Done if by Hand or Hew if by Sword?

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I would say the latter ... Of course, nobody says Aragorn would really do it, I personally rather doubt (and I think every sane person would) that Aragorn would come out chopping the heads of Théoden's doormen, however, it was worth the threat in his opinion, to underline the importance of the sword to him...

But do you think Aragorn would make a threat or promise without the intention to follow through on it? You know, saying "I'm going to kill anyone who touches my sword!" though he only means he'd be really, really angry... I don't, which is why I favour the curse thing, though I agree it's poorly supported by the text, disregarding the mythological parallels Davem and Pitchwife brought up.

Inzil, the thread that discusses whether Aragorn actually carried the shards is here.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, for me the reason why I never thought of Andúril in that way is that it is basically never shown to "behave" like that. Respectively, not to "behave" in any way at all, and if Aragorn's words in front of Théoden's hall are the only thing that may point towards something like that, it seems rather feeble to me. And what Aragorn says itself evokes rather the idea of a "cursed item" like some sort of plague-infested thing, or thing of so much worth that if you touch it, you die. (We know examples of such things from the mythologies as well.) Anyway, we never hear of Aragorn having a friendly chat with Andúril, and there are no remarks like "still the smith's heart dwells in that one", as we know it from Anglachel's case.

Oh, I agree. I simply thought it interesting that either an intelligence in Gurthang (Eöl's), or perhaps Túrin's guilty conscience recognised Túrin as not being the sword's legitimate owner.

Originally Posted by skip spence

Inzil, the thread that discusses whether Aragorn actually carried the shards is here.

Thanks. I figured there was one around somewhere.

[alatar]

Thanks all for your informative posts (and now we all know to avoid poor davem until we know that he's flu free ).

Don't think that Narsil/Anduril was cursed like Tyrfing or Gurthang. Yet it may still have had some magical property that could have harmed anyone not related to Elendil.

What humans handled Narsil/Anduril, as I would think that Dwarves and Elves would be immune to whatever spells they may have presumably wove into the item? Was Ohtar 'part of the family?' Even if he weren't, Narsil's 'light' was extinguished (obviously) when he handled the shards.

But what if the blade isn't in itself lethal to touch?

So then we have Aragorn all a'huff about anyone touching his sword. Was this because the bearer would then be considered 'royalty?' That doesn't seem sensible. Also, Aragorn makes too much about leaving his sword, more than one would expect, especially after Gandalf cautions the group about speaking any haughty words to King Theoden. Is this just a result of Aragorn's weariness, where he not only disregards Gandalf's wisdom but also wants to begin asserting his claim to some station - not wanting to be mistaken for wizard ragtag?

But this is the same Aragorn who says that he'd leave any sword at the door, even if visiting some peasant's hut, but not *this* sword.

It just seems too important a scene to be easily dismissed.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

What humans handled Narsil/Anduril, as I would think that Dwarves and Elves would be immune to whatever spells they may have presumably wove into the item? Was Ohtar 'part of the family?' Even if he weren't, Narsil's 'light' was extinguished (obviously) when he handled the shards.

As far as I know, 'Ohtar' was the only Man to touch Narsil after Elendil's death apart from Isildur and the latter's descendants. It is said in UT that 'Ohtar' was actually the title of the person and not his actual name. However, it also says in Footnote 17 of the essay The Disaster of the Gladden Fields, that Ohtar was 'of [Isildur's] own kin'. Whether that means royal blood or not, who knows?

Originally Posted by alatar

So then we have Aragorn all a'huff about anyone touching his sword. Was this because the bearer would then be considered 'royalty?' That doesn't seem sensible. Also, Aragorn makes too much about leaving his sword, more than one would expect, especially after Gandalf cautions the group about speaking any haughty words to King Theoden. Is this just a result of Aragorn's weariness, where he not only disregards Gandalf's wisdom but also wants to begin asserting his claim to some station - not wanting to be mistaken for wizard ragtag?

It appears that Aragorn takes his reponsibilities as the Heir of Isildur very seriously, to say the least. The Sword That Was Broken was probably the most recognisable symbol of his lineage. He showed it to the Hobbits in Bree when his identity was questioned. He did the same at the Council of Elrond to aid in proving himself to Boromir.
Perhaps he did simply want to impress upon Háma and the Rohirrim the value he placed in the lineage of the sword in the hope (apparently well-founded) that no one would molest it, and extra care would be taken to guard it, since he was urged by Gandalf to bow to Théoden's wished for that time.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

But do you think Aragorn would make a threat or promise without the intention to follow through on it? You know, saying "I'm going to kill anyone who touches my sword!" though he only means he'd be really, really angry...

Well, for one, note that he did not say "I am going to kill you", but he said the obscure "whoever touches it will die". Mainly though, you never have used any exaggerated sayings like that? Or heard them at least? I would be puzzled, because I think it's quite normal and I don't get why people won't see it in cases like this and take everything literally. Like, somebody says "oh but if you screw up your job this time again, your boss is going to rip your head off", while in the end (at least normally) no decapitations occur. Also, for the guards, the intimidation itself is enough, and that is what I think Aragorn is betting on. Just imagine yourself in that situation, if the blade would really be so important to you. You basically count on that the guys will NOT touch it, and the stage "what if they did" does not even cross your mind - nor theirs (which is the reason why you are saying the threat). Now if it happened, it would have turned into a bit of a different situation, it would be a change of roles, you would need to be confronted with the fact that the guys are not taking you seriously. It would be something like: "Oh yea? Scary wanderer threatening us? Boo boo, come on us, scary wanderer, we are already afraid of you!" It would be about Aragorn once again to deal with this (somehow I can well imagine such a scene in some movie). However, as the threat is enough, that means, Aragorn's personality has enough impact on the guys to decide not to mess up with him and rather obey.
If there is anything which is considered "cursed", or maybe rather just magical here, it is Legolas' bow. But only considered, mind you, by the superstitious Rohanian men (remembering all the talk about the Witch of Lórien and stuff like that):

Originally Posted by King of the Golden Hall

Then Legolas gave into his hand his silver-hafted knife, his quiver and his bow. "Keep these well," he said, "for they come from the Golden Wood and the Lady of Lothlórien gave them to me."
Wonder came into the man's eyes, and he laid the weapons hastily by the wall, as if he feared to handle them. "No man will touch them I promise you," he said.

Originally Posted by alatar

Was Ohtar 'part of the family?' Even if he weren't, Narsil's 'light' was extinguished (obviously) when he handled the shards.

Well, if Narsil indeed had any special powers like that, I guess indeed they might not "work" as long as the sword was shattered, which would let Ohtar touch it without any problems.

But this is the same Aragorn who says that he'd leave any sword at the door, even if visiting some peasant's hut, but not *this* sword.

That just underlines the importance of it. And note, I would also consider it supporting the idea that the sword is not cursed or anything. Because if it was cursed, and whoever touched it would die, Aragorn's motive would have been different: it would be to protect poor innocent soldiers from accidentally touching it and dying, just because of ignorance. However, I think Aragorn is basically just a bit angered in this scene, so I think it fits more that he just does not want to give the sword away because he is protective of his heirloom.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by JRRT

Death shall come to any man...

Isn't that stating the obvious, a generalization that applies to all humans? Death comes to everyone, sooner or later. Mind you, it also applies to those who do not touch the sword...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Isn't that stating the obvious, a generalization that applies to all humans? Death comes to everyone, sooner or later. Mind you, it also applies to those who do not touch the sword...

Aragorn should have specified an unusually swift death would come to certain people.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, for one, note that he did not say "I am going to kill you", but he said the obscure "whoever touches it will die".

Exactly. It's a passive sentence.

Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil's sword, save Elendil's heir

To me that doesn't sound like a man saying "I'll kill anyone who messes with my gear!" it sounds more like a warning that fate will punish whoever draws the blade. Maybe the word curse was misused, but to me it sounds more like something like that. Tolkien's work is after all littered with prophesies and curses. And I'm surprised that you'd say that Narsil isn't in any way magical, just because it wasn't a big talker. It is after all the legendary sword that cut the One Ring off Sauron's finger. No plain pocket knife would be fated to do that.

Mainly though, you never have used any exaggerated sayings like that? Or heard them at least? I would be puzzled, because I think it's quite normal and I don't get why people won't see it in cases like this and take everything literally. Like, somebody says "oh but if you screw up your job this time again, your boss is going to rip your head off", while in the end (at least normally) no decapitations occur.

Yes, I might say something like "I'll kill that ******* who stole my bike!" although I wouldn't actually do it if given the chance. Probably not anyway.
But Aragorn isn't like you and me. He's a very serious chap. I'm quite certain he wouldn't blurp out anything in a fit of rage that he didn't mean. Just think of how he marches up to the black gate and demands that the Dark Lord should step forward and pay for his crimes. Although he's in no position to make that happen, he's still dead serious, and would die trying to achieve what he said he would do.

No, I think he meant it literally when he said that death will come to any man who draws his sword, and since the scenario of him cutting down Theoden's guards (how would he do that anyway without his sword?) isn't plausable, I must assume there is a curse or something similar. Notice that the words says no man but the heir of Elendil can draw the sword and live. Touching it is no death sentance, which is probably why Othar could live.

[CSteefel]

But I also see this in the context of what follows a few days later, when Aragorn bearing the Narsil announces himself as the heir of Isildur and thus earns the right to pass the Paths of the Dead. I take it that whoever would touch the sword, other than the heir of Isildur, is fated to die (certainly nothing to do with Aragorn killing them). Aragorn has had a premonition here that he is the only one who is going to be able to pass through Death, and the sword as the linkage to Elendil (and Isildur) becomes part of this...

[davem]

Also reminds me of Halbarad's statement at the door of the Paths of the Dead:

'This is an evil door,' said Halbarad, 'and my death lies beyond it. I will dare to pass it nonetheless; but no horse will enter.'

. Why is this significant? Go back a bit to Halbarad's first appearance:

And Aragorn said to Halbarad: 'What is that that you bear, kinsman?' For he saw that instead of a spear he bore a tall staff, as it were a standard, but it was
close-furled in a black cloth bound 50 about with many thongs.
'It is a gift that I bring you from the Lady of Rivendell,' answered Halbarad. 'She wrought it in secret, and long was the making. But she also sends word to you: The days now are short. Either our hope cometh, or all hopes end. Therefore I send thee what I have made for thee. Fare well, Elfstone!'
And Aragorn said: 'Now I know what you bear. Bear it still for me a while!' And he turned and looked away to the North under the great stars, and then he fell silent and spoke no more whilethe night's journey lasted.

. Halbarad bears the banner to Aragorn, & foresees his own death (he does fall on the Pelennor).

Look at this:

A triangular banner appearing to depict a bird (possibly a raven) appears on coins minted by Olaf Cuaran around 924. The coins feature a roughly right isosceles triangular standard, with the two equilateral sides situated at the top and staff, respectively. Along the hypotenuse are a series of five tabs or tassels. The staff is topped by what appears to be a cross; this may indicate a fusion of Norse pagan and Christian symbolism. The raven banner was also a standard used by the Norse Jarls of Orkney. According to the Orkneyinga Saga, it was made for Sigurd the Stout by his mother, a völva or sorceress. She told him that the banner would "bring victory to the man it's carried before, but death to the one who carries it." The saga describes the flag as "a finely made banner, very cleverly embroidered with the figure of a raven, and when the banner fluttered in the breeze, the raven seemed to be flying ahead." Sigurd's mother's prediction came true when, according to the sagas, all of the bearers of the standard met untimely ends. The "curse" of the banner ultimately fell on Jarl Sigurd himself at the Battle of Clontarf:

Earl Sigurd had a hard battle against Kerthialfad, and Kerthialfad came on so fast that he laid low all who were in the front rank, and he broke the array of Earl Sigurd right up to his banner, and slew the banner-bearer. Then he got another man to bear the banner, and there was again a hard fight. Kerthialfad smote this man too his death blow at once, and so on one after the other all who stood near him. Then Earl Sigurd called on Thorstein the son of Hall of Sida, to bear the banner, and Thorstein was just about to lift the banner, but then Asmund the White said, "Don't bear the banner! For all they who bear it get their death." "Hrafn the Red!" called out Earl Sigurd, "bear thou the banner." "Bear thine own devil thyself," answered Hrafn. Then the earl said, "`Tis fittest that the beggar should bear the bag;'" and with that he took the banner from the staff and put it under his cloak. A little after Asmund the White was slain, and then the earl was pierced through with a spear.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_banner

Honestly, my feeling is that Tolkien is drawing on incidents like these, & they remain ultimately mysterious & unexplained because the intent is to impart a flavour of 'Northerness' to the story.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by CSteefel

Aragorn has had a premonition here that he is the only one who is going to be able to pass through Death, and the sword as the linkage to Elendil (and Isildur) becomes part of this...

The sword was certainly a powerful symbol, but the Dead were not cursed and bound to the world by Elendil, but by Isildur. Narsil was not Isildur's sword at the time of the curse.
The sword was inheirited by Isildur, but more importantly, the authority to release the Dead from the curse was inheirited by Isildur's descendants. I think the latter was what was perceived somehow by the Dead, more than the sword. When asserting his right to pass through, he at no point displays Andúril, or speaks of it. It was his words, and the banner Davem mentioned that proved Aragorn to them. If the sword was what the Dead keyed on, anyone who happened upon it by random finding or theft could have commanded the Dead, couldn't they?

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Exactly. It's a passive sentence.

Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil's sword, save Elendil's heir

To me that doesn't sound like a man saying "I'll kill anyone who messes with my gear!" it sounds more like a warning that fate will punish whoever draws the blade.

I think this is it. It fits in with the kinds of predictions/prophesies littered through the book. For example, when the shards of Narsil are brought to Rivendell, Elendil prophesises that the sword will not be reforged until the One Ring is found.

"Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil's sword, save Elendil's heir"

It is a warning that since only Elendil's heir is entitled to bear the sword, it is simply foolish for any other man to attempt to do so. You would be tempting fate and inviting an untimely end. Of course the sword is also tangible proof that Aragorn is Elendil's heir, so naturally he needs to assert his authority over it.

As far as Ohtar is concerned: he was simply doing his duty. If he hadn't taken the shards then no future heir of Elendil would be able to bear the sword, so it's commonsense that he wouldn't be punished by fate (or a curse). In any case, Isildur entrusted the shards to Ohtar - so Ohtar had the authority to carry the shards. He was a kind of steward, if you like.

One thing I wonder is: Did any other of the other heirs of Elendil ever carry the shards? Or was Aragorn especially favoured?

[alatar]

Note that Aragorn began acting more 'lordly' (and I don't mean that in a good sense) once he got amongst humans in Rohan. Remember his words to Eomer regarding being 'aided or thwarted.' Not too humble, those.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

As far as Ohtar is concerned: he was simply doing his duty. If he hadn't taken the shards then no future heir of Elendil would be able to bear the sword, so it's commonsense that he wouldn't be punished by fate (or a curse). In any case, Isildur entrusted the shards to Ohtar - so Ohtar had the authority to carry the shards. He was a kind of steward, if you like.

A note - curses and all these fate-prescribed things do NOT usually work on "common sense". It would have killed Ohtar, if the sword had such a power and if it still had the power even after being broken. All the tales and legends I can think of now which have something to do with curses or destinies do not operate on "common sense", quite the opposite, most often some poor guy ends up a victim of the curse just because he got in the way in a rather random fashion. If it worked differently in M-E, it would be a rather unique phaenomenon, and I think it would be illogical, even given what we know about curses from the tale of Túrin and co., where they seem also to work "programmed", like machines, no common logic.