LOTRtril ARCHIVE : Gandalf's death

[MajahTR]

Found this pretty interesting.
Cephas

Title: Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring.
Topic(s): Literature/Linguistics -- Literature -- Science Fiction & Fantasy
Subject(s): FELLOWSHIP of the Ring, The (Book); TOLKIEN, J.R.R. -- Criticism & interpretation; COURAGE in literature
Source: Explicator, Summer96, Vol. 54 Issue 4, p230, 4p
Author(s): Obertino, James
Abstract: Analyzes J.R.R. Tolkien's book `The Fellowship of the Ring.' Implications of character Gandalf's death; Parallel with biblical meaning of heroism in sacrificing one's life for others; Connotations of the place Moria.
AN: 9611200811
ISSN: 0014-4940
Database: Blackboard

TOLKIEN'S THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
The death of Gandalf is a moment of transcendent heroism in The Fellowship of the Ring, yet Celeborn, reflecting on it later, remarks, "And if it were possible, one would say that at last Gandalf fell from wisdom into folly, going needlessly into the net of Moria" (461). An understanding of the strongly overdetermined etymology of Moria helps to clarify the significance of Gandalf's death and the question of his fate and folly. Moria's roots would have to include mors (Latin for death), as well as Moira (Greek for fate) and moria (Greek for madness, late Latin for folly). Celeborn's remark unwittingly stresses the thematic linkage of fate (Moira) or "net" (a frequent image for fate) and folly (moria). The drumbeats that sound within the earth before and after Gandalf's death seem to stress fate: "doom, doom" (431, original emphasis). It is, however, also possible to see, as Celeborn does, Gandalf's death as perhaps foolish or unnecessary, as his fall at the Bridge of Khazaddum (emphasis supplied) may imply. But is Gandalf's leading the company into Moria, where he dies, as foolish as Celeborn implies?
In fact, far from "going needlessly" into Moria, Gandalf first considers other tactical options and even tries one--the ascent of Caradhras--as an alternative to the underworld journey. To go around the mountains would endanger the quest by prolonging it and open the company to further observation from the air and interference by the enemy. The company attempts to climb over the mountains but is rebuffed by Caradhras itself. By the time Gandalf recommends the descent, Moria is the only reasonable option available. Later in Lothlorien, Galadriel sees this more clearly than her husband Celeborn: "Needless were none of the deeds of Gandalf in life" (461). Nevertheless, even Frodo, who was present during the deliberations that took the company into the earth, seems to have doubts about whether Gandalf's death was wise: "In Khazaddum, his wisdom died" (466; original emphasis). Frodo's lament suggests that he may see his friend's death, a result of the descent into Moria, as foolish.
A way to reconcile Gandalf's fate (in the sense of unavoidable death) with a wisdom that also addresses the issue of folly is found in the New Testament, and especially Corinthians. The Christian precept "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13) pairs love with the willing self-sacrifice of death, and the god-hero of Christendom would for Tolkien be the principal exemplar of self-sacrifice for love. The path of martydom or "the wisdom of the Cross" is foolishness to the non-Christian (1 Cor 1.18), who prefers the "fleshly wisdom" (2 Cor 1.12) that serves oneself and not others. Following the slain hero and often expecting themselves to be slain, the early Christians turned upside down the conventional wisdom that seeks self-preservation above all else. Thus St. Paul notes, "God" has "made foolish the wisdom of this world" through the folly of freely chosen self-sacrifice (1 Cor 1.20-23). To refuse to give one's life and instead to follow the way of the world by pursuing a longer life and more pleasure for the flesh was, in the view of the marginalized early Christians, a colossal error: "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Cor 3.19). To see Gandalf's sacrificial death as perhaps foolish is a temporary lapse of judgment on Celeborn's and Frodo's part, perhaps useful to remind the reader that the flesh and its wisdom make their strong demands despite what real wisdom compels one to do. But Gandalf must not be measured by the wisdom of the world, as his rebirth makes clear. Gandalf fits the Pauline model, for his death to save others and preserve Frodo's quest shows a foolishness that is "wiser than men" (1 Cor 1.25).
The place of Gandalf's death--Moria--in addition to having the associations noted earlier also echoes Moriah in Genesis 22.2, the land where Jabweb commands Abraham to take Isaac to sacrifice him "as a burnt offering on one of the mountains."[1] Gandalf is pulled by the burning Balrog into the depths of a mountain. While Jahweh relents in the matter of the sacrifice of Isaac, God the Father in the New Testament does not in demanding the sacrifice of his only begotten Son. Another dissimilarity between the Genesis Moriah and the trek into Moria is that circumstances, rather than the voice of God, dictate the journey in Tolkien and the stand at the bridge. But Gandalf's self-sacrificial death is in accord with the precept of obedience to the higher good that the Genesis story endorses. His death also reveals the same strategy of renunciation Gandalf recommends Frodo take in bearing the Ring into the center of darkness that is Sauron's home and there throwing it into the cracks of Doom, because Sauron will not expect the Ring-bearer to willingly give it up and throw it away (351-52). About this strategy Gandalf remarks, "It is wisdom to recognize necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope" (352, emphasis added). The paradox that wisdom may be found by going before one's time into the earth and that only a crazy person would go there to find it is also seen in The Aeneid, where the Sibyl calls Aeneas's quest into Hades a fantastic project, or "insanus labor" (6.135).[2] But Tolkien goes beyond the Roman model of catabasis because Gandalf, unlike Aeneas, actually dies in the underworld. Gandalf's apparently foolish, yet ultimately wise, death through sacrifice, for both his friends and the good of all Middle Earth, is folly to those who refuse to see the goodness of the gesture, but through redemptive self-surrender "God has made foolish the wisdom of this world" (1 Cor 1.20). That this sacrifice occurs in Moffa (Moriah) is especially appropriate.

NOTES
1. Giddings and Holland discuss Moria in terms of another biblical Moriah (68).
2. For a discussion of Moria and Aeneas's journey through Hades, see Obertino.

WORKS CITED
1 Aeneidos Liber Sextus. Ed. R. G. Austin. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1977.
2 Giddings, Robert and Elizabeth Holland. J.R.R. Tolkien: The Shores of Middle-Earth. Frederick, MD: UP of America, 1982.
3 Obertino, James. "Moria and Hades: Underworld Journeys in Tolkien and Virgil." Comparative Literature Studies 30.2 (1993): 153-69.
4 Tolkien, J. R. R. The Fellowship of the Ring. New York: Ballantine, 1965.
~~~~~~~~
By JAMES OBERTINO, Central Missouri State University

[MajahTR]

Thanks, Cephas, it is interesting so I printed your information to read again tomorrow and to think about it. I enjoy trying to find connections to Christ in JRR's writings.
JTrace

---

The path of martydom or "the wisdom of the Cross" is foolishness to the non-Christian (1 Cor 1.18), who prefers the "fleshly wisdom" (2 Cor 1.12) that serves oneself and not others.
The writer sounds very sure about what non-Christians believe, and that their ethical responses fall into a predictable pattern. To make such a global statement, his knowledge of people must be quite broad indeed. It's easy to make a parallel between Christ's self-sacrifice and Gandalf's (although I believe Gandalf had a lot less warning) -- but I wonder why the writer wasn't able to make his point without setting up those outside of a single religious group as 'foolish' people who 'refuse to see the goodness of the gesture.'

Finally, he's awfully hard on poor Celeborn, especially when it's so clear that Galadriel is the one with the prescience and insight in the family.
Olórië

---

Gandalf's death is a prime example of how Tolkien's theology influenced his writing. To my knowledge, no other pre-Christ religion held a view of self-sacrifice for a higher causer as its central belief. Perhaps Buddhism does, but its self-sacrifice is annihilation of self rather fulfillment of self, i.e. nirvana is an absence of desire; whereas, Christianity's heaven is a perfect relationship with God and all other believers.
Olorie is right; it does sound as if the writer (Paul) has a huge knowledge of non-Christians and their beliefs. But I think we should take the Bible verses in the context of their times. I Cor. is an encouraging letter written to a new church, but II Cor. was written years later and reprimands a stagnant church; it calls the church not to live like the epicureans or a licentious life of 'anything goes,' but to follow Paul's example of self-sacrifice. While it may read as offensive, the writer (Paul) was claiming the same absolute truths that the Corinthian church claimed; he responded entirely differently to those who didn't hold the same beliefs (see Acts 17). By quoting those verses, James Obertino also sounds harsh, but it is the verses that are harsh; however they are intended to call a church to live up to its own beliefs, not to reprimand the rest of the world. The above essay effectively has effectively shown how Tolkien's theology influenced his mythology.
Having said this, here's what I really want to say. One hardly finds Christian resemblances of characters or plot structures. It is through the moral values that Tolkien acquired through his Catholic faith that one sees the Christian influence, especially through the concept of self-sacrifice for a higher good. We have considered Gandalf, now consider Frodo's underground rite of passage. He has been stung in a very dark place, and by the incarnation of death itself - Shelob, a descendent of the greater spider that sucked the life out of the two trees of Valinor (for death's sting, see Hosea 13:14, I Cor. 15:55). It is also Gollum's treachery (reminiscent of Judas) that leads him there. And he appears to be so dead that Sam is fooled, but he returns to life through Sam's singing (another theme: music = life). Also, consider Aragorn - although the parallel is slightly less clear. He also chooses death when he decides to travel the Paths of the Dead, and he redeems the dead souls of former days, so that they can continue to where ever dead people go (Halls of Mandos). Although, he doesn't actually die, he does travel into a place of death and conquers it.
Our protagonists' choices do appear to be radically foolish to many in Middle Earth, and that, as has been stated, is a Biblical theme. As a present day example, consider how the terrorists do not understand freedom, but instead they hate those who do, for they desire the type of control that demons and slave owners have. The price of freedom is self-sacrifice for a higher cause, not laws. Although not all in America claim the Christian faith, our history is heavily influence by Christian tenants.
Tumnus

---

Let's not forget Boromir who also laid down his life for his friends, (just not in an 'underworld' setting.)
My gut rejects the statement that pre or non-Christian religions prefer the 'fleshy' wisdom.
DA

---

[MajahTR]

I hesitate to involve myself on these boards again -- it seems I am constitutionally unable to simply say "yes," "no," or "maybe" and let it go at that, all I touch turns into a dissertation that is probably not appropriate to the "Tolkien's Ring" format. So, Glorfindle, feel free to remove this if a managerial decision is required as to tone, length etc.
Karo6

Part I: Gandalf's Death Re-visited
Linguistics misapplied?

Cephas, thank you for bringing this gem to our attention! James Obertino has done an excellent job of extrapolating from the known data of the Tolkien Corpus to suggest an interpretation that is in keeping with his own mindset and the ruling implications of a "Christian" exegesis. I think he does about as well with this attempt to inject a specific religious flavour into Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as any such Christianizing effort I have recently read. Here I merely hope to illustrate how the same threads of primary data may be easily stripped from the original loom and re-woven into many different fabrics.

Being a fundamentalistic, secular humanist, and avowed agnostic I would -- of course -- interpret the "Death of Gandalf" in a fashion that would be broader in its religious connotations than the treatment Obertino accords the matter. I still find room for a "religious-like" emotive experience in this incident, and would probably utilize a mythic-religious mechanism of explanation myself, but one that would be more generic, I hope, and far less dependent upon a strict appeal to the gospels of an evangelizing Christianity. This is not to imply that Obertino's work is invalid, incorrect or erroneous in any significant way if we restrict its competency to the expression of his personal point of view. Obertino advances his Christian agenda along two points of attack, "linguistic parallels" and the use of the concept "wise-fool" in its Christian sense. I will treat both of his arguments below, finding them differentially flawed, and will say at the outset that his use of perceived linguitic similarities is the more erroneous of these two theses.

At the outset Obertino makes much of the etymology of "Moria" presenting as an established fact his contention that Tolkien meant the "Black Place" (a precise translation of this elvish term) to connote also a variety of Graeco-Latin meanings taken from the homophonic syllable "mor" used in those classical tongues. Here, Obertino must first demonstrate that Tolkien uses his elvish "mor" in the same way as the greek and latin. Does "mor" in Tolkien's work ever have the connotation "moron" foolish, or folly. Is elvish "mor" synonymous with either "fate" or "death?" I find no such utilization of the syllable "mor" in the Silmarillion p. 453, the Lord of the Rings, or the Hobbit. Here we may call upon the Tolkien-linguistic expertise of Iarwain -- do you know of any such use for the elvish "mor?" I am confined to the stem etymologies listed in Unfinished Tales, the Lost Tales vol. I and II pp. 380-381, the Silmarillion indices, and the appendices of the LoTR. "Mordor" means The Dark Land, or The Black Land, not the Land of Folly, not The Land of Death, not the Land of Fate -- however applicable these extensions might be. "Moru" in Lost Tales II p. 381 extends the Tolkien concept of dark or black to include night, where this form refers to the "Primeval Night." So then, as far as my linguistic skills will take the matter, Moria is simply the "Black Place" - colloquially translated for us by Tolkien as the "Black Pit," not the Folly Pit, not the Place of Folly, not the Place of Death or Fate. Consequently all the careful twistings of Moria into greek and latinate meanings are false, and much of Obertino's structure of interpretation should be jettisoned. Or at the very least his interpretations must be regarded as simple, metaphoric contentions, and not demostrated linguistic congruences that serve to illustrate the Judeao-Christian meaning for "The Death of Gandalf" which Obertino seeks to establish.

All of Obertino's appeals to such Biblical passages as -- "the wisdom of the Cross" [is foolishness to the non-Christian ](1 Cor 1.18), [who prefers the] "fleshly wisdom" (2 Cor 1.12); "made foolish the wisdom of this world" (1 Cor 1.20-23); "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Cor 3.19) -- become useless then, for interpreting Tolkien's own meaning for the episode of Gandalf's Fall. In addition a "trick" of sorts is played upon the unwary reader when Obertino injects quotes from the Book of Genesis concerning the place of sacrifice at Moriah. Here, completely by accident the name Moriah starts out with that fatally overstretched and much abused syllable "mor" -- but the place name Moriah in Hebrew does not mean darkness, blackness, or night as in the elvish Tolkien root. "Mor" in Moriah does not even have the greek and latin meanings Obertino gives for the syllable, it merely has the happy coincidence of similar spelling to recommend the inclusion of this Old Testament account.

Without the linguistic congruences Obertino suggests as real, his entire thesis becomes merely a personal interpretation that tells us a great deal about the way Obertino thinks, and the way he views the world of Tolkien, but does not tell us much at all about what Tolkien was himself thinking when he crafted the "Fall of Gandalf."

[MajahTR]

Part II: Gandalf's Death Re-visited
The misapplication of the "Wise-Fool" concept?

Where Obertino does better, in my judgment, is in his presentation of the "wise-fool" concept. Here again, while the "sophmoric" scheme in a very general way has some validity it does not have, in my opinion the narrowly Christian connotation that Obertino suggests it carries when he quotes only from the Biblical text, especially First Corinthians. The concept of "wise-fool" has many uses, and many sources beyond the Christian. The Coyote figure of Native American Lore is a "wise fool," Tyl Eulenspiegel from Germanic legend is another such magical character who plays the fool, and tumbles through many incidents of folly, but always lands wisely on his feet when the final curtain is rung down. "Monkey" the Buddhist "wise-fool" entertains and teaches through his ridiculous antics -- antics that somehow always end with the revealtion of a point of higher wisdom wrapped within his apparent foolishness. So while there is a valid parallel between the "wise-fool" aspects of Christianity and the basic core of Gandalf as the "wise-fool," there is no need to stop with just the Christian interpretation and assume, as Obertino seems to do, that this Christian version is the only true referent to be found in Tolkien. Once again, Tolkien uses concepts that have very broad applicability, and will fit many different religious and non-religious sensibilities equally well.

To continue my own analysis of the "wise-fool" concept in this episode, I would argue that Obertino is only "half-wise" in seeing the Fall of Gandalf as the matter of a "wise-fool," making a socially charitable self-sacrifice, a self-sacrifice that might have Christlike salvific implications. To my mind, the "wise-fool" paradox where it concerns Gandalf most clearly seems to be more an element of "fixing hierarchies" by Tolkien to show just how really wise our wizard is, and has little, if anything, to do with the "wise-fool" aspects of a Christ upon the Cross.

Obertino is correct, I think, to point out that the passage through Moria involves no culpability on Gandalf's part. A wise wizard, he listens to his companions as they voice their fears and objections to taking this deeper route while the high passes are yet untried. Perhaps as a consequence of his personal wisdom, perhaps a function of his Ainur's foresight, Gandalf is almost entirely certain that the Company will eventually be travelling beneath the stony rooves of Khazad-Dum. He understands the risks involved in such a journey, he never minimizes the deadly dangers to be met there, and he even allows necessity to override his concerns of personal safety by accepting Aragorn's flat statement that some great peril awaits Gandalf personally, if they take the darker way. Aragorn speaks this warning as if it were a foreordained fact, his Numenorean ancestry is at work in this, and it is in fact an infallible if imprecise prophecy!

Beaten back from the Passes of Caradhras the Company is forced into Moria where Tolkien uses this journey into darkness to create a situation of contrast and comparison between the TWO different Gandalf's required by his tale - Gandalf the Grey before, and Gandalf the White after his transforming fall into the shadows of the abyss. Before Moria we are treated to several examples of Gandalf's fallibility, he thinks he erred in not taking Frodo to Rivendell as soon as Radagast informed him of the riding of the Nine Nazgul, he should have been more wary when approaching Saruman in Orthanc, and his wizardly wisdom seems defeated at the very door of Moria when he cannot find the openning phrase of magic though it is written before his eyes upon the lintel. Once inside Moria he questions his own choices of path, consults with Gimli, shows a hesitancy that is reminiscent of Aragorn's later self-doubts at Rauros. But when we are re-introduced to Gandalf the White, such moments of self-doubt and fallibility are severely minimized -- and this I think is the real reason that Tolkien shows us a hesitant Gandalf the Grey in Moria, and not an attempt on the author's part to make a deliberate "Christian wise-fool" statement.

In the end, of course, the "foolishness" of Gandalf is always shown to be a higher sort of wisdom, and the Company does win through its dark passage underground -- but Gandalf himself does not. Heroically like Horatio at the Bridge, (not a Christian!) Gandalf sacrifices himself to save the Company and in this context his Balrog-fighting action is accepted as a commonly-uncommon act of heroism, applicable to any and all human events and concerns of similar danger (and a "Christ-like sacrificial interpretation" of this event is but one of many million other interpretations available).

Notice that throughout the entire episode of Moria itself, there has been no charge made of "foolishness" concerning Gandalf's choices and actions, the deeds in Moria are accepted as part of the risk of a combat situation - this is a war afterall! So if no one present as a character in this event calls this act a foolish deed, and I suspect no reader looking in vicariously ever thought the "Fall of Gandalf" revealed "foolishness," just where does the "wise-fool" aspect (Christianized by Obertino) come into play?

Obertino correctly finds the "wise-fool" paradox in the statement of Celeborn made after the fact and safely far away from the dark environs of the Dwarrowdelf: "And if it were possible, one would say that at last Gandalf fell from wisdom into folly, going needlessly into the net of Moria" (461). Even here (bold-faced) Celeborn uses the subjunctive mood to express his hesitancy at making so bold a generalization concerning the deeds of the Wizard, and his wife Galadriel immediately counters with her flat assertion "Needless were none of the deeds of Gandalf in life" (LotR461). Celeborn, wisely, does not argue the question further.

So is this really an instance of the "wise-fool" concept at all? I suggest here that despite all Obertino's attempts to elevate this issue into a parallel with Christian sacrifices and Christian "Divinely Wise-Foolishness," all we have here is a vehicle and mechanism for creating an appreciation in the readers of the fact that Celeborn is wise, Galadriel wiser, and Gandalf wisest. A hierarchy of "wisdoms" has been created by Tolkien through his use of the "Fall of Gandalf the Grey" and, of course this allows even a "hierarchy of Gandalf's" to be made when we finally are re-joined by the new and vastly improved, wiser than ever Gandalf the White.

As for the second statement Obertino alludes to in his attempt to demonstrate a Christian "wise-fool" aspect in Gandalf's Fall, I find it a very weak argument.

"Nevertheless, even Frodo, who was present during the deliberations that took the company into the
earth, seems tohave doubts about whether Gandalf's death was wise: 'In Khazaddum, his wisdom died' (466; original emphasis). Frodo's lament suggests that he may see his friend's death, a result of the descent into Moria, as foolish."(cf Obertino)

This statement by Frodo is taken out of context by Obertino. It comes in a lengthy song celebrating in good, pagan-funeral fashion the deeds of the departed hero, Gandalf the Grey. I will quote only the last two stanzas where it seems clear to me that Frodo is implying nothing at all concerning "foolishness" on the part of Gandalf for entering Moria, and in fact all of the Company save Boromir (who had a Gondoran agenda to fulfill) accept the inevitability of going into Moria once the High Pass has been found impassable (FotR pp. 385 - 388). In this conclave Frodo specifically endorses the wisdom of following the Wizard wherever he will lead.

So how are we to interpret Frodo's song? It makes more sense in its full context that Frodo (FotR pp 465-466) is merely "lamenting" the obvious fact that with the loss of Gandalf, they have lost his great wisdom, just as they have also lost his great laughter, and his sword Glamdring. Frodo is not at all saying that Gandalf's wisdom faltered in Moria and was turned into foolishness, as Obertino suggests. Read the full song context for yourselves!

A lord of wisdom throned he sat,
swift in anger, quick to laugh;
an old man in a battered hat
who leaned upon a thorny staff.

He stood upon the bridge alone
and Fire and Shadow both defied;
his staff was broken on the stone,
in Khazad-dum his wisdom died.

His wisdom died because he, the Wizard himself, presumably died -- not because his wisedom had turned to folly...

So in closing I think all the inferences Obertino makes from his speculative, linguistic associations regarding an elvish "mor," a greek "mor," a latin "mor," and a hebraic "mor" are highly suspect. His following attempts to engage a "Christian-leaning" "wise-fool" concept are not very satisfying in themselves as the issue of Gandalf's supposed "foolishness" is not the major point Obertino makes it, and it can be explained in others ways that are more consistent with what Tolkien has already done in his novel. Here I would suggest that Celeborn's statement is used as a minor literary mechanism for magnifying the real wisdom of Gandalf, and that Galadriel's simple countering statement ends that aspect of "wise-fool" debate quite effectively. Gandalf's sacrifice in Moria therefore has no "wise-foolish" Christian Sacrificial aspect to it -- in the sense that Obertino implies. And of course the last supporting bit of evidence Obertino used, Frodo's song, does not have the meaning he gives it.

What are we left with? In my opinion Obertino does brings some aspects of the "dying and rising god complex"(see Frazer's Golden Bough) of Sumerian Dumuzi; the Aztec Coatlicue; the Graeco-Parthian Mithras, Attis and Cybele; the Egyptian Osiris; the Cherokee Morningstar Warrior; and Jesus Christ into play. Unfortunately, from my point of view, Obertino fails to mention all these other traditions of divinities being sacrificed and ressurected for the salvific benefit of their peoples -- he concentrates only on the Christian example.

Obertino also brings up the valid discussion of the uses of "heroic sacrifice" in Tolkien, valid also if they are not too narrowly given a Christian interpretation to the exclusion of parallels with other relgions and other cultures where heroic, self-sacrifice for the common good occurs as a common feature of human behaviour.
Karo6

[MajahTR]

Karo, Whew! I worked almost as hard reading and "analysing" your 2 posts as you did writing them!

I am a Christian and I agree with your elaborate analysis of the death of Gandalf. Gandalf's death resulted in "saving" the rest of the Fellowship from that one catastrophe so they could continue the quest. His death bears no resemblence to sacrifice of Christ for the salvation of the soul for eternity. His "resurrection" also differs form that of Christ. I believe in another discussion thread it was mentioned the Gandalf assumed his human form "like clothes." Christians believe that Jesus (Christ) was fully human as well as divine. Tolkien would have been very aware of these beliefs and would not have considered Gandalf to resemble Christ in this matter.

Your analysis of the linguistic argument fscinated me, also. You have convinced me. Tolkien would have been true to the linguistic roots of the Elvish language (which he created) rather than referring to either Latin or Greek (which had no relationship to his Elvish language.) The essayist would have been more convincing if he could have related "mor" to meanings in Finnish or Welsh that suited his argument.

I really do enjoy your posts!
MusicMom

---

This is growing into a wonderful, and long discussion, and also a wonderfully long discussion! As far as striking Karo6's self-described dissertations from the record, I think not. From my experience, lengthy discussions on message boards tend towards rambling, but Karo6's writing is as pertinent as it is detailed. Even though I don't always hold the same opinion, I have found myself rebuffed on too many occasions to not respect Karo6. Now, enough of my rambling...<?
Tumnus

---

Tumnus writes: "Olorie is right; it does sound as if the writer (Paul) has a huge knowledge of non-Christians and their beliefs."
Sorry, Tumnus, it seems my tongue was jammed so firmly in my cheek as to make me unintelligible. The writer I was referring to was Obertino, not Paul, and I meant to imply that his experience was just the opposite of broad, based on the narrowness of his argument. And about Obertino's use of the passages from Corinthians -- you say Paul's remarks were intended solely for the members of a stagnant church. You may be right about Paul, but what about Obertino's audience? It is not so narrowly defined. He applies those passages generally, and so risks offending anyone outside of his belief system.
In your final point, you say that "terrorists do not understand freedom, but instead they hate those who do, for they desire the type of control that demons and slave owners have." I think it's more complicated than that. Instead, they don't understand freedom because they have never experienced it. They fear it, because they have never learned to govern their own impulses without relying on externally imposed discipline. They desire control-based systems in order to feel secure, but having a human spirit, chafe under the restrictions, and so hate those who have true freedom out of a dark, punitive envy. This, by the way, is true of social extremists of any faith or philosophy. It may also be true of Orcs. But it is not true of Sauron, nor Saruman, nor Denethor, who were the only inhabitants of Middle-earth to find our protagonists' choices truly to be 'radically foolish.'
Ol' Smoky -- er, Karo6 -- has well and thouroughly analyzed the many weaknesses of Obertino's argument, so I will just add the following linguistic note: In neither Quenya nor Sindarin does "mor-" have the meaning of 'foolishness,' 'folly,' or 'death.' From my Q and S dictionaries/wordlists:
Quenya -- morë BLACK (in compounds mori-, e.g. Moriquendi)
Sindarin -- môr n. darkness, dark, night
In Welsh, "mor" (mo+r [moroedd, m.](n.) sea, ocean) is the stem for a bucket of sea-related words. I could not find a Finnish translator that would make sense of "mor."
Karo6, thanks for another juicy disquisition. If you're not actively involved in academia, you may have missed your highest calling. The minute I see you posting 'yes,' 'no,' or 'maybe,' I'll not only be disappointed, I'll start to worry about you.
Thanks, MusicMom, for your clear statement of the differences between Gandalf's death and Jesus Christ's. It's easy enough to find a parallel, but as you point out, it's really a surface comparison.
Olórië

---

Karo6, you continually astound me! Keep writing! I will say this however, you are wrong on this one.

I am a mere hobbit in these elevated discussions, and must admit that your breadth of knowledge is beyond mine. There seems one possiblity that so far eludes the discussion, and unless MusicMom can produce a letter to this effect (or one stopping me in my tracks) we may never know if the following holds water.

Maybe, just maybe, Tolkien wrote the story of Moria (Gandalf's death) and on one of his rewrites noticed the entimology Obertino explaines and added Celeborn's comments as a private joke. Or maybe it wasn't even a joke (that does seem a little out of character), but rather a nod to the real world as we know it from history.

With Tolkien's breadth of knowledge of languages and their histories, I find it just a little too coincidental, although the name Moria is obviously Elvish in origin.
DCM

---

Sorry Olorie, I wasn't sure at times if you were talking about Paul or Obertino. It sounds as if we mostly agree here; especially in our gratitude for Karo6's insights. In the same way that I said Paul's 'wise-folly' theme is limited to a church he started, I think Obertino should have limited his wise-folly theme, rather than apply it to all Middle-Earth. As far as terrorists and their evil motivation; I think we're both a little right. I'm not entirely sure how people can be so evil, and then I consider that there are people even more evil than the terrorists. I find it hard to believe in the depths of evil in my safe world, but I do believe - although unwillingly.
Tumnus

---

a wise man with pointy ears once said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." gandalf did the best he could with the options available to him. it is as simple as that. you can throw a religious spin on it; but it comes down to destroy the ring or die trying. tolkien doesn't seem to worry about making everything perfect he wanted to use his elven language somehow. people liked it. and a genre was born. if someone pointed out that something didn't work he usually tacked on something to fix it later. if tom bombadil could do what ever he wanted with the ring, why didn't gandalf have him destroy the ring? gandalf knew he was the only one who had a chance on the bridge that day. and that and the hobbits needed to be protected so he did what he had to.
stevethefriendlybalrog

---

Fascinating...to quote that pointy eared fellow once again. The imagery is deep enough. And yet, all this talk of Gandalf's death...did he ever really die? To be sure, when he fell he must have believed he was going to perish, but the novel is unclear on the point. Oh, I admit, everyone thinks him dead, and why not? Falling into a bottomless pit in combat with a monster bad enough to give one nightmares...a Hell walking on cloven hooves. He returns, but not truly from death. He returns cleansed of doubt; the Gandalf before his fall is full of worry and malaise; the one who returns is remarkably free of this. He still accepts the possibility that the quest may fail, but he no longer agonizes over it; he does what Frodo does...he procedes to do what must be done. At any rate, since the Biblical note has been raised, I would point out one other issue. Tis Gandalf who demands the attempt on Caradhras, insists upon it...he knows his doom (or at least, probable doom) awaits him in Moria. In the Garden, Christ prays that the cup be passed if possible...he is not anxious to undergo what he knows he must. Nor is Gandalf; he tries to avoid it...but in the end, he shoulders his burden and enters the dark, ready, if not exactly thrilled, to meet what he knows awaits him.
Endirion

---

I love your anolgay of gandalfs death but it has nothing to do with real life. Tolkiens real life experiance might have been founded in ww1 but they where strickly a matter of his mind more the beauty of it all. I started reading Tolkien after C. S. lewis in the 4th grade and have been a reader ever sinse. Dont get me wrong I love Tolkien he changed my life,but it has nothing to do with modern theolagay I would love to hear from again Please excuse the spelling
Minotar
ps pardon the spelling I am kinda well To many beers

[MajahTR]

Curious. I have been ruminating over the meaning of Gandalf's death since my 7th viewing of the movie. The movie paints a slightly different Gandalf than the books, of course. I'm thinking of Tolkien's writings.

Consider this: if Gandalf had not fallen in Moria, Frodo would never have set out on his own. Frodo would never have quit Gandalf! Also, quite possibly, Boromir would never have gotten out of hand, Aragorn would never have pledged to return to Minis Tirith, the orcs would never have succeeded in capturing Merry and Pippin, who would never have met Treebeard, who would never have led the assault on Orthanc. Aragorn would never have been in place to organize the armies of Rohan and Gondor into one giant distraction. And the company might not have found any inconspicuous way into Mordor as Frodo and Sam alone were able to do.

If there is any overriding theme in Tolkien's work, it seems to be that of fate: a concious intelligent fate moving events. The pieces have been fit very carefully together, and very little happened that was not crucial to the final success of the quest.

Just as Gandalf himself wished to spare his charges from their fate but could not; so the higher will could not spare Gandalf from his fate.

My interpretation is that Gandalf had to disappear at that point, according to the higher plan.
eowyn

---

Stirring the dust here to add a pertinent passage from the Letters of JRRT, edited by Humphrey Carpenter.

Apparently, as long ago and faraway as it seems now, another attempt to equate the Biblical place name Moriah with the Middle-earth place name Moria was made and provoked the following counter from Tolkien:

Letter # 297, p. 383, August 1967

"As for the land of Moriah (note stress over the 'i'): that has no connexion (even 'externally') whatsoever. Internally there is no conceivable connexion between the mining of the Dwarves, and the story of Abraham. I utterly repudiate any such significance and symbolisms. My mind does not work that way; and (in my view) you are led astray by a purely fortuitous similarity, more obvious in spelling than speech, which cannot be justified from the real intended significance of my story."
Karo6

---

I'm a Christian, a church leader, so I think that I have a little (very little) knowledge and experience of the Christian faith. After forty years of looking, I can find almost nothing in Tolkien's stories that speaks to me directly of Christianity. I believe that Tolkien tried hard to put aside his faith when creating his imaginary world

I don't see any simillarity between the deaths of Christ and Gandalf. One reason out of many is that I don't see Gandalf's death as an act of self-sacrifice at all.

When Gandalf faced the Balrog, his intention was to fight, not to die.

Gandalf was certainly willing to risk his life to save his friends and their mission. He was fully aware of the risks and knew that his death was the most likely outcome, but not the only possible outcome. His plan was to make the Balrog hesitate on the bridge and then to buy time for an escape. The first he achieved by making bold claims to power and the second by breaking the bridge and casting his enemy into the void, knowing that the balrog would need time to recover and giving the Fellowship time to get out of Moria. The risks were firstly, that the Balrog wouldn't stop but consume the Wizard before he could do anything and secondly, that the entire bridge would collapse, taking them both. The plan succeeded, leaving Gandalf standing on the broken bridge and the Balrog falling. I don't think that what happened next was part of Gandalf's risk assessment.

Gandalf didn't "give up his life for his friends". He fought for the lives of his friends, and his own.

Sacrifices don't fight back.
Selmo

---

I was rereading some of the replies to the Gandalf question. To add to your "fate" carefully orchestrating events (in message #17), if Gandalf hadn't fallen and killed the Balrog, it might have given chase beyond Moria. The consequences of that might have been significant for both sides---Good and Evil!
DA

---

Selmo wrote:
I don't think that what happened next was part of Gandalf's risk assessment.

Gandalf didn't "give up his life for his friends". He fought for the lives of his friends, and his own.

Sacrifices don't fight back.

Very well put. Definitely must agree with these points and others that you raised in your reply.
Call me dense, but, I, too, see very little "Christianity" in LotR. (I was raised a Catholic, went to 13 years of Catholic school, read FotR for a Catholic HS Lit class.) I believe it has far more "universal" meanings.
But, in his Letters, Tolkien does say, in #142, that LotR is "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." He goes on to say that at first it was unconsciously, but then consciously during the revision. So, whether we see it that way or not, he meant it to be.
DA

---

I don't view Tolkien's works as being "religious" as in propounding a particular faith. I do, however, believe that he wrote books that tackled profound themes of morality. For that reason, they have religious undertones. He had no intention of betraying his Catholic faith, so the morality expressed in his works would be consistent with Catholicism. I also attend 12 years of Catholic school.
Karen

---

There continue to be a lot of enlightening thoughts on this topic. I'm currently rereading LOTR, and just stumbled across another passage pertinent to the wise-folly issue. Since I'm a fast typer, I'll post it in its entirety for everyone. However, I think that I Cor. 1:18-2:5 (about the misunderstanding of God's message of the cross) and I Cor. 2:6-16) are also very pertinent, but I'll allow you to look them up.Here goes:

Two Towers - The White Rider

'I am no longer young even in the reckoning of Men of the Ancient Houses,' said Aragorn. 'Will you not open your mind more clearly to me?'

'What then shall I say?' said Gandalf, and paused for a while in thought. 'This in brief is how I see things at the moment, if you wish to have a piece of my mind as plain as possible. The Enemy, of course, has long known that the Ring is abroad, and that it is borne by a hobbit. He knows now the number of our Company that set out from Rivendell, and the kind of each of us. But he does not yet perceive our purpose clearly. He supposes that we were all going to Minas Tirith; for that is what he would himself have done in our place. And according to his wisdom it would have been a heavy stroke against his power. Indeed he is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream. In which no doubt you will see our good fortune and our hope. For imagining war he has let loose war, believing that he has no time to waste; for he that strikes the first blow, if he strikes it hard enough, may need to strike no more. So the forces that he has long been preparing he is now setting in motion, sooner than he intended. Wise fool. For if he had used all his power to guard Mordor, so that none could enter, and bent all his guile to the hunting of the Ring, then indeed hope would have faded: neither Ring nor bearer could long have eluded him. But now his eye gazes abroad rather than near at home; and mostly he looks towards Minas Tirith. Very soon now his strength will fall upon it like a storm.'

More than any other character, it is Gandalf that expresses the mind and philosophy of Tolkien. For Gandalf, a Maia, understands the will of Illuvator (creator of Middle Earth) better than the common Middle Earthling. But in reality, Tolkien is the creator of Middle Earth - and so Gandalf speaks for Tolkien.

In a similar way, Paul speaks of those who understand the will of God because the Holy Spirit has given them understanding (II Cor. 2:10). The above passage sounds very Paullian to me as I read it. I mean that it sounds Paullian mostly in its philosophy, but also somewhat in its rhetoric. The philosophy is clear, but what struck me in regards to the rhetoric was Gandalf's first sentence - 'What then shall I say?' Paul is famous for rhetorical questions like that. I'm not saying that Tolkien purposefully used the Paullian letters to form this speech by Gandalf, but I think that he probably was so familiar with Paul's letters and philosophy that the speech naturally came out the way it did. But like DaleAnn has said, Tolkien's Christian messages are more universal, not necessarily explicit. For me this means that Gandalf's death is not an allegory of the cross, but is nevertheless a central theme to the book, as well as to the Bible in that he chooses a path that will likely lead to his demise.

A lot has been said about Gandalf, but this passage also points out how the Ringbearer will foil Sauron. In both The Hobbit & LOTR, Tolkien's hobbits consistently surprise the Wise, including Gandalf. And how do they do this? They do it because they are a simple people that love simple things, like gardens and birthday parties. Here's another quote, this time regarding hobbits:

The Two Towers - The White Rider

'Poor Boromir! I could not see what happened to him. It was a sore trial for such a man: a warrior, and a lord of men. Galadriel told me that he was in peril. But he escaped in the end. I am glad. It was not in vain that the young hobbits came with us, if only for Boromir's sake...

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I've wavered a bit in my opinions about this topic; so don't be surprised if you find me contradicting myself! Hopefully, I haven't done that too many times!
Tumnus

---

I want to expand on hobbits a little bit. It seems to me that they defeat the Wise because their simplicity is found in the way they prioritize love. And I think that Tolkien implicitly is saying that the will of Illuvator is found in beings like hobbits. Hence the Wise, who are concerned about the management of power, find themselves surprised by hobbits.

A few examples:
1) Bilbo doesn't understand all the commotion about treasure that leads to the Battle of Five Armies.
2) Frodo twice decides to take up the burden of the Ring, and lose all that he holds dear in order to save the Shire for others. Upon making these decisions, he first surprises Gandalf, and then surprises Elrond.
3) Merry's simple mind comes close to solving the simple riddle on Moria's door, and therefore makes Gandalf laugh.

There are more examples of course. Yeah I'm putting a religious spin on this, but I think that the beatitudes (blessed are the meek, poor in spirit, etc.) is the most central theme of all in The Hobbit & LOTR, and this theme is linked to the Wise-Folly theme.
Tumnus

Although I am Catholic, I have never, before, thought that there were any connections between the deaths of Christ and Gandalf. Tolkien clearly expressed that no LOTR events should have some deeper meaning, correlating with society at the time he wrote the books. If I'm not very much mistaken, Gandalf fought the Balrog to the peak of Zirak-Zigil, killed it, and died just then. it's been long since I've read this, but i believe that he was in a type of trance and did not actually die. You could say that Christ was also in a type of "trance" if you will before he rose again. However parllel the two events seem - and not just in death - i have always thought that Gandalf's "trance"is the period of change before becoming 'White', like a metamorphosis into some greater power. This change was needed for Gandalf to overcome Saruman. Personally, I don't think that Tolkien intended to have any relation between Gandalf and Christ...but that's just me.
ArwenLiz

---

I am raised as a Catholic, but no practitioner. I have never looked for religious thoughts in Tolkiens work, nor in other novels.
Regarding Gandalf, I am not sure if he really dies. I agree with Enidrion on that point, that the book is not so clear on that. Tolkien wanted the readers to believe he was dead, like the Fellowship believed. I still remember being shocked, and even angry, when Gandalf fell. Also, I think that Selmo is right about the fact that Gandalf didn't mean to sacrifice his life there, but he was indeed willing to give his life. One of the most important themes in Tolkien's works is friendship and love, and it is from there that the loyalty and honour of the characters comes forth (partially, of course they have it in them already). He just does what he has to do, for the company and for the higher good (the destruction of the Ring).
Lara

---

Interesting observation about Frodo doting on Gandalf. Of course they're all affected by Gandalf's 'death,' but it's while sailing on the Anduin that Frodo's....what, depression starts. Emotionally, it's all downhill from there. And he goes through that whole ordeal without knowing that Gandalf is alive.

If you want, take a look at a new discussion: 'Pairs: Frodo / Gandalf.' You might find it relevant. (Maj note * I will check this thread for relevance and maybe post it to this study)
Diana