LotR -- Book 3 - Chapter 05 - The White Rider
The main event in this chapter is something very unusual and definitely mythological – the return of a dead character. Tolkien masterfully builds up the suspense begun by the appearance of the old man in the previous chapter and lets his readers share the impressions of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli – thinking that it is Saruman and attempting to defend themselves against his danger; uncertainty; and finally overwhelming joy.
The chapter begins with the search for Merry and Pippin – and ends without having found them, though there is certainty of their safety. Aragorn shows his ability as “the greatest … huntsman of this age of the world” by not only finding their tracks but interpreting them rightly. Legolas’ interpretation gives the Elf a rare opportunity to show his humor. The Three Hunters enter yet another location of Middle-earth that is considered dangerous, though fortunately not for them. Much of the chapter consists of dialogue, especially Gandalf’s retelling of his fate after the meeting. He also puts other events in their right context with his explanations. We get a glimpse of the greatness of his nature and are introduced to Shadowfax. For first time readers of the book, this chapter is very suspenseful; I remember almost holding my breath while reading it. How did you experience it? What parts are important to you and for the story? What do you think of the character development? |
Let me add one more important thing in this chapter that we can discuss - Galadriel's messages to Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. The first two are prophetic poems (in rhyme form), with rather depressing and hidden meanings, the one to Gimli is brief - do you think what she says about laying his axe to the right tree has a meaning that is important to the plot, as the other two messages do?
|
One of the aspects about LOTR which I like is the occasional "history
and/or background" observations/commentaries. Gandalf's here are especially revealing, especially explaining what would otherwise seem rather curious, Sauron's frantic haste in attacking Minas Tirith and his overall psychological makeup. Quote:
probably only Gandalf could use the Ring against him (ignore PJ's movie view in toto about no one using the Ring, that's an overinterpretaion/simplistic view). Gandalf's statement here, which seems to be quite definitive (and by Gandalf the White) would seem to say that a number of candidates might use the Ring: Denethor, Theoden, Gandalf, Aragorn, Faramir, etc. And how would the Ring react to a woman wielding it (Eowyn)? Perhaps that would really put Sauron off his game. :) |
I suppose a few things struck me instantly - the first, Gandalf's claim that he was 'sent back'. Tolkien comments on this in Letter 156:
Quote:
Then we have his summoning of Shadowfax: Quote:
Quote:
Finally for now, a fascinating insight into one of the powers of wizards from an early draft: Quote:
Perhaps there's a clue to this in the Witch King's threat to Eowyn: Quote:
|
Riddlers
Ah, dear, obligations, obligations. For now let me provide this one observation about this chapter.
I cannot now read this chapter, particularly Aragorn's and Legolas's discussion of the interpretation of "signs" , with Gimli's contributions as well, without being reminded of something. Their querulousness over the riddle of the knife and lembas crumbs, the cut ropes and the drying mallorn leaf, reminds me so much of Downer's habits of yaying and nay-saying over points of interpretation of LotR. I mean, really, when you read of the interpretations of "the bound prisoner" and "some other signs near at hand that you have not considered", and of "how do you suppose" and "that is my tale. Others might be devised", I cannot help but recall the Canonicity thread, the various threads over evil, and of course the current Balrog's wings and elf earz threads. I suspect here Tolkien is giving us a slight Inkling of the kinds of discussions which the walls of the Bird and Baby witnessed. All seriously done, of course. But oh how that word "signs" has undergone some considerable discussion since these words were put to press. |
brief comment
Quote:
Hence, I believe it is just a general piece of advice and, at the same time, expression of special sympathy Galadriel has for the dwarf. It almost feels like she's doing her [kind of] duty towards Legolas and Aragorn - the former as a neighbouring elven Kindgom's ruling house member, the latter as kinsman and future son-in-law (and important political entity, or showing promise of becoming one in the future). With Gimli, on the other hand, it feels like she simply likes the chap, as an interesting, a bit strange, curious, and above all, cute person. Something like a flirt, but Eru forbid think otherwise, innocent flirt. A mother too? Or as an aunty with grown-up children may have special affection for a younger nephew. Galadriel is almost always very lofty, goddess-like (even in her temptations). I reckon Gimli is a medium to show us she's a woman as well, however unwomanlike she may seem (despite her beauty, or even bacuase of her beauty) at times. |
A few scattered thoughts, as always.
It struck me that it is greatly to Tolkien's credit that, Gimli having sought to explain the old man that appeared to them as a "phantom of Saruman", he can have Aragorn reply "It is likely enough" and get away with it. He has built up the credibility of the fantasy to such an extent by this point that we do not question the fact that Gimli's musings on phantoms might provide a "likely" explanation. I was interested in the quote that davem gave from Treason of Isengard: Quote:
Quote:
One thing does mystify me in connection with the Three Hunters' eventual meeting with Gandalf. Although it clearly serves to heighten the tension of the moment, I do wonder why Gandalf chose to be so darn mysterious in his approach, keeping his face hooded and greeting them like strangers. It is almost as if he wants them to mistake him for Saruman. Is he perhaps playing a trick on them? Or even teaching them a lesson - not to go on the attack when not in full possession of the facts? But the latter explanation would go against his later comment: Quote:
Moving onto the much discussed topic of Boromir and his redemption, there is a nice comment here by Gandalf: Quote:
Most of the remainder of the Chapter is taken up with Gandalf's tale - a wonderful piece of exposition (surely an authorly crime :rolleyes: ;) ) which brings together much of what we have learned in recent Chapters and explain precisely how they affect the state of play between the Free Peoples and their Enemies. I found the following passage concerning Gandalf interesting: Quote:
Finally, to pick up on a few points made earlier: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If Shadowfax is one of the Mearas who themselves were brought from Valinor, then there is the possibility that he is capable of osanwe. It is shown that Shadowfax reputedly will only bear the King of Rohan and that it is astonishing that he allows Gandalf to ride him; perhaps these horses do possess sentient thoughts. After all, we have giant eagles which are sentient beings, why should we not have horses? I wonder if it is mentioned anywhere whether the Mearas had links to the Maiar in some way? Felarof, ancestor of Shadowfax, was reputed to be able to understand human speech; if so, then perhaps as Incarnates, these creatures could use some form of osanwe. The following quote which Saucepan Man has picked up on has been interesting to me since I read osanwe-kenta: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The following suggests some kind of void. Is it the void outside Arda? Quote:
Quote:
|
A couple of things occured to me on skimming over the chapter again just now:
Quote:
Quote:
The other passage which made an impression: Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
There's this question that has been bothering me for quite some time now . . .
[Gimli: ]If we do not find them soon, we shall be of no use to them, except to sit down beside them and show our friendship by starving together.What is it with Aragorn that he had been willing to die (and thus abandoning his claim to kingship, plus leaving his promise to Boromir unfulfilled) for Merry and Pippin? What does he see in this situation that I do not? Has he somehow become like Gandalf, tapping into a higher guidance, and obeying it, knowing that it knows best? Or what? |
Nilpaurion Felqagund -
I am reading Aragorn's decision as strictly a question of morals. Time and again, Tolkien makes the point that we must focus on the immediate problem at hand and make a judgment according to what is right or wrong in that situation, even if long range considerations would seem to suggest otherwise. In a similar way, Frodo makes the decision to show mercy and concern for Gollum even though this would not seem prudent in terms of his long-term plan of destroying the Ring. It would seemingly make more sense to "get rid" of Gollum by any means available. Yet, by doing so, Frodo would have lost the core of who he is. This also applies to Aragorn. What kind of the king would he make if he is the type of person who deserts those closest to him? Not the kind of king whom Tolkien could respect. Aragorn's first responsibility lies with the hobbits: they have trusted him as their leader, and he can not betray that trust. In a similar way, Gandalf "throws away all" to fight the Balrog (you know---the wingless one :p ), even though he must have known it was a fight he could not win. There is a point where moral issues come to the fore and dwarf all other considerations. You do the "right" thing and hope that other things will fall in place. At the same time, you use every means available to try and extricate yourself from the situation in practical terms. If he and the hobbits had found themselves "starving", Aragorn would have made every effort to find some way to overcome that problem. Still, though practical considerations are important, it is the moral questions that come first. One more example of "visible souls"..... |
First, the Saruman/Gandalf "old man" who comes to the Three Hunters. Here's a wild idea, but isn't there a tradition in certain Christian faiths/stories of the "unseen third" who walks beside us through life, and that person being Christ? Is there some way of looking at this strange third person (not really Gandalf, not really Saruman) as an actually divine vision??? Like I said, just a real wing-dinger of a speculation. . .
Quote:
And once again, we see in this chapter the kind of hero that Aragorn is. He’s willing to lay aside his life and his dreams for the sake of Merry and Pippin. He’s not about taking care of himself, but of others. He is motivated by a selfless love of those who need him…best stop, in danger of swooning. Quote:
Quote:
And there is real reason for hope, insofar as Gandalf also points out the essentially self-defeating nature of evil. He recognises that what appears to be a source of despair and loss (the capture of Merry and Pippin) is actually a source of happiness and good. Fortune, apparently, works in mysterious ways… There’s one more very interesting passage: Quote:
EDIT: very nice point, Child, about the necessity of making small, local decisions of right and wrong, versus attempting to grapple with the rather more abstract and unweildy notions of good and evil. If everyone just did what was right for their neighbour then the Good would take care of itself! |
One interesting point about this chapter: I recall (though I cannot find it at the moment) Tolkien saying in Letters that he did not think LotR perfect and offering as an example of a flaw the manner of the presentation of Gandalf's return. I have never quite understood this. What is the flaw? Is it that he did not make the most of the suspense available at this point? Probably not; Tolkien rarely thought in such terms. Is it that some other scenario for Gandalf's re-entry into the story would have been more believable or better suited to the plot? Perhaps, but it's difficult to see why his appearance in Fangorn is unsatisfactory. Is it that Gandalf's explanation of his death and return should have been stronger or clearer? But if so, then the flaw would have been quite easy to fix merely by altering Gandalf's speech.
Davem wrote: Quote:
In this connection, I have always thought that the answer to The Saucepan Man's question: Quote:
. . . is simply that they are "close at hand" and Gandalf literally cannot at first recall them. |
Gandalf's Last Stand
Quote:
Here's something from the movie that blew me away - by the time Gandalf fell into the abyss, the whip had long since been released from his legs. Couldn't they have simply pulled him up at that point? |
There are many interesting ideas here. But, like Aiwendil, I'll start by considerng the question that Saucepan Man raised earlier:
Quote:
Now, I'd like to creep a little further out on the limb..... Gandalf's vision and understanding have been sharpened in many important respects, but clouded over in another sense, something which Aiwendil has addressed. But he is not the only character in the chapter whose vision and understanding have been obscured. This entire chapter seems to be about what we see and fail to see, and how limited our understanding is. First, take a look at the description of Gandalf. He is described as being an "old beggar man" who uses a staff and wears a ragged grey garment. His head is bowed, but the members of the fellowship can still make out a wide-brimmed hat and a beard. This doesn't sound like a disguise to me; the description actually sounds similar to the way Gandalf appeared in the earlier chapters. His garments are a bit more raggedy, which would not be surprising if someone was returning from a battle with a Balrog. The fact that Gandalf's head is bowed could be a function of weariness or an indication of someone absorbed in deep thought. Despite the hood that Gandalf wore, Aragorn could still make out his eyes underneath, and there is even reference to Gandalf's "hooded brows", so something of the latter must have been visible, if only a glimpse. Given this familiar description, I would argue that, in any ordinary situation, the members of the fellowship would and should have been able to recognize Gandalf, once he came out from behind the trees. There could be two reasons for the fact that they did not recognize him. First, the transformation beyond Arda could have changed Gandalf to the point that he was no longer the same person. Lalwendë mentioned this in her own post when she asked if Gandalf was a different person. Secondly, it is possible that the blindness of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legalos did not lie in any disguise by Gandalf but in shortcomings of their own. I feel there is enough evidence to suggest that both of these things may have contributed to the fellowship's inability to "see" Gandalf the White. First, we know from other passages that Gandalf has changed, not only physically but in terms of his personality. His very "essence" seems to have changed. The cantankerous, feisy, and very human figure becomes someone who almost seems to be a "holy" warrior, who is somewhat removed and even aloof, and thinks in broad terms about the war and the quest. This change in personality comes close to a change in being, so it's not surprising that Legalos, Gimli, and Aragorn had trouble "seeing" him. Yet part of the problem also seems to be their own limitations: as incarnate flawed creatures, they can only see in part. Throughout the Legendarium, Tolkien stresses that, outwardly, good and evil can be hard to distinguish: fair things can indeed be evil. Sometimes, good and evil are so close to be outwardly indistinguishable. There is the comment much earlier in regard to Aragorn and his "foul" appearance. There is also the fact that Gandalf returns in "white", making him appear similar to Saruman. The difference lies not on the outside. It can not be perceived by the eye, but only by the heart. In both the "vision" in the early part of the chapter and Gandalf's own real appearance at this point in the story, the travellers are confused by the outer similarities between Saruman and Gandalf. Only gradually is their inner sight restore. Thus, it is Aragorn who is first able to recognize that the "old man" is more than an old man: Quote:
In this subsequent passage, Aragorn feels as if he has been wakened from sleep: Quote:
|
Aldarion,
Excuse me for popping in again. I am thinking in shorthand and not explaining things in detail. Good question that needs more explanation! What I meant to say was that Gandalf could not win the fight except by giving up his own life. There are hints of this in his earlier reluctance to go through the mines of Moria. He sensed that something waited for him there that, by himself, he could not overpower and simply walk away. By agreeing to give up his own life, Gandalf was seemingly letting go of all chances of personally defeating Sauron. This is something that Tolkien himself discusses in the Letters. I don't have them at hand, but I recall that he said something to the effect that Gandalf agreed to lay his own interests aside and hand matters over to the "Authority" (meaning Eru) trusting that things would somehow come out right in the end. Hope this helps. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
This post is directed mostly to Fordhim, and mostly at Boromir (mutters of "What a surprise :p ").
Quote:
One of my favorite quotes ever, in a book, comes from Heroes, byRobert Cormier. When the man who is a hometown hero, as well as a war hero, rapes a highschool girl, he says "Does one sin of mine wipe out all the good things I have done?" I just felt like posting that because I love the quote. Now onto the question of "How is it that Boromir retains his honor?" A quick run down of the closing events.... Boromir tries to take the ring (an act of sin) He realizes he's wrong, and rushes to defend the hobbits In defending the hobbits, he sacrifices himself and is slain He confesses his wrong to Aragorn, who in a way blesses him. "You have conquered!" People are quick to jump that this is an example of Christianity, well not necessarily. It's almost to christianity (not quite), but in fact, resembles more the Norman/Anglo-Saxon theology... It follows the Anglo-Saxon/Norman law of Compensation. Compensation meaning, that because you have broken the law, by injuring or killing, you must compensate for those sins. Now Boromir didn't break the law, but he broke his oath to help Frodo, and did try to harm him. Now in order for his salvation he must compensate for these sins. In Anglo-Saxon culture there are two ways you can do this... One, you must pay lots of money, and confess your crimes publicly. Or... You must forfeit your own life, but on top of that...you must confess your crimes, and then do an act of love to "make up" for those you have hurt (Frodo). This happens to Boromir... He commits a crime He sacrifices his life He confesses to his sins His act of love is defending Merry and Pippin. Aragorn, the priest figure, declares that he has conquered, and "fully compensated" himself for his crimes. To give a modern day situation, since this we can tie into our Justice System. If you break into someone's house and steals valuables. Then are caught, and found guilty in court. You first must confess/apologize for your crimes. Then there are various ways to compensate yourself, or sacrifices yourself. Whether this is jail time, community service, or payment of the valuables...etc. Until the court decides that you have been "fully compensated" for your crimes, hence the Laws of Compensation. |
I've perhaps always just taken Gandalf at his word when he says that he is no longer Gandalf the Grey -- i.e. he truly is a new person or being: Gandalf the White is Saruman as he was meant to be. Given that he is literally a new person, it would make sense that he has forgotten much that was close to Gandalf the Grey, who died in Moria.
I'll go back to my bizarre 'hidden third' person: Gandalf the White is neither Gandalf the Grey nor Saruman the White, nor is he an 'amalgam' of the two or the 'synthesis' of them. He is the resolution of the differences between these two figures with the creation of a new being. Hmmmmmm. . . |
A few quotes from "Letters" which seem relevant to some above Gandalf
observations: Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for the way in which he addresses them as strangers, my initial reaction, too, was that he could not recall them (just as he could not, at first recall the name Gandalf). But this does not square with him making straight for them. Why would he purposefully make towards them, up a narrow stone stair in a cliff face, if he did not know who they were? Indeed, he seems to have been following them through Fangorn. He knows, before meeting with them, that they have been tracking two small hobbits, whom he knows to be Merry and Pippin. Indeed, the whole of his speech concerning Merry and Pippin, before he reveals himself, seems to have a deliberately mysterious air about it. Perhaps your explanation is the correct one. It certainly seems to be the only logical one which does not involve some intention to mislead on Gandalf's part. But it still does not sit entirely easily with me. |
Why didn't they recognise the 'resurrected' Gandalf? I suppose there could be some reference to the appearance of the risen Jesus to some of his followers on the road to Emaus in Luke:
Quote:
|
Indeed, davem. The similarity there is striking. But why were the eyes of the Three Hunters "holden"? It serves only to precipitate their attack upon Gandalf (apart, of course, from the literary device of heightening the tension).
|
Fordim wrote:
Quote:
To put it another way, surely the spirit, the eala, of Gandalf the White is the same entity as that of Gandalf the Grey. If so, then it seems to me that the changes seen in his character after his death and return should be viewed in the same way that we view ordinary character development. He has had certain extraordinary experiences, and they have changed him in certain ways - just as Frodo, for example, undergoes a much slower process of change over the course of the novel. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
On a more worldly level, when I read about Gandalf's ability to speak with Shadowfax and train him to his calling I often think of tales of 'horse-whisperers', who are able to take what to all intents and purposes is a wild horse (and they are very temperamental, sensitive creatures) and by way of words and gestures, effectively 'tame' it. |
I'm not replying to myself here. ;) No, I have a new thought, though a slightly odd one. Almost as soon as I woke up this morning I started wondering if Gandalf, if he was 'reborn' as Gandalf the White, would still be a keen smoker? I thought - surely he wouldn't be a smoker at all, if he has trouble thinking of the name he has commonly gone by in Middle Earth, then why would he still have a pipe-weed habit? Yet there is one reference to him requesting pipe-weed after his resurrection:
Quote:
Quote:
This is on the return to Bree in RotK. I then decided (by way of scientific comparison or something similar) to compare this to references to Gandalf's habit in FotR and I could find just four references. So there isn't a huge difference, and this could possibly be accounted for by the lack of pipe-weed in the southern lands where much of the action takes place. Yes, an odd thing to think of, but surely he wouldn't have retained the habit? |
Quote:
|
Gandal's journey to Moria ; nameless things
Only a few random thoughts, in their 'raw' form, starting from a passage in this chapter:
Quote:
Now there are a couple of things that made me read this part a couple of times over. First, it's this morbid curiosity about the 'nameless things' that 'gnaw' (*shudder*) at the roots of the earth and of which even Gandalf is afraid. In fact, he is more afraid of these things than of the Balrog. Why does he not want to speak of them? Is it because he wants to shorten his tale? Because he did not want to 'scare' Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas? (highly unlikely) Maybe because the 'nameless things' are not to be named, or described, according to the old superstitions? Anyway his brief report is much more chilling than if he were to describe in detail what he saw. The fact that even Sauron knows these things not, means that they were probably creatures brought by Melkor at the beginning of Arda, before even Elves awoke. Are they intelligent beings then, like the Balrog? Or merely beasts, like the Watcher in the Water? Why did they not attack Gandalf? They would most probably be there still, even after Sauron was destroyed and will continue to be there until the end of the world. A new warning for those who would venture too deep in Moria... Secondly, I can't help but wonder why did the Balrog 'fled into the dark tunnels', and not finished the battle with Gandalf right where they started it. Did he want to lure Gandalf deeper into the tunnels known only by him, because he thought he had a better chance of defeating him there? But - did Gandalf really defeate the Balrog, since they both met a similar fate? The difference was that Gandalf was sent back (by the Valar?) to fight for the forces of the good "until his task is done". If Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas were not so confused with the constant turnabouts of events and exhausted by their journey, they would have guessed in these words of Gandalf's that their quest was meant to end well. The Powers that Be had already decided that. What would have been the reason to send Gandalf back only to fail? Gandalf knows it, though he never says it plainly, but speaks in riddles: Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
There's also an eagle involved. And I do begin to wonder about the similarity between Ratatosk & Radaghast |
First of all, just a tiny observation.
Quote:
I know that this chapter is supposed to be about Gandalf, but I couldn't resist. The chapter tells so much about Aragorn and his future kingship. Quote:
Again, Aragorn was revealed to be a king both in body and spirit. Quote:
Quote:
But despite this, Aragorn knows his time has not yet come. He remains dependent on Gandalf: Quote:
In light of this, I recall Nilp's post in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum," about Aragorn's first crowning occuring before Gandalf's death. And there came Aragorn's first trial for kingship. He took command of the Fellowship in Gandalf's place, making decisions that the wizard was supposed to make. In "the Departure of Boromir" we saw Aragorn having to decide between two roads, and he thought that he might be making a mistake in his choice. But in this chapter, Gandalf assured him that he has made the right decision: to follow Merry and Pippin. He has even mimicked Aragorn's words, that the Ringbearer and his Quest is in their hands no longer. Aragorn has passed his first test. But the second test is about to come. I will not mention it yet...still weeks away before the proper chapter. |
Late stuff.
This chapter is peculiarly close to me, as it provides me with a Middle-earth version of one of my interests: foreign policy analysis. Of course, then, “foreign” policy depends on one man (or Maia), and, by reading the mind of the leader, Gandalf was able to predict the actions or reactions of the “nation” the leader rules over.
Oh, and one more thing: It seems that the Professor himself (using Gandalf) had answered the age-old Balrog-wing question: [Gandalf: ]Time is short. But if there were a year to spend, I would not tell you all.:p |
straggler straggles on...
Straggling footnotes....
One of my favorite lines from Legolas: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"the path that seemed right" -- This was extremely encouraging: Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've thought about this myself, about how Saruman did not know that the Orcs had been waylaid. If osanwe is a gift given to all sentient beings then surely the orcs would have possessed this skill themselves? It should be the case that the orcs' minds were opened in order for Saruman to communicate, but the thought has passed through my mind that maybe they needed to close up their minds, to exercise unwill. Saruman's aims were covert and he needed to keep the mission secret from Sauron, so maybe his orcs by neccesity had to exercise unwill. Of course, his excessive use of the palantir could quite easily have clouded his own mind, as it certainly clouded his judgement. |
Quote:
Just speculating..... |
Quote:
About swords - they often seem to possess some kind of 'magical' quality both in Tolkien's works and in other literature. Swords are usually invested with names and a great heritage; even their maker is usually remembered. Yet I wonder whether these swords really do all have magical qualities. A sword is a more complex weapon that it at first might appear, and they were often crafted with their user in mind, as length of blade and weight of hilt needed to be 'tailored' for most effective use. So perhaps Tolkien is echoing this sense that a sword would indeed be 'special' to its bearer. To lose such a personally tailored weapon would mean having to use something not suited to the bearer, and thus it would be less effective. And of course, to have no sword at all would make a person highly vulnerable, so it would be invested with yet more meaning and significance. |
Osanwe, Gandalf, and Shadowfax in the published TTT
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Near the end of The White Rider chapter (of TTT, canon) is this exchange: Quote:
|
As excellent a chapter as "The White Rider" is, I sort of get where Tolkien is coming from in identifying it as a weaker point in the story, sandwiched as it is between two stellar chapters. Indeed, prior to reading this thread, my thoughts as I reread were mired in "Treebeard": I noticed, perhaps consciously for the first time, that the main part of this chapter takes place on what Tolkien very deliberately names (and capitalises) as Treebeard's Hill.
It's an interesting point to me because in our last dramatic meeting on this hill, Treebeard is loth even to call it that, such a hasty name for something that has been there since the mountains were reared. We talked a lot in that chapter about how Entish is a language where every name is a story, and by virtue of these two chance meetings on it, this hill is getting some mighty chapters to add to its tale: the destinies of many peoples changed because of two related encounters here. Before, it was just a hill; now, it is Treebeard's Hill. Not the whole story of an Entish name, but maybe a name to preserve the memory of Treebeard for a time when the Ents are forgotten--as I learned thanks to Tolkien, place-names preserve some of the oldest linguistic pieces, through conquests and language-changes. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.