers to a lot of the questions raised in this thread. Still, I doubt very much that they could defend all of their answers in an adversarial debate. It seems appropriate, if one is to use spell craft in a role playing game, that players understand what they can and cannot do with their spells. Rigid and fixed rules seem advisable, though the dice often add a degree of uncertainty.

For an author of fiction, especially when one is portraying subtle Tolkienesque spell craft, rigid fixed predictable rules might make things too mechanical, lessen the sense of wonder, or distract the reader into the mechanics of the spell rather than the characters or the story. An author can be more ambiguous than a game master. He doesn’t have to prove he has dotted each I and crossed each T. Still, an author has to be consistent enough not to turn off the reader. One must maintain suspension of disbelief.

I would be wary of using the term "spell craft" in a Tolkienic sense, because the majority of what goes for "magic" in Middle-earth is based on inherent ability, and not on spells. This is the reason Galadriel was so amused at Sam's gushing over the word "magic", and why Gandalf makes the snide comment to Bilbo regarding "cheap parlor tricks". In Middle-earth, either you have sub-creative ability or you don't - which is why Tolkien is adamant when referring to Hobbits as having no magic.

This has always been the reason I have cordially despised Middle-earth based games. The amount of levelling required to even out different races in regards to inherent abilities (or lack thereof) renders the games unbelievable from a canonic sense, and the ultimately rare imbued objects are suddenly as common as copper pennies.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

This has always been the reason I have cordially despised Middle-earth based games. The amount of levelling required to even out different races in regards to inherent abilities (or lack thereof) renders the games unbelievable from a canonic sense, and the ultimately rare imbued objects are suddenly as common as copper pennies.

Sadly I completely agree with this. The best way to deal with that problem would be to not include "magic" in a Middle earth game at all. Elven magic, for example, was not really of a combative nature anyway.

As blantyr said, magic in Middle earth was almost always subtle.

It was so subtle that those lacking in subcreative ability would frequently go without realizing it and when they did see it they completely misunderstood it.