[Aiwendil]

Feanor of the Peredhil wrote:

No point, as you would have it, simply intellectual debate on random possibilities based on the text.

I didn't mean that it's wrong to ask the question. I meant only that the question "could the Witch-king have been killed if X happened?" seems to me to have no satisfactory answer, because (like all counterfactuals) it's not in fact a well-formulated question.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

No practical difference perhaps, but a distinction should nevertheless be made. Assuming that the Witch-king learned of Glorfindel's words, it appears from his words to Eowyn that he misinterpreted them to mean that he could not be killed by any man, whereas in fact they signified that he would not be killed by any man.

Ah, I see. When he says "No living man may hinder me" it does sound like he interprets the prophecy as a statement about the capabilities of living men - so perhaps he misunderstands the metaphysics of the situation.

But it is conceivable that his mistaken interpretation of the words caused him to act differently than had he interpreted them correctly. In seeing them as a statement on his invunerability, he might have intepreted the word "man" liberally to denote any member of the "humanoid" races, prompting him into more reckless behaviour on the battlefield whereas, had he understood that they were a prophecy, he might perhaps have interpreted the word more rigidly (since a prophecy, by its very nature, arises from a very specific set of circumstances).

But this would be a misunderstanding of the word "man", not of the nature of the statement. He might have understood that it was a prophecy and still misinterpreted "man" and behaved recklessly. Once the statement has been made, it is not relevant to the Witch-king's behavior whether it is a prophecy or a condition; for if it is true he can safely assume that he will not be killed by a living man. Once the prophecy has been made, it does mean that he can charge into an army of living men without fear of being killed, for if he were killed, the prophecy would not have been made. The only room for misunderstanding that I see is in the interpretation of "living man".

Davem - interesting thoughts. I read and enjoyed Flieger's book a year or two ago, and in general I agree with her conclusions. But any attempt to deal with Elvish foresight does seem to lead to metaphysical difficulties. Of course, a reductionist/positivist like me would say that such difficulties are already built into any universe that contains "free will", so that there's little use in worrying about further difficulties specifically associated with prophecy.

However, with regard to the connection between foresight and the Elvish view of time, I should point out that foresight comes to humans in Tolkien's work as well - even to those with no trace of Elvish ancestry, for example, Huor in his words to Turgon at the Nirnaeth.