Cursing In the Books

[Inziladun]

Well, not cursing, as in orcish vulgarities, but curses, as in wishes of ill will from one person to another.

We see many examples of this throughout the books. Sometimes they work:

But this I will add: he that loosed the shaft shall break his bow and his arrows and lay them at my son's feet; and he shall never take arrow nor bear bow again. If he does, he shall die by it. That curse I lay on him'.

Mîm the Dwarf to Túrin's companion Andróg, who apparently died of arrow-wounds on Amon Rûdh.

Sometimes they don't work.

'By the beard of Durin! I wish I had Gandalf here! Curse him for his choice of you! May his beard wither!'

Thorin Oakenshield

What I'm wondering is this: what exactly makes a curse work? I'm not speaking of Morgoth's curse of Túrin, as that curse was accomplished through the active work of Morgoth. But in the case of Mîm, he did not act directly to make the curse come true: it just happened.
Now, Mîm's curse might seem to be just, as his son was shot by Andróg as he fled from the outlaws.
Thorin's would seem to be unjust, because it was bourne of greed and anger, that Bilbo had given the Arkenstone to Bard as a bargaining chip.
Who brings about the events laid out in a curse? Who decides what curses are just, and which are not?
Isildur, though he certainly was wronged by the Men of Dunharrow when they broke their oath to him, was a mortal Man. He had no power to hold the souls of the Oathbreakers to the earth after their lives ended. So who did it? Who is the judge of whose curse ought to be fulfilled, and whose should not?

[Pitchwife]

Good question!

Who brings about the events laid out in a curse? Who decides what curses are just, and which are not?
Isildur, though he certainly was wronged by the Men of Dunharrow when they broke their oath to him, was a mortal Man. He had no power to hold the souls of the Oathbreakers to the earth after their lives ended. So who did it? Who is the judge of whose curse ought to be fulfilled, and whose should not?

As far as the Dead Men of Dunharrow are concerned, there was, for all we know, only One who could (at least temporarily) deny them the Gift of Ilúvatar. So we should probably read Isildur's curse as an appeal to Eru, and suppose that Eru, judging that the appeal was justified, decided to grant it by fulfilling the curse.
I wonder, however, what part, if any, guilty conscience on the side of the Oathbreakers themselves played in this. If they felt - as well they might - that they had deserved Isildur's curse by breaking their oath, they may not have felt free to move on as long as they had unfinished business in this world. Again, Eru probably agreed with their judgement of themselves, but what if He hadn't?

Mîm's curse, I think, is quite another matter. Implicit assent by the cursed person doesn't seem to have played any part in its fulfilment: even if Andróg felt any guilt about the slaying of Khîm, it's hard to conceive how this could have affected the manner of his own death. And as for intervention by Eru in this case, this is hard to reconcile with his portrayal in the Silmarillion as a remote deity who doesn't meddle with His creation except in special cases after a special appeal from the Valar. (Yes, I know, somebody's going to tell me that He pushed Gollum over the brink at Sammath Naur, and I concede that this reading is possible but would argue that it's not necessary.) So either Eru isn't quite as remote from His creation as we are led to believe, or there's something else at work here.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well the basis for this reasoning is the "causal" reasoning of the ... (well, I originally wanted to write "pre-Christian", then I decided that from the overall perspective it won't be true so I wanted to write "ancient", and then I realised that some "enlightened modern" people operate under such thoughts even up to now, so whatever), where of course there is some basic supernatural chain of effects and the supernatural has as much power as the natural. It works on similar mechanics as let's say simple physics, with the only difference that it's not "seen".

Fundamentally, we could say that - however Tolkien denies it - there was something like "magic" in Middle-Earth working exactly in this sense. (I think "magic" is the best word for that anyway.)

There is also this famous quote from Thorin from the beginning of the Hobbit:

We still mean to get [our gold] back, and to bring our curses home to Smaug - if we can.

Although of course we can just speculate as to what did the author mean by this in particular.

Basically I think the thing is that it has to be "meant seriously", and also, it probably needs to have some "logical grounding". The first thing, in my opinion, would disqualify the quote presented by Inzil about Thorin, as there it was definitely spoken in affect and Thorin did not really sort of mean it. Or: he would probably say it differently had he not been in affect. Whereas many curses of course are spoken in affect - looking into old tales, that's actually when they are usually spoken - however I would think that at least in M-E, they might be disqualified if the person who spoke them would not say the some thing after it has calmed down. I.e. Mim would still want Andróg to die, but Thorin won't probably want his beard to wither (if nothing else then also for that it won't be a very effective punishment. If Thorin really hated Gandalf for what he did, he'd probably wish to Gandalf to get an apprentice who would prove as useless as Bilbo did to him, or something like that).

That's of course pure speculation on my part. But I am trying to find some logic in that. I am stemming also from the fact that we don't know to what extent these curses could be misused. I mean: if it was easy for any random Mordorian to say "may Gondorian crops die this year", it probably would add quite a complicated dimension to the overall struggle, wouldn't it? That makes me think that there is something to the thought of "just" curse, so that it's not there just for the sake of it, but it is somehow "in tune with the karmic balance", to use a term which I hope would make clear what I mean In other words: Mim died, so in fact, it was "fair" that his murderer was punished - so if somebody actually wanted to have him punished, it was more likely to happen. Similarly with Isildur. There is also this quite clear "eye for an eye" or "compensatory", we might say, character to the curses - Mim's curse is fulfilled when Andróg dies just like his son did, Oathbreakers are freed when they "compensate" for their cowardice. Of course, this compensatory mechanic seems really strictly mechanical - mere causal law, not much chance of avoiding it by simply being sorry for what you did. You have to compensate (e.g. Andróg - with his own life for Khim's life). I would dare to propose a daring statement, that had Andróg for example saved a life of another of Mim's sons, he would have been saved from the curse (eye for an eye, life for life, again this compensatory mechanic). Of course, the problem was that there were not many chances remaining to save some sons here.

[skip spence]

I think from an inside perspective to the story there's really no telling what the curses were all about. Except perhaps that they are connected to the Great Music - in the Elder Days more accessible than later on one might assume - and that characters in a moment of epiphany might get a clear vision of the (always so ironic) future through a glimpse into the Great Music. Such as when Glorfindel prophets the end of the Witch-King. This fore-seeing is mostly associated with Elves but one might assume that some mortals also have this latent ability to hear the Music so to speak.

But really, I think these curses and prophesies (that always come true) would be better understood from an outside perspective. After all, Tolkien's inspiration for these stories - the Nordic, Old English, Classic and I don't know what mythologies - are ripe with these kinds of things, and that they should pop up in his own books is understandable, no? I suppose they also help to give the books that flavour of Old Tradition Tolkien is looking for.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I think from an inside perspective to the story there's really no telling what the curses were all about. Except perhaps that they are connected to the Great Music - in the Elder Days more accessible than later on one might assume - and that characters in a moment of epiphany might get a clear vision of the (always so ironic) future through a glimpse into the Great Music. Such as when Glorfindel prophets the end of the Witch-King. This fore-seeing is mostly associated with Elves but one might assume that some mortals also have this latent ability to hear the Music so to speak.

Well while I agree with your interpretation of prophecies or something, I firmly stand against that you could say anything similar about curses. It's not that Mim would see how Andróg is going to end - the less to say that he was connected to the Music, come on! - and also there's the obvious cause-effect relationship, the similarity between what's been done (breaking of the oath, killing somebody with a bow) with what is going to happen/has to be done (fulfilling the oath, being killed and/or lacking a bow in need). And you certainly cannot explain the case of the Oathbreakers with any "moment of enlightement" from Isildur's part: because if it were so, it would mean (by how you put it) that the Oathbreakers would become cursed in any case, even if Isildur did not have this "prophetic moment". I fundamentally disagree with that: the way curses work - in all these old mythologies you mentioned - is that somebody makes a curse, and then it works. I think this is something which should not be even questioned. And so I don't see a reason why it should work in any different way in M-E.

(Otherwise, see above in my post.)

[skip spence]

I won't argue against your objections. It was only a far-fetched, flash of the moment, pot shot-theory to be honest. My main point was that there is no fully logical or even probable in-story explanation to these things. The curses work because that's the way it has to be. Tolkien wrote them in because it rocked his boat, because he though the theme fitting. But from an in-story perspective, Mim did not make a formal request to Eru's Ministry of Curses and Prophecies, who later deemed it appropriate, or knew the curse spell at level 3 or something. Mim just did what he did.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Yes, in that case of course yes. Indeed - well, I think the closest we can get to deciphering it from the "inside" is thinking that it's a "principle" which works there, for some reason, just as much as the laws of gravitation or whatnot. "Law of curses". () That's just "how it works". And observing it, we can come to figure out how it might, and if nothing else, how it cannot work (which can be equally valuable).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Yes, in that case of course yes. Indeed - well, I think the closest we can get to deciphering it from the "inside" is thinking that it's a "principle" which works there, for some reason, just as much as the laws of gravitation or whatnot. "Law of curses". () That's just "how it works". And observing it, we can come to figure out how it might, and if nothing else, how it cannot work (which can be equally valuable).

Yeah, I suppose you're right and I get what you are saying. In addition to our natural laws, Arda has additional natural laws, or magical laws as you might say, and we can explain why they exist as little as we can explain why own own natural laws exist. They are there but we don't know why.

Or how about this for an in-book perspective: not all curses work, but spectacular ones that do come true make it into history-books such as the Red Book. As far as we know there might have been thousands of treacherous Petty-Dwarwes casting all kinds of nasty curses but with little or no effect. But you don't get a story with curses that don't come off. Even from an in-book perspective.

[Mnemosyne]

Somewhat tangential, but I think the fact that Tolkien never exactly specified what constituted a working curse and what didn't really helps with the essential ambiguity in his greatest Curse Epic--the Narn i Chin Hurin. Melkor's one of the characters you can make the strongest argument for "his curse works," especially if you ascribe to the "Morgoth's Ring" theory stating that Morgoth put his power into the world itself and thus had control over what it did to people.

But you never find out how much of what happens to Turin is because he is cursed, or because he's a jerk. And I think maybe to have Tolkien delineate what exactly makes a curse work might take away some of the mystery of that.

Not that we can't dig into it, though!

[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...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I tend to think that Saruman's curse didn't work because he no longer had the power to back it up. As Gandalf had said earlier, he was a serpent who still had one tooth, the power of his voice. Other power he might have had in his embodied form as an Istar was no longer accessible to him with his expulsion from the order. Cursing the Shire was, I think, done for the purely petty purpose of frightening the Hobbits who had already seen the horrors done to the Shire at Saruman's behest. If it came to pass, it might have done so because the fear Saruman awakened in the Hobbits could make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they had believed he had the power to make the curse real, they might neglect the Shire, thinking that anything they tried was doomed to failure because of the "curse." Fortunately, the Hobbits were sensible enough to not let that happen.

As to the general efficacy of curses, I would think that some of the same factors that make oaths binding would also come into play. We know that part of what made the oath of Feanor so powerful and terrible was the fact that he called upon Eru and the Valar as witnesses to it. They are very real powers in Arda (heck, if TH is to be believed, some Vala has the job of enforcing the rules of riddle games). An oath is not the same as a curse, of course, so I doubt that Eru or the Valar would be inclined to make every curse called in their name come to pass. Some that are particularly justified, however, they might. When Melkor and Sauron retained enough power of their own, they were probably capable of making sure the curses they called down upon others actually happened. "Durin's beard," however, would not have the power to make a curse effective. "Mahal's beard," on the other hand, would invoke Aule, and if he thought the curse a valid one, he might act on it.

[Inziladun]

Very nice responses.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

As far as the Dead Men of Dunharrow are concerned, there was, for all we know, only One who could (at least temporarily) deny them the Gift of Ilúvatar. So we should probably read Isildur's curse as an appeal to Eru, and suppose that Eru, judging that the appeal was justified, decided to grant it by fulfilling the curse.
I wonder, however, what part, if any, guilty conscience on the side of the Oathbreakers themselves played in this. If they felt - as well they might - that they had deserved Isildur's curse by breaking their oath, they may not have felt free to move on as long as they had unfinished business in this world. Again, Eru probably agreed with their judgement of themselves, but what if He hadn't?

Interesting notion about the Dead Men of Dunharrow possibly staying put on their own, out of a sense that Isildur was right to curse them, and they really had committed a serious sin by breaking an oath.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Mîm's curse, I think, is quite another matter. Implicit assent by the cursed person doesn't seem to have played any part in its fulfilment: even if Andróg felt any guilt about the slaying of Khîm, it's hard to conceive how this could have affected the manner of his own death. And as for intervention by Eru in this case, this is hard to reconcile with his portrayal in the Silmarillion as a remote deity who doesn't meddle with His creation except in special cases after a special appeal from the Valar. (Yes, I know, somebody's going to tell me that He pushed Gollum over the brink at Sammath Naur, and I concede that this reading is possible but would argue that it's not necessary.) So either Eru isn't quite as remote from His creation as we are led to believe, or there's something else at work here.

There's also that counterpoint to Mîm's curse, in which Andróg tries to return the favour:

'The curse of a Dwarf never dies, they say; but a Man's too may come home. May he die with a dart in his throat!'

In UT, an alternate version of Andróg's curse reads: 'May he lack a bow at need, ere his end'. Mím could well have wished for a bow as he faced an angry Húrin at Nargothrond.
If 'the curse of a Dwarf never dies' had become a saying in Middle-earth, maybe that speaks for Aulë having some unusual interest in his children, and interceding on their behalf on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Basically I think the thing is that it has to be "meant seriously", and also, it probably needs to have some "logical grounding". The first thing, in my opinion, would disqualify the quote presented by Inzil about Thorin, as there it was definitely spoken in affect and Thorin did not really sort of mean it. Or: he would probably say it differently had he not been in affect. Whereas many curses of course are spoken in affect - looking into old tales, that's actually when they are usually spoken - however I would think that at least in M-E, they might be disqualified if the person who spoke them would not say the some thing after it has calmed down. I.e. Mim would still want Andróg to die, but Thorin won't probably want his beard to wither (if nothing else then also for that it won't be a very effective punishment. If Thorin really hated Gandalf for what he did, he'd probably wish to Gandalf to get an apprentice who would prove as useless as Bilbo did to him, or something like that).

I mainly put Thorin's in there as an illustration that two Dwarves got two different results with their curses. Thorin's might not seem to be quite as seriously made as Mîm's, but then again Thorin did appear to be angry enough to toss poor Bilbo down the mountainside.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

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...

To me, Saruman's threat that:

'Whoever strikes me shall be accursed. And if my blood stains the Shire, it shall wither and never again be healed.'

was part empty threat, part truth.
Frodo divined which was which:

'Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice, which can still daunt you and deceive you, if you let it.

But still, Frodo cautioned against killing Saruman.

'He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against'.

Frodo perceived that Saruman had not the power to make the Shire 'wither', but striking him, one of the 'angelic' Maia, was an act that would probably not have been taken lightly by Higher Authority, since the Hobbits had it in their power to show him mercy, and their killing him would have been an act of pure revenge. I do think whoever hurt his body in that circumstance would have been 'accursed'.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If 'the curse of a Dwarf never dies' had become a saying in Middle-earth, maybe that speaks for Aulë having some unusual interest in his children, and interceding on their behalf on a regular basis.

I'd see this proverbial longevity of Dwarven curses as a nod to Nordic mythology, where curses by Dwarves working havoc over a lengthy period of time are a somewhat recurring motif. The most famous example would be the Dwarf Andvari (in Reginsmál and Völsunga saga) who, when the Gods took his treasure from him, cursed the gold (which would later end up as the hoard of the Nibelungs) and especially the ring Andvaranaut, so that it would cause the death of all its subsequent owners; and so it happened. Another example is given here .
Unlike Mîm's curse on Andróg, of course, both these curses were attached to items either wrought or formerly owned by the respective Dwarf. But now I think of it - is this just phantom memory again, or does some variant to the Silmarillion text in HoME (or possibly CoH?) mention that Mîm cursed the Nauglamír when Húrin slew him in Nargothrond, and that curse contributed to the ruin of Doriath? If so, this would be a nice parallel to the story of Andvari - with the exception that Mîm wasn't the rightful owner of the necklace, so "karmic balance" wouldn't play a part in the fulfilling of the curse.

About Morgoth's curse - if we accept that he had the power to make his curse come true, don't we thereby agree that he was indeed, as he claimed in the Narn, "Master of the fates of Arda", and that Húrin's defiant words "You cannot see them, or govern them from afar: not while you keep this shape, and desire still to be a King visible upon earth" were mistaken?
As I see it, all Morgoth could do was, so to speak, set the frame conditions for his curse to be fulfilled - but Túrin had lots of chances to escape it at every turn of the way, if he had made some better choices. (Btw, the fact that he didn't still doesn't make him a jerk for me!)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

About Morgoth's curse - if we accept that he had the power to make his curse come true, don't we thereby agree that he was indeed, as he claimed in the Narn, "Master of the fates of Arda", and that Húrin's defiant words "You cannot see them, or govern them from afar: not while you keep this shape, and desire still to be a King visible upon earth" were mistaken?
As I see it, all Morgoth could do was, so to speak, set the frame conditions for his curse to be fulfilled - but Túrin had lots of chances to escape it at every turn of the way, if he had made some better choices. (Btw, the fact that he didn't still doesn't make him a jerk for me!)

Well, I'm not saying Morgoth could have brought about such havoc on anyone's life. That truly would have given him power worthy of what he boasted to Húrin.
But a great deal of the ruin wrought on Túrin was accomplished by Glaurung, who was acting on Morgoth's instructions. If not for Glaurung, could the curse have been realised?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Well, I'm not saying Morgoth could have brought about such havoc on anyone's life. That truly would have given him power worthy of what he boasted to Húrin.
But a great deal of the ruin wrought on Túrin was accomplished by Glaurung, who was acting on Morgoth's instructions. If not for Glaurung, could the curse have been realised?

That's why I think Morgoth's curse does not really qualify as "curse" with the same meaning as e.g. in Isildur's or Mim's case.

Let me present my current theory summed up (it is largely a repetition of what I have said above, but I am trying to put it in a little bit more coherent picture - let's see if I succeed):

We have stumbled upon several cathegories of "curses". But what is a "true curse" in my opinion, is when somebody says "may you X for the Y that you have done" (that's the core point of the curse, of course there can be more amendments and addittions, usually for example if the curse is spoken beforehand, then there might be "if you do Y...", but these two basic elements are in some form always present there). Usually, "X" and "Y" are similar in effect (e.g. Khim dies by bow, Andróg dies by bow). Also, I believe there is always a chance to lift the curse somehow - if somebody somehow compensates for the "Y". This is a speculation based on e.g. the case of the Oathbreakers and on my belief that the curses generally all operate on the same law. This "law" is simply a metaphysical law which works generally in Middle-Earth and "checks" if you can make the curse, but is not purely mechanical and takes into account wider circumstances, not just cause-effect.

Examples: Mim's curse qualifies perfectly, Isildur's one as well (I don't think I need to explain this). The rest of the curses we have been speaking about here basically can be divided into two categories, and they do not fulfil the rules of "true" curses.

Thorin's curse to Gandalf for giving him Bilbo as a companion violates the "code" in several ways. First, there is very little logical "Y-X" relationship between what Gandalf (through Bilbo) caused to Thorin and having a beard withered. Second, according to the "law of curses", it's hard to see that Gandalf would be in any way responsible for Bilbo's behavior in this particular case (however, this particular point I think is the most disputable, as after all, Gandalf probably knew or even planned something like that). Nevertheless, thirdly and most importantly, Thorin probably didn't mean it, or wouldn't have said the same thing if not in the momentary affect. Like I said above, in his right mind he would either have cursed Bilbo himself ("may your Bag End be robbed when you're not at home" - now had he said that, it would actually fit the story rather well, wouldn't it?) or not pronounced the curse at all (more sort of out of resignation than for forgiving Bilbo/Gandalf).

So this curse belonged to the cathegory "would be a true curse, if only it had better grounds". Morgoth's curse is something different - it's not a curse at all, it is a mixture of evil spell (i.e. curse in the meaning of spell, not manipulating somebody's "karmic law" to allow a curse to work on him just like that) and making things look like a "true curse" in Húrin's eyes. There is fundamentally lacking the cause, "Y", for Morgoth to curse Túrin. In other words: Morgoth, with all his boasting, does not have the power to manipulate the "curse policy" of Middle-Earth, he can only concentrate his evil will to bring harm to somebody. And that can be done in a quite prosaic way: sending Glaurung or Orcs to chase after a certain person etc. Morgoth was also of course intentionally twisting the perception of many events in Húrin's eyes to make them look worse than they actually were. If you substract all Morgoth's (Glaurungs etc.) intentional contribution with the aim to harm the Children of Húrin from Túrin's tale, I think you won't get much more than a set of coincidences which were brought to their evil end by Túrin's own foolishness. If you want to see a curse in it (and that's what Morgoth wants you to see), it's easy to see it that way. But that's only Morgoth's trick to make it seem that he somehow has the power to wilfully curse (in the sense of "true curse") anybody he wants, which is a tool to intimidate his opponents. "Master of Fates!" Yes, Morgoth can accomplish a lot with his evil will, he is a Vala after all, but that comes from his power - and has nothing to do with the "balance" maintaining the cause and effect of curses, that is something even Morgoth cannot influence. (If he could, he could have easily cursed all Elves and Men and be done with it, with curses being so powerful as we see it.)

And, at last, to mention Saruman's curse, which could as well have been an empty threat, but assuming it was not, I believe it violated the "curse law" needed for it to work as a "true curse" in several ways. Most of all, there was no "Y-X" relationship on whose basis Saruman could have the "right" to curse the Shire, taking into account that Saruman himself had harmed the Shire already. So the "balance of the scales" was on his side, actually. So if Saruman wanted to harm the Shire in any way, I think he would have had to use his own power (which he, most likely, didn't have) - the same thing as Morgoth did.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

About Morgoth's curse - if we accept that he had the power to make his curse come true, don't we thereby agree that he was indeed, as he claimed in the Narn, "Master of the fates of Arda", and that Húrin's defiant words "You cannot see them, or govern them from afar: not while you keep this shape, and desire still to be a King visible upon earth" were mistaken?
As I see it, all Morgoth could do was, so to speak, set the frame conditions for his curse to be fulfilled - but Túrin had lots of chances to escape it at every turn of the way, if he had made some better choices. (Btw, the fact that he didn't still doesn't make him a jerk for me!)

Morgoth may have had enough power to make some of his curses real, but not enough, necessarily, to make him truly "Master of the Fates of Arda." A short-term curse, so to speak, on one individual, may not require the same kind of power as a long-term curse, on an entire race, for instance. To become Master of Arda, Melkor had to pour his power into the very fabric of the world, losing it for himself -- and even though he succeeded in tainting Arda, it was not enough to completely eradicate the world, or even the good in it.

With Turin, I tend to think that it was a little bit of Morgoth's curse genuinely in action, nudging some circumstances so that what was really the worst choice seemed like the best. Morgoth didn't need to keep this up forever; after a while, making bad choices can become a habit (and lord knows, my own family's history is adequate proof of that! ). To Hurin, watching this, he would certainly believe that this was all Morgoth's doing, and Morgoth would have done nothing to disabuse him of this notion. And even so, Morgoth could not take away Turin's gift of free will. He could only point him in the wrong direction, which sometimes is all the curse a person needs to make it come to pass.

[Nazgûl-king]

I think we could say that it is Mandos, with Iluvatar’s permission, that grants that fulfillment of curses and decides which curses get fulfilled and which ones don’t. Mandos to me seems like someone who does not talk much, but when he talks it is important because he seems to speak prophecies or dooms. For example there is the curse of Mandos on the Noldor. So I think we could say that when a curse is said in Middle-earth Mandos hears it, consults Iluvatar about it, and then based on what he says either fulfils it or denies it. Of course this is just speculation. Of corse in Morgoth's case with Túrin it is Morgoth's will that carries out the curse.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Good idea, Nazgul-king. Why not, as for the matter of who sort of puts the curse to action, I don't see why it couldn't be Mandos and there are indeed instances, like the Doom of Noldor, that support this claim. Let's just emphasise, however, that it's not Mandos' initiative to curse the Noldor or something, but he is merely doing somebody else's will (as you have basically said in your post, I only felt the need to emphasise it). So if Yavanna for example is the so-called "minister of nature" among the Valar, Mandos might as well be the "minister of curses" (or "minister of justice", if you want it to sound better).

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nazgûl-king

I think we could say that it is Mandos, with Iluvatar’s permission, that grants that fulfillment of curses and decides which curses get fulfilled and which ones don’t. Mandos to me seems like someone who does not talk much, but when he talks it is important because he seems to speak prophecies or dooms. For example there is the curse of Mandos on the Noldor. So I think we could say that when a curse is said in Middle-earth Mandos hears it, consults Iluvatar about it, and then based on what he says either fulfils it or denies it. Of course this is just speculation. Of corse in Morgoth's case with Túrin it is Morgoth's will that carries out the curse.

I don't think that's a bad idea at all. My only caveat would be that perhaps the Dwarf-curses were 'administered' by Aulë. their sub-creator and 'father'.

[skip spence]

But doesn't Mandos know all that is to come? Unless that is a line is a my mind made up. But I don't think Mandos is the decision-making type, nor one to offer his opinion. He reluctantly issues dooms yes and he's never wrong, but I think that is because he knows what's going to happen and not because he makes it happen.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by skip spence

But doesn't Mandos know all that is to come? Unless that is a line is a my mind made up. But I don't think Mandos is the decision-making type, nor one to offer his opinion. He reluctantly issues dooms yes and he's never wrong, but I think that is because he knows what's going to happen and not because he makes it happen.

I think he knows everything except what is outside the Music, ie: what is still under Ilúvatar's freedom to alter.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I think he knows everything except what is outside the Music, ie: what is still under Ilúvatar's freedom to alter.

Think so too. And isn't that a good argument that Mandos is not one to deny or enable individual curses. It is not within his jurisdiction or power to do so. Mandos too is bound by the Music.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

In other words:

Originally Posted by Valaquenta

He forgets nothing; and he knows all things that shall be, save only those that lie still in the freedom of Ilúvatar. He is the Doomsman of the Valar; but he pronounces his dooms and his Judgements only at the bidding of Manwë.

Obviously I think we can apply this also to the curses. I think there is no need to add anything, the last sentence is perfectly clear.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Obviously I think we can apply this also to the curses. I think there is no need to add anything, the last sentence is perfectly clear.

Not to this passage from The Valaquenta anyway--I would modify Nazgûl-King's statement, however, to remove any reference to Mandos consulting Ilúvatar. Communication with Eru from within Arda seems to normatively, if not exclusively, be the prerogative of the Elder King.

However, insofar as this nuance is sort of contained in the quoted statement from The Valaquenta, it's more of an emphasis than a disagreement on my part.

[Galadriel55]

In my opinion, the curses that come true are the ones that are fair and have meaning behind them. Sometimes people in ME cursed without really meaning what they say, or at least in the full extend of what they say. For example, when Mablung found Turin near Haudh-en-Elleth, Turin said something along the lines of "A curse on your errand! And a curse on Menegroth! May winter wither it!" No matter how touchy Turin was on the subject of Doriath, I don't think he really meant that much harm by his words.
Other curses are more "well-reasoned", and the person who said the curse knows that he really wants it to come true.
As for who decides which curse will come true, maybe none do, but "real" curses come true by themselves. I've noticed that many people, especially those of noble descent, tend to have some inner power in them. Maybe their curses are more likely to come true? And even a common person can have such power, it's just that descent helps . When Morgoth cursed Hurin, he said that the shadow of his will will follow his faily wherever they go - so maybe he's not the only one able to do things with his will?...

[Alcuin]

There certainly seems to be some cause-and-effect associated with Middle-earth curses. (cf Legate...) And there also seems to be a matter of Judgment involved – capitalized, because it appears to be of a divine nature. Thorin’s curse upon Bilbo as an affective statement rather than an effective statement seems to me to be a significant difference, however, and I’d like to deal with it immediately.

Thorin’s diatribe against Bilbo was exactly that: a diatribe. It was no different from Grishnákh’s slobbering an ineffective litany of slurs against Saruman, or the pronouncements of certain television personalities against those whom they happen to disagree (like Grishnákh, a symptom of fallen civilization) or two men preparing to engage in an drunken impromptu fistfight.

There is a distinction between “cussing” – the use of foul (Grishnákh) or profane (Thorin) language for affect – and malediction – the pronouncement of a curse, which by definition is intended to have effect, whether it does or not.

-|-

This brings us to the proper subject of the thread, I think: maledictions. These come in several varieties.

Legate has mentioned a “curse law”. There is in fact such a “law,” set forth in Proverbs 26:2,

As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.

Tied to this is the idea that such maledictions are the province of the One, exemplified by Balaam’s response to Balak in Numbers 23:8,

How can I curse whom God has not cursed? How denounce whom the LORD has not denounced?

This, I believe, is what strips Saruman’s threatened curse against the Hobbits at Bag End of its effect: they were not cursed because they were in fact blessed. It was Saruman who was under the curse, who “perished at last by the hand of an oppressed slave”. (Unfinished Tales, “The Istari”)

-|-

The Dead Men of Dunharrow, the Oathbreakers, had sworn their oath to aid Isildur upon the Stone of Erech brought from Númenor. Several things are brought to mind here, and I would like to enumerate them.

• The stone came from Númenor; but why would Isildur bother to haul such a large, bulky and heavy item to Middle-earth in a desperate bid to escape murder by Ar-Pharazôn? I strongly suspect the stone came originally from Valinor: that would make it worth the effort.
• The oaths that Cirion and Eorl took (Unfinished Tales) called Eru to witness. Such an oath could not be broken. (Cf. the debate between Maedhros and Maglor in Silmarillion about the two Silmarilli in Eönwë’s keeping.) If the Men of Dunharrow called Eru to witness, but then betrayed the Faithful Dúnedain to serve the Dark Lord, surely that would leave them open to the requirement that they fulfill their oath.
• The curse laid upon them by Isildur was none other than this: they could not depart Middle-earth until their oath was fulfilled. This was not some terrible, horrible, bone-rattling curse: it was the fulfillment of a solemn and sacred agreement to do what was good and right into which they had freely entered but then reneged.
• Besides, without them, Aragorn could not have turned back the Corsairs raiding Lebennin.

In permitting this outcome, Eru could accomplish many goals:

• reminding everyone of the seriousness of a sacred oath (both the Dúnedain and the Rohirrim regarded their kept word a solemn duty);
• punished the Oathbreakers for adhering to Sauron;
• provided Aragorn an army at direst need;
• set Aragorn apart as the unquestioned Heir of Isildur and hence a proper King of Gondor (Isildur entered into his oath with the Men of Dunharrow as King of Gondor); and
• provided for the eventual redemption of the Men of Dunharrow despite their rebellion.

-|-

Next consider the curse of Morgoth upon the Children of Húrin. This is pure evil, and as has been mentioned, has the character of an evil spell. Morgoth’s purposes in this were several:

• Húrin defied and mocked him in the presence of others. It was important that Morgoth make a public example of him to ensure that all others feared him: in this sense, Morgoth acted like any gangster or tyrant.
• Morgoth’s injured pride demanded Hurin’s punishment, and the primal sin of pride was Morgoth’s in Tolkien’s world.
• Upon his release, Húrin in his bitterness unleashed the tension that led to the ruin of the Second House of the Edain.
• Also out of bitterness, Húrin brought the Nauglamír to Menegroth, setting in place the items used to bring about the Ruin of Doriath.

To carry through, however, Morgoth’s curse required considerable effort.

• Pestilence out of Angband took Lalaith, Turin’s first sister.
• The malice of Saeros drove Turin from Doriath because of Turin’s unfounded fear of injustice before Thingol.
• Whether the malice in Anglachel had a part in the death of Beleg is unclear, but I think it did: a darkness from Eöl in the darkness of Middle-earth outside the Girdle of Melian.
• It took Glaurung, whose development required considerable effort on Morgoth’s part, to effect the disaffection of Turin and Finduilas and replace it with the incestuous relation with Niënor Níniel.
• All this time, Morgoth’s incessant evil will beat down upon Turin and Niënor from afar until in despair both of them committed suicide.

At no time was Morgoth’s curse anything less than action on his part against Húrin’s children, whether directly or indirectly by Morgoth or his monstrous minions. It seems a straightforward issue: Morgoth actively and consistently used his considerable powers to bring about the misery and woe that Húrin’s family suffered.

-|-

Let us consider for a moment the Oath of Fëanor, in which Fëanor and his sons called Everlasting Dark upon themselves if they should fail to wrest a Silmaril from any who withheld it. This they spoke in the name of Ilúvatar, and called Manwë and Varda as witnesses. That after this and the deeds that came of it any of them were just held in Mandos until the end of Arda rather than be consigned to the Outer Darkness was mercy: they summoned their curse upon themselves, naming their Creator and the regency of Arda as witnesses. Again, this seems a straightforward issue: why speak such a blasphemous oath or call upon oneself such a dreadful doom?

Tied directly to this is the Curse of Mandos. Also called the Doom of Mandos or Prophecy of Mandos (or Prophecy of the North), the words of the Doom prophesy the outcome of the treachery in which Fëanor began: the Kinslaying of Alqualondë.

Tears unnumbered ye shall shed; and the Valar will fence Valinor against you, and shut you out, so that not even the echo of your lamentation shall pass over the mountains. On the House of Fëanor the wrath of the Valar lieth from the West unto the uttermost East, and upon all that will follow them it shall be laid also. Their Oath shall drive them, and yet betray them, and ever snatch away the very treasures that they have sworn to pursue. To evil end shall all things turn that they begin well; and by treason of kin unto kin, and the fear of treason, shall this come to pass. The Dispossessed shall they be for ever.

Ye have spilled the blood of your kindred unrighteously and have stained the land of Aman. For blood ye shall render blood, and beyond Aman ye shall dwell in Death's shadow. For though Eru appointed to you to die not in Eä, and no sickness may assail you, yet slain ye may be, and slain ye shall be: by weapon and by torment and by grief; and your houseless spirits shall come then to Mandos. There long shall ye abide and yearn for your bodies, and find little pity though all whom ye have slain should entreat for you. And those that endure in Middle-earth and come not to Mandos shall grow weary of the world as with a great burden, and shall wane, and become as shadows of regret before the younger race that cometh after. The Valar have spoken.

That is a proper malediction:

• In its origins, Fëanor and his sons brought their curse upon themselves through their own rash words full of hate and malice;
• Inevitable because its fulfillment was the logical outcome of their iniquities; and
• Of proper authority, because Mandos was speaking as a Vala and so as one of the rulers of Arda.

What followed were the unavoidable consequences of the sins of Fëanor and his sons, whom no one trusted ever after, and who were cut off from mercy until they repented, which they never did.

Even Celebrimbor might be seen as caught up in the residual of the Curse of Mandos in the Second Age: Sauron dispossessed him of his Rings and his kingdom.

-|-

In the case of Mîm, Turin acted with mercy and pity toward Mîm, and Mîm released him from responsibility. I do not recall that Andróg ever showed any pity or remorse for killing Khîm. Turin however was already under an active curse from Morgoth, and it may be that Mîm unwittingly tapped into the power of Morgoth’s malice when he spoke against Andróg. This seems to me a more complicated malediction: I am not certain we can untangle any just vengeance on the part of Mîm upon Andróg from unjust malice on the part of Morgoth against Turin and all his compatriots. I do not believe Mîm the Petty-dwarf had native power or authority to pronounce an effective curse upon another being.

-|-

In this same vein as Mîm is a strain that has so far been neglected in this thread: Frodo used the One Ring to bind Gollum. The Ring gave power to its user in proportion to his stature: Frodo used its power, something often overlooked. First he invokes the Ring-spell itself, harnessing the very Power that made it and inhabited it (TT, “Taming of Sméagol”):

“…On the Precious? How dare you? Think!

“One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them.

“Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!”
...
“We promises, yes I promise!” said Gollum. “I will serve the master of the Precious…”

It is worth noting that just before Frodo spoke this invocation, he spoke to someone else, someone Sam (from whose point of view this part of the story is told) could not see. He first invoked not Sauron’s power, but someone else’s, whether Gandalf’s, the Valar, or Eru himself:

“Very well,” he answered aloud, lowering his sword. “But still I am afraid. And yet, as you see, I will not touch the creature. For now that I see him, I do pity him.”

Sam stared at his master, who seemed to be speaking to some one who was not there. Gollum lifted his head.

Later Frodo again invokes the Ring, using Gollum’s broken promise to bring upon Gollum his own end (RotK, “Mount Doom”):

Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.

That, I think, is very like the Doom of Mandos: at once a prophecy and a curse. As in the case of Mîm, it was not in Frodo’s native power or authority to pronounce a malediction upon Gollum. Unlike Mîm, Frodo has not called down an active curse upon Gollum: he has left Gollum an out: Gollum can repent and refrain, and so avoid his doom, but does not.

As for whether the speaker in this last case was Frodo or the Ring, the Ring was seeking to return to Sauron. Gollum would use it and be quickly discovered; Frodo carried the thing all the way inside the Sammath Naur before he succumbed. And there the malice of the Ring and its maker was turned upon itself, fulfilling the curse (or prophecy) Frodo spoke.

[Galadriel55]

I think that it will help if we look at the curses' opposites - blesings. There are some that are, well, legitimate blessings, like Varda hallowing the Silmarilli. Others are merely respectful, or wish good luck - eg the Dwarves' "may your beard grow longer".

Same could happen with curses - a real curse versus an "I wish you all the worst" sort of thing. They might sound the same as curses, but their respective opposites are totally different.

For further clarification: it's like the difference between have to and must. They sound like the same thing. However, their oppisites, do not have to and must not are quite different: either you CAN, but it's not manditory, or it is prohibited.