Is Reading Tolkien Studying Magic? No.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Some Tolkien Matters Worth Noting (quora) · New blog on the kid : Is Reading Tolkien Studying Magic? No.

Also, a bit further down, are Tolkien's languages anything like "glossolalia" or "witch language"? Equally, emphatically, no.

Q

In Lord of the Rings, can a human use magic?
https://www.quora.com/In-Lord-of-the-Rings-can-a-human-use-magic

4 Answers

including my own, which answers I number from I to IV.

I

ARq

Answer requested by Nathan Keeble

Ernest W. Adams

Tolkien reader since 1968.

Answered 4h ago

Definitely. The Witch-King was a mighty sorcerer even before he became a Ringwraith. The Númenoreans and their descendants in Middle-Earth used magic; they made the daggers in the Barrows that the hobbits carried, “wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.” Many Men had the gift of foresight, including Aragorn. I consider his healing powers to be magical too—tthey certainly were not biological.

About the only people in Middle-Earth who weren't magical in some way were the hobbits. Tolkien said that they had never practiced magic. But Frodo also had a gift of foresight after his adventure, which seems to have come from carrying the Ring.

II

Brian Overland

Life long Tolkien fan; aspring fiction author; writer of books on C++ and Python

Answered 4h ago

In LOTR, the word and the concept of “magic” seem to have a more limited meaing than they do in some other epics, such as Harry Potter. Tolkien himself suggestedd this… “magic” meant something closer to what modern people mean when they use the words “technology” and “lore.”

For example, even Gandalf, Saruman, and Galadriel — two wizards and an elf-queen — have “magic” that seems to consist mainly of great knowledge. In addition, Saruman has great powers of persuasion, we are told, and Gandalf has powers of breaking and seeing through illusion… literally, of enlightening people and thereby breaking Saruman’s “spells.”

But none of these beings are mortals. Nonetheless, it is possible for elemental powers, as well as powers of mind, to be placed into magical artifacts. These artifacts are rarer in Middle Earth than, say, magical artifacts in the Harry Potter universe; but where such artifacts exist in Middle Earth they are often considered exceedingly precious.

The Rings of Power that were given to men, for example, increased the natural powers that the bearers already had to begin with — we might say they did so “magically.” We also know that wearers of such rings became invisible and that they took on a kind of immortality, although it was an unpleasant kind of immortality.

And the One Ring itself, which (in the right hands), can ultimately confer the power to dominate and control other beings, is demonstrably a form of magic that could be wielded even by a mortal.

We know this is true, because both Frodo and Sam used it that way. Frodo used it to control Gollum (although the Ring ultimately moved Gollum to betray his “Master”); and, most notably, Sam used it without even meaning to… borne by Sam in Mordor, where the Ring was most powerful, it created an illusion of strength and power around Sam that made Orcs run away in fear.

III

ARq

Answer requested by Nathan Keeble

Lorewen Dunadan

Bible Translator

Answered 4m ago

To a certain extent, yes.

The Dunedain can, or some of them, anyway. Aragorn had his healing hands and could call people back from the very Gates of Death. Isildur demonstrated an amazing level of power when he forbade a group of Men to leave Middle-Earth when they died, even as far as the Halls of Mandos, though the right of a mortal spirit to leave is bound up in the definition of mortality. Aragorn demonstrated some of the same kind of power when he countered Isildur's spell. Denethor and Faramir both had the ability to “read” people — not mind-reading, exactly, nor Legilimency as in Harry Potter, more of a quick and accurate assessment of a person's character and the truth of their words. Many Dunedain had flashes of foresight, unpredictable and uncontrollable, as far as I can tell, but generally reliable when they did come. Even Boromir, in whom “the blood of Numenor did not run true,” had at least one moment of foresight, when he shared his brother's dream of “the Sword that was Broken.”

But the Dunedain are not fully human, at least not if they are related, however distantly, to Elros and the line of the Kings. They have both Elves and Maiar for ancestors, in addition to Men. Their healing abilities at least are definitely inherited from Melian the Maia, who was one of the people of Este, Valarin Lady of Healing.

What about ordinary humans, then? Middle Men and Men of the Darkness, as Faramir classifies them? They (and the Dunedain, I think) have a level of free will beyond that of other peoples, though still within the sovereignty of Eru. They are not bound by the Music that is as law to all others, but have the power to change their own destinies. (Which, incidentally, is why they are mortal. Such power does not mix well with immortality.)

Additionally, Men can use magical artifacts such as the palantiri, though less effectively than others and they cannot make them for themselves. They can also practice sorcery, which, as I understand it, is basically selling themselves to Sauron (or, in the First Age, Morgoth) in exchange for a little bit of his magic. The Witch-King was known as a great sorcerer before he became a Ringwraith, though he was Numenorean, so possibly it was some power of his own that he was using, not power purchased from Sauron.

So, non-Numenorean humans displaying visible power of a sort that would be called magic? They pretty much have to be using someone else's power, either through some sort of artifact or through an unholy deal with a Dark Lord. At least that is the way I read it.

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered 52m ago

Depending on how you define magic, yes and no as to licitness, definitely yes as to possibility. To mortals, that is men or hobbits (or to dwarfs, which is something else).

Using a magic ring is a possibility - but forbidden. Nine men become evil and twisted shadows of themselves, because of this, some other mortals include Isildur who was betrayed by the ring and killed by Orcs, Smeagol who became a long living and evil thing, called Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee who managed to stay or again become good, but who were hurt and needed healing.

Using a palantir used to be licit but has become forbidden to all except the strongest, spiritually. One hobbit uncautiously watched into it and was saved only by Gandalf acting the exorcist.

Apart from that, there is the question of “magic objects” like doors opening when a word is pronounced or letters invisible becoming invisible under certain constellations of moon light or star light or cloaks which make you not strictly invisible, but easier to overlook, or ropes which are serviceable in getting unhooked when needed (unless that was Gollum, or a knot being bad). That is basically a standin for technology.

Note in this context, the palantir could be seen as belonging to this category, but back when TV and radio channels were few, in certain cases one could be dealing with “a palantir with communication hijacked by” well, either Saruman or Sauron. I e, by demons.

These objects were produced by elves, who are not mortals and therefore have other capacities increated, not acquired by incantations, and the objects are in such cases useable by mortals much like technology is useable by people unable to produce or repair it. If you consider this magic, yes, then mortals could in LotR “licitly use magic”.

Note very well, Tolkien could have envisaged a scenario in which Mosaic ban on magic came thousands of years later, after all good elves had gone over the “straight road” and after all “magic” that was left was by now demonic, i e acquired by mortals through incantations.

From one other answer:

"Many Men had the gift of foresight, including Aragorn. I consider his healing powers to be magical too—tthey certainly were not biological."

Note, Ernest W. Adams is a kind of Atheist or Deist (not sure exactly which), and is using "magic" as a Catholic Christian would not.

Foresight, reading character, being a healer because you are a king, these are all things which no Catholic would call "magic" in a sense close to "magic arts", since these are things which, even currently, can be completely legitimate gifts of God.

Certain kings of Christendom have been proving their legitimacy by curing scrofles, in the case of French and English, or by making exorcism, in the case of Spanish ones.

Q

Is Adûnaic based on a real-life language? If so, which languages have influenced it?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Ad%C3%BBnaic-based-on-a-real-life-language-If-so-which-languages-have-influenced-it/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

ARq

Answer request was hidden. While Sami Kriikku seems to have posed the question, someone else requested me to answer it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered 23h ago

Depends on what you mean by “based on”.

It is not a development of any “real life” language, as if constructed languages were not languages in reality, or did not occur in real life, hence quotation marks.

It has however traits from some of them, notably triliteralism from Semitic ones. Also, three case system, I think, like Arabic and Akkadian.

Sami Kriikku

22h ago

You know what I mean. “Based” like Quenya and Sindarin. Perhaps a bad wording though.

Thx for the answer!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22h ago

Like Quenya on Finnish and Greek and Sindarin on Welsh and some Spanish?

In that sense both Khuzdûl and Adûnaic are, though totally different, both based on Semitic, I think Khuzdûl somewhat more so.*

The one asking me I was not sure how much he understood about conlangs and some being “based on”, real ones, so that is why I explained.

You are welcome!

Note

* I was right. Khuzdûl is triliteral as to consonants, with varying vowels in same word, Adûnaic is also triliteral, but one of the five classical vowels is associated with each word, same three consonants with another vowel would mean sth completely different and not just be a related meaning in range of same concent.

See, on Helge Fauskanger's Ardalambion [=of the tongues of Arda, which is the Quenya word for Earth], these articles:

Adûnaic - the vernacular of Númenor
http://folk.uib.no/hnohf/adunaic.htm

Khuzdul - the secret tongue of the Dwarves
http://folk.uib.no/hnohf/khuzdul.htm

Q

How do we define a “constructed” language/script, when every language/writing system was developed by humans?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-define-a-%E2%80%9Cconstructed%E2%80%9D-language-script-when-every-language-writing-system-was-developed-by-humans/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered 23h ago

First, I disagree that every language system was developed by men.

God constructed Hebrew and God constructed or let angels construct 72 other languages at Babel.

But since then, all languages “develop” by human activity, more or less.

A language which develops, that is simply how you bend rules which were already there before you, like some Scanians decided to pronounce R the French way rather than the Italian way a few centuries ago. With Smaalanders, this is only true in some positions.

Other changes were made at other times, like Scanian more recently dropping “I” for “ye”, replacing it with “ni”, from Swedish (from endings in -en preceding “I”).

Note, Swedish “I” = English “ye”.*
English “I” = Swedish “jag”.*

A constructed language is one someone constructs from scratch as an adult, like Esperanto for internation communication or Quenya for elvish poems. Or Proto-Indo-European which has been constructed so many times, that Schleicher’s fable has more than one version - for historic comparison, and this is why PIE was nicknamed “fastest changing language in the 1870’s”.

Note

* Swedish "I, ni" pronounced as English would spell "ee, nee". English "I" is pronounced like Swedish would spell "aj" (which in Swedish means "ouch" btw).