Re: Aragorn
- From: Michael@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 28 Feb 2006 16:35:08 -0800
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
In message
<news:1141079232.156850.45240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Michael@xxxxxxxxxx enriched us with:
They did not voluntary impose or endure any limitations of power.
I believe I've been thinking particularly of the description in letter
#156:
By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies
capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the
spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though
supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and
only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.
Why they should take such a form is bound up with the
'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world of this
fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose
was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of
'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should do
what they were primarily sent for: train, advise, instruct,
arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron
to a resistance with their own strengths; and not just to
do the job for them. [...]. The 'wizards' were not exempt,
indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err.
Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, [...]
[Letter #156, To Robert Murray, November 1954]
This is quite specific, the Istari appeared in their incarnate forms
'precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of "power" on the
physical plane'. I supppose that we agree that they voluntarily
accepted their mission knowing what it would mean for them?
Yes, but Tolkien said they hindered their EXHIBITION of power, not
their possession of it.
They were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty or
power and they were forbidden to rule Elves or Men.
Yes. Whatever other limitations did, or didn't, apply to the Istari,
there was also the limitation that took the form of an obligation not
to use force, 'forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to
dominate Elves or Men by force and fear.'
There is, however, nothing anywhere that contradicts the statement from
letter #156 regarding the effect of their incarnation, and elsewhere
there are statements that can be more easily understood in light of the
above:
[...] with the consent of Eru they sent members of their
own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and
not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and
weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be
slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not
die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long
years.
[...]
For it is said indeed that being embodied the Istari had
needs to learn much anew by slow experience, [...]. Thus by
enduring of free will the pangs of exile and the deceits of
Sauron they might redress the evils of that time.
[UT 4,II 'The Istari']
There are suggestions in other letters, e.g. #181, that the embodied
state of the Istari also reduced their ability to withstand the
temptation to sin; to fulfill the act within the scope of their
mission.
Melkor in the full strength of his unfettered spirit did not withstand
temptation. You're equating the "cloaking" of the Istari's native
power with some form of personal diminishment, which Tolkien in no way
describes or implies in these or any other text.
BTW -- "foreswore" is a perfectly correct spelling,
It appears to be an Americanism -- at least Oxford and Cambridge
doesn't accept it, whereas Merriam-Webster lists 'foreswear' as a
variant of 'forswear'.
Dictionaries supposedly reflect usage, rather than try to impose it.
"I'm fine. How about yourself?" is a common American response to "How
are you?" Technically, it violates the rules governing the use of
pronouns, but has been used for decades. Is it right or wrong?
...Tolkien does say that they were limited, and he also does say
that this was by their Free Will, so, as three lines summary,
Stan's paraphrasing didn't strike as in any way wrong.
The spirits of the Istari were not diminished in any way, in terms
of their capabilities as Istari.
That is a wholly other question.
The inability of Saruman's fëa to re-incarnate could, IMO, be seen as
loss of power by the Maia Curumo, as we know that this ability is
inherent to all Ainur.
He had been killed. In MORGOTH'S RING, we learn that Ainur who died
violent deaths supposedly lost some of their self-control, the
discipline they needed to take new bodies. Sauron only retained the
ability because the greater part of his power was embedded in the One
Ring. So, the violent death of a self-incarnated body weakened the
spirit. This is the only form of diminishment by external means that
Tolkien described.
But 'in terms of their capabilities as Istari' they are obviously not
diminished -- the question is whether their capabilities as Istari were
lesser than would have been their capabilities as normally self-arrayed
Maiar.
There is no evidence indicating that they lost any of their abilities
in either the texts you cited or other texts which have been published.
Tolkien indicates that their mannish bodies experienced some
limitations
Precisely. Their bodies were limited, and that limited them.
Self-imposed limits can be self-lifted. The freedom to reject their
mission was not denied them. Hence, the freedom to use their native
abilities as they wished was not denied them, either.
--
Spin is a matter of perspective. Truth is a matter of fact. And, as a
matter of fact, the truth is that it spins.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Aragorn
- From: Troels Forchhammer
- Re: Aragorn
- From: stevehim@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Aragorn
- Prev by Date: Re: Tolkien and iPod
- Next by Date: Re: Aragorn
- Previous by thread: Re: Tolkien and iPod
- Next by thread: Re: Aragorn
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
