No Living Man

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Actually, once the prophecy has been made, presuming that everyone agrees it is true, it seems to me that there is no difference between condition and foresight. If Glorfindel has made the prophecy, then the Witch-king knows that he will not be killed by a living man.

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.

As matters turned out, the practical effects were the same. 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).

The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt.

Quite possibly, this marks a sudden realisation on the Witch-king's part of his erroneous intepretation of Glorfindel's words.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

It remains to be questioned what did Glorfindel meant when he said the WK will "fall"? "Fall" can also be explained as drop. And Lo! Did he fall when that little knee-stabber struck!

Originally Posted by Keeper of Dol Guldur

He LITERALLY fell because Merry stabbed his knee. Anyway, Glorfindel didn't really say "Not by the hand of man will he die." Just fall. And Merry did just that, knocked him down.

As I understand it, to "fall" in Tolkien's use of the word, literally means to die, or at the very least, to fall into evil or darkness. To fall is often seen used to express death in battle in noble terms, as seen on gravestones of soldiers; "fell in battle" is quite a common phrase to see on such monuments. I am quite sure that there must be an interesting history behind the term - any thoughts would be welcome. Is it linked to the term "to fall from grace"?

[davem]

In her book 'A Question of Time' Verlyn Flieger quotes from an unpublished note of Tolkien's on 'Elvish Time':

"In Elvish sentiment the 'future' was not one of hope or desire, but a decay & retrogression from former bliss & power. Though inevitably it lay 'ahead', as of one on a journey, "looking forward" did not imply anticipation of delight. "I look forward to seeing you again" did not mean or imply "I wish to see you again, & since that is arranged/& or very likely, I am pleased". It meant simply "I expect to see you again with the certainty of foresight (in some circumstances) or regard that as very probable - it might be with fear or dislike, 'foreboding'" Their position , as of latter day sentiment was of exiles driven forward (against their will) who were in mind or actual position ever looking backwards".

Flieger interprets -

"Tolkien's Elves, who, facing toward their past, are 'backed' into the future by those who follow. Men are 'proceeding' into the future, while Elves are 'receeding' into it."

Don't know what (if anything) this adds to the discussion. Certainly it shows that (certain) Elves (in certain circumstances), can see into the future. Of course, the problem with this is that it seems to imply thqat the future is in some way 'fixed'. Did Glorfindel 'foresee' the death of the WK as a fact. This is probably tied in with the Music - certain things are foreordained - they will happen, hence they have 'existed' from the beginning as 'facts', & are unavoidable.

But this discounts the possibility of free will. Did Eowyn & Merry have any freedom at all - & perhaps more importantly, did the WK?

At the same time, one could ask what exactly Glorfindel did foresee? From his words its possible that he either saw what did happen - ie, he saw that at some future date a hobbit & a woman would bring down the WK or he 'saw' what didn't happen - ie he didn't 'see' a man being responsible for the WK's death. The words of the 'prophecy could imply either. Whichever it was, Glorfindel states very clearly a 'fact'. The question is whether that 'fact' was how the WK would die or how he wouldn't.

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

My point was merely that the Witch-King's might construe the words differently (and therefore act/react differently) depending upon whether he interpreted them as a statement on his nature or as a prediction of future events. It's unlikely perhaps that his behaviour would have altered radically, but it nevertheless highlights, I think, that there is a distinction to be made between Glorfindel's words correctly intepreted as a prophecy and the same words misinterpreted as a statement of current (and ongoing) fact.

[Halbarad]

Just to address Hot and Crispy's statement which, strangely, no-one bothered to do

Same kind of sword, same race of hobbit, different results. Frodo probably missed...

After Weathertop, Aragorn found something:

'Look!' he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak that had lain there hidden by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a slash. 'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword,' he said. 'The only hurt that it did his enemy, I fear...'

Frodo did strike at the feet of his enemy, but he definitely missed. Probably had his eyes closed, or his stroke went astray when he hit the ground.

[the phantom]

Yes, Frodo missed. Between Weathertop and Rivendell, his right arm gave him no trouble and he was even able to brandish a sword at the fords. He would not have been able to do that had his sword actually touched TWK.

Also, Frodo's sword remained intact, did it not? Aragorn said "all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King". If Frodo's sword did not perish, then it did not touch TWK.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

Is this an exact quote... Lemme check...


It is! Aha, then my little train of thought is not to be derailed by a movie-made line.

So, no living man may hinder him....

WRONG!!!

The Witch-king has a short memory. Aragorn did just that with a couple of firey sticks on Weathertop. In addition, I believe that one could mention more than a few examples in battle.

So, is this just a mis-statement of the prophecy, which was not worded such, or is it a bit more indicative of whether or not the prophecy was really vaild in the first place?

Was Glorfindel perhaps just saying that to get Earnur to calm down? To not go kill himself maybe? Perhaps he honestly thought that the Witch-king was too strong for any human?

Just a few thoughts to stir into the mix.

[the phantom]

Thanks for digging that quote up for me, Firefoot. Here it is again-

Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-king feared him.

You interpreted it like this-

It sounds to me like the WK feared Boromir not as a threat directly to himself, but as a threat to the forces of Mordor in general. After all, what's a leader without troops to command? The WK probably feared Boromir as a leader and captain of men, not as a threat to bodily harm to himself.

That may be correct, but perhaps it isn't. It said TWK "feared" him. If Boromir couldn't actually harm TWK, in other words all Boromir could do was lead his forces well, I don't think TWK would "fear" him. It seems like such a general way to use a strong word. It's more likely TWK would be annoyed by Boromir or hate Boromir.

Now, if it said "TWK feared what Boromir could accomplish" or "TWK feared that Boromir could severely hamper his plans" then I'd understand that because his fear is about Boromir doing non-personal damage to him, but since it simply says that "TWK feared him", it somehow makes me think it was personally as well as militarily.

I don't know... maybe I'm thinking too hard.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

I'm just picking up on this, as it seems SpM is picking up on the idea of how words can be interpreted and then misapplied. I agree that the WK could have heard of Glorfindel's words. And while he could well have misapplied them to his eventual disadvantage, he could also in the intervening time have gained much from these words. If it was known that he was in some way 'invincible' then it can only have added to his reputation; in much the same way as terrorists depend upon the climate of fear, the WK could have gained much from the fear he caused in the hearts of Men. If you 'knew' that this figure was in some way untouchable then would you want to be the one who challenged him?

Originally Posted by the phantom

since it simply says that "TWK feared him", it somehow makes me think it was personally as well as militarily.

Perhaps, following on from what I've said above, it is that the WK knew that Boromir was unmoved by the fearsome reputation of the WK? If one of the WK's prime weapons is to foster fear and terror then all it takes is for one person to be unafraid for a chink to appear in that armour.

I wonder if Merry and Eowyn (and Frodo) knew anything of the WK's reputation? Surely they did. But if not, perhaps this may account for their lack of fear in confronting him. Certainly Gandalf is afraid of him, which might seem surprising, but then Gandalf must have known about his reputation more than most.