Cursing In the Books

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, I think, as it has been said in the very beginning, Morgoth's curse is a bit specific (and you could say that about any course that would come from a Vala, Maia or a being of similar power). Because essentially, it differs from let's say Mim's curse in the sense that Morgoth actually has the power to make his curse come true.

At the same time, we could ask however about Saruman's curse of the Shire. Remember?

Originally Posted by RotK

"But do not think that when I lost all my goods I lost all my power! Whoever strikes me shall be accursed. And if my blood stains the Shire, it shall wither and never again be healed."

That one more of the aspects of Saruman which just makes me love his character, because there are so many things which "outreach" his frame and the frame of the story. So, of course we might ask - why didn't this come true? Because the feeling we get from the Scouring is that, effectively, the Shire was healed. However, of course, it is easy - at least in my opinion - to find an answer: it was not the Hobbits who struck Saruman down, so there was no reason for the curse to turn upon them or their land. This would, in turn, mean that curses are not as "mechanical" and "blind" as we know them from many other, e.g. ancient Greek tales - so it does not come into effect only mechanically, if Saruman's blood stains the Shire, but if it's in tune with the intent - i.e. the punishment of those who have killed him. If it wasn't the Shirelings, there is no reason to harm the Shire.

For that matter, of course this "curse" is an unusual one as well. First, it very likely might have been just a threat from powerless Saruman to prevent himself from being killed by the Hobbits. Secondly however, if it come down to that, I somehow believe that he would have been able to bring harm upon the Shire. That however leads us to realise - if we go with the scheme of how curses might work as I have outlined in my posts above - that he has no "right" to curse the Shire only out of spite (by the "curse law"), the only wrong the Shire would have done to him would be killing him (if it happened), but then again, Saruman has already done quite a lot of harm to the Shire before, so does he have the "right" to do more if the Shire takes a revenge on him? I would find it more likely that if some Hobbit wished "if he makes us his thralls, may his own thrall turn upon him!", he would have all "right" for his curse to come true.

But here again we come to that Saruman was a Maia - so I think his curse, if it were to come into effect, would have its base not in the general "curse law", but in the same spirit as Morgoth's - in his own personal power. And this power he can use as he sees fit, also to bring harm upon the land. It is probable that his death would somehow "amplify" the power of the curse (because if Saruman had enough power to do such a thing while he was alive, there's no reason why he couldn't have been walking around Rohan cursing fields or something like that). I think that's also a thing present in the folklore and old tales which Tolkien possibly might have used, had he stumbled upon such a situation during his writing (and this curse of Saruman itself proves, in my opinion, that he actually would, because he used it here - only it didn't meet its end), like "and with his last words, the Dark Lord said: 'Now thou hast killed me, but here be my revenge: All thy kingdom shall fall into dust in a thousand years!'" And so it would eventually happen...