For the Love of Galadriel (Middle-earth’s Ultimate Muse?)

[Lalwendë]

Bethberry - Who can tell the intellectual reasons that Beth Russell had for using the term 'lovers'? But I would suspect that using such an evocative word would make your particular talk 'stand out' amongst the myriad other things to do at Tolkien 2005. As it happens, the talk was one of the very best so if she was indeed using it to be provocative and to attract attention, as davem has suggested, then I can forgive that.

And might I also add that many far more provocative talks were given at Tolkien 2005! *cough* a certain Hobbit talk *cough*

But I do think that even if Beth Russell wanted to attract our attention, then the content of her talk centred around the sense of Galadriel having 'lovers' in the sense of 'admirers', so it was not a misleading title. She did hint at the possibility that Feanor's admiration of Galadriel's hair could have had sinister connotations but this was very much a possibility, and one that had people talking afterwards.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And, going along with your general theme, although Gimli admires Galadriel's beauty, it is NOT the beauty which first made him love her. It was her kind words, and repudiation of the general Elven antipathy towards the Dwarves. Note that we only hear Gimli speaking of her beauty AFTER she wins his heart, so to speak.

This is interesting. After all, why should Gimli find Galadriel beautiful in the sense that he found her attractive? Dwarves must have their own cultural notions of beauty, and maybe it is that he finds her graciousness and understanding to be what is truly beautiful about her?

Or do Dwarves have different cultural notions of beauty? Hmmm...

[drigel]

Or do Dwarves have different cultural notions of beauty? Hmmm...

egads
beard length, gold pinching, or perhaps the number of beer steins she could hold in one hand..?..?

Are you saying she couldn't be a muse like the classical muses or those who poets used to personify their inspiration?

In terms of the work, clearly fair is fair, which has many connotations. As to the muse catagory, I would say elves in general from the 1st to early 4th ages to be the "classical" variety (from a non elf perspective). Some more so than others. Practically speaking, they were more common at that time, their civilizations more dominant. But as the 4th age drew on, and - well - up to present day - I would put them in the "poets used to personify..." heap. They were rare, seldom seen, and most likely considered to be (like opium in the 19th century) very dangerous and deadly, but if one had some luck, creatively rewarding and inspiring in a perilous kind of fashion

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Bethberry - Who can tell the intellectual reasons that Beth Russell had for using the term 'lovers'? But I would suspect that using such an evocative word would make your particular talk 'stand out' amongst the myriad other things to do at Tolkien 2005. As it happens, the talk was one of the very best so if she was indeed using it to be provocative and to attract attention, as davem has suggested, then I can forgive that.

And might I also add that many far more provocative talks were given at Tolkien 2005! *cough* a certain Hobbit talk *cough*

But I do think that even if Beth Russell wanted to attract our attention, then the content of her talk centred around the sense of Galadriel having 'lovers' in the sense of 'admirers', so it was not a misleading title. She did hint at the possibility that Feanor's admiration of Galadriel's hair could have had sinister connotations but this was very much a possibility, and one that had people talking afterwards.

If you are talking about ascertaining with complete assurance Russell's authorial intent I would agree that could well be impossible.

However, to suggest that a lecturer would not, somewhere in the lecture, refer to or suggest how the title related to the actual lecture, seems a tad disingenuous to me--or perhaps I should say the claim lacks candor or frankness. Even something as mundane as "Well, now that I have all your attention..." would suggest humorously her real interest. But certainly the way she constructed her argument and her examples would go far towards clarifying what her interest was.

I certainly don't wish to belabour the point--and I can quite see how she could have used it flippantly--but none of you who were in attendance--you, Lal, or davem or Estelyn has answered my question: Why did Russell reject Estelyn's claim that Galadriel was a muse? Did Russell define 'muse' differently than Estelyn? Was the focus and purport of her lecture different from that of this thread? If we are to discuss whether Galadriel was "the ultimate muse", we ought to know what we mean by muse, what other options exist for the ways in which Galadriel is 'involved with' Middle-earth, who other candidates are. If Russell didn't see Galadriel as being the inspirator as Estelyn did, what did Russell see Galadriel as?

Originally Posted by Estelyn

I am and always have been a staunch advocate of using the word "love" (in this case, "lovers") broadly. It is only our time that has come to restrict it to a purely twosome relationship, including sex, thereby losing its many possibilities in the process.

With all due respect to your position, it is also possible to debate that 'love' was previously never used as broadly as you suggest, that it harboured an unspoken secret which was regarded as dirty and shameful. The English noun does more than double duty of course, standing in for eros, agape, charity, caritous, carnality, sensuality, chastity, benevolence, grace. The very fact that the same word can signify the opposites of the charity and carnality is itself very suggestive.

If it is true--and I think it can certainly be argued--that 'our time' has restricted the meaning of love to sexual love only, perhaps that is in itself evidence not of greater meaning in previous time but of the lack of openness in earlier uses of the word. Sometimes silence about a subject in fact speaks more loudly about its presence than direct acknowledgement would. Through coded language, restrictions, underscored omissions, sudden contradictions, greatly nuanced differences and arguments, the real or fabricated presence was danced around so much that it finally broke forth in torrents of public recognition and acknowledgement. There's a description of an elbow in George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss that is astounding for its eroticism, and every word and every nuance as clean as any most prudish Victorian reader would want it.

But my point is not to insist upon any one particular use of 'lovers' which Estelyn cleverly disguised in her initial post. It was really just ruminating on why Russell rejected Esty's interpretation that Galadriel was a muse.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

But my point is not to insist upon any one particular use of 'lovers' which Estelyn cleverly disguised in her initial post. It was really just ruminating on why Russell rejected Esty's interpretation that Galadriel was a muse.

The only problem I can see with the idea of Galadriel as 'muse' is that unlike the Muses of antiquity Galadriel is a person in her own right (within the secondary world). It may be that she recieved an Anima projection from Feanor, Celebrimbor & Gimli, because according to Jung that is the role the Anima plays for a man. Yet, that would not make Galadriel herself into a muse - because as a real, living Elf woman she would be far more complex than that.

So, Galadriel has her own existence as a flawed, fallen being within Middle-earth, but to those who 'loved' her she took on a numinosity in their minds. I put 'loved' in quotes there because the only ones who could have been said to love her in the true sense were those who knew her as a person in her own right - principally Celeborn, Celebrian, Elrond & Arwen. For the others, she would have been a symbol of something 'other'. What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

One could argue that what Feanor (possibly), Celebrimbor & Gimli 'loved' was what Galadriel symbolised for them, rather than the Elven maiden 'clothed in simple white'. Lots of 'projections' going on.

[drigel]

The whole idea of muses to me is an attempt to describe the fleeting and rare spark that divines inspiration. It takes many forms. I suppose the Greeks needed personification for this divinity. Of course it's a woman.

I would think, from a mortal's POV, all Eldar from the 1st age on produced inspiration on many levels, if one would aspire to a higher level of personal or spiritual state. At the macro level would be a desire for a higher state of civilization or culture.

What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

As the (arguably) sole representative of an active Eldar in a leadership position, G certainly could be considered goddess like. Not only in her personal attributes, but what that represented, and what others would heap on her, in terms of what she represented. Not her fault, but there is an almost goddess like love for her.

[Lyta_Underhill]

What's interesting (imo) is that she seems to have become increasingly such a symbol to Tolkien himself, as over the years he caused her to approach nearer & nearer to a 'goddess'.

Indeed, Galadriel seems to have emerged into the active secondary world of Middle Earth and then faded back into the 'cauldron of story,' perhaps much on a theme of the elder race 'fading' at the end of the Third Age. His tales are shot through with the theme of the Faerie aspect of this world passing away, of the desire to follow but never being fully able to, the frustration of the "Sea Bell" rising when the desire is too great and the pleasant tantalizing hints of "news from Bree" which puts this Faerie realm where it seems to fit best, in the imagination and on the edge of reality.

Galadriel's position seems very much goddess-like, as she comes into contact with few who live in Middle Earth, and none who meet her ever forget her. They are all moved by her power and all love her. It is interesting to note Frodo's complete willingness to give up the One Ring to her. In this moment, he worships her and also feels her power, she is a goddess to his mind. She does not so much inspire him to create and to reach greater heights but enjoins him to keep to his quest by revealing her own vulnerability (and strength). She becomes real in this sense, rather than an abstract quality. Sam, on the other hand, seems to reject the unreal (scary!) aspects of 'elvish magic' once he has seen them, opting instead for the real 'earth magic,' if you will, of the realm of Lothlorien, loving the Lady for her living works, taking away her image in his mind and applying it with inspiration in the Shire. It seems that Galadriel takes on more of a "muse-like" aspect with regard to Samwise, as his creations in the Shire each have a grain of Galadriel's gift, much like the germ of an inspiration. Of course, this is not absolute in its definition, as there is a full blown mallorn tree growing in the Party Field, an unmistakable sign of the Lady's direct influence.

Galadriel does seem to change her aspect as time wears on, and I suppose one who wielded temporal power, even as she kept her realm as non-temporal as possible, would fade into myth, as the Elves fade from the story, the Fourth Age begins, and the Lady's works fade; all that is left to Middle Earth is memory and inspiration. For those who have personal experience of the Lady of the Golden Wood, the inspiration becomes more like a loss, and most follow the image West into memory or myth, if you will. Gimli, for his devotion, is allowed to follow Galadriel to the West, a boon not granted to those in the primary world, who must sit and watch things pass away and retain their inspirational qualities.

I'm not sure what I am trying to say in this rambling post, but I have very much enjoyed this thread so far, and look forward to reading more! Bear with the hobbit's crackpot theories if you will, and maybe there is something between the lines!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In my introductory post, I mentioned that I didn't remember what would be considered the second fall of Galadriel. I've just read Michael Martinez' article on Celeborn; he says something that throws a bit of light onto that question:

...the Rings of Power were originally a second act of Elvish rebellion.

That's not a major point in this topic, but an interesting aspect.


I've enjoyed reading the various thoughts you've all shared! As to the uses of the terms "muse" and "love(r)", it seems to me that Bêthberry found the right quote by another Oxford professor:

Originally Posted by Humpty Dumpty

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'