Magic & Magicians

[Androthelm]

@Chrysophylax Dives continuing from our talk in the read-through thread, one of the things which struck me the most in "On Fairy-Stories" was Tolkien's claim of Magic's almost scientific nature -- it being a chemical, physical illusion as opposed to the mental, imaginative illusion of subcreation. This feels like it has direct relevance to LoTR as well -- despite the fact that Sauron is called the necromancer, we hardly ever see him "casting spells" -- even on the small scale of Gandalf lighting fires or the tip of his staff. The Enemy's industrial nature feels related to this gap between Magicians and Elves which "On Fairy-Stories" raises.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hi @Androthelm,

I've been thinking about this the last day or two. If possible, could you provide some quotes to illustrate? I ask because I think my reading of 'On Fairy-stories' (OFS) is not quite as you put it. I would distinguish between two strands of Tolkien's thought. On the one hand, he is heir to a longstanding Oxford tradition of anti-industrialism (which goes back to John Ruskin and, subsequently, the Arts & Crafts movement associated with William Morris). I think this on its own accounts for the images of Mordor and the despoilation of the Shire. Certainly, Tolkien being Tolkien, he will have integrated this anti-industrial tradition into a greater system, but I think it is basically distinct from the 'magic=science' theme found in OFS.

As a way in to this latter theme, I suggest the following as the single most important sentence of OFS:

Small wonder that spell means both a story told, and a formula of power over living men.

At the heart of OFS is a distinction between enchantment and magic that turns on free-will. The enchanter - elvish or mortal - is an artist. Art, as Tolkien understands it, is essentially a voluntary communication between artist and audience via the mediating artwork - which might be, say, a picture, but in Tolkien's case are the words of a story. Magic is essentially an evil imitation of art, the distinguishing feature of which is that the spell laid upon us is not voluntary. Both magician and enchanter cast a spell upon others, but the first does so to achieve power over others and the second invites us to become enchanted.

This basic difference of free will (or lack thereof) readily translates into a distinction between science and art. Where art takes freedom of choice as fundamental, science understands humans as objects whose behaviour is determined by factors that may be manipulated.

It is important to bear in mind when reading OFS that Tolkien is seeking a theory of 'fantasy' that applies to his own art as much as to (e.g.) that of the Lady Galadriel. So his magic/enchantment distinction applies to our world as much as to Middle-earth. Advertising and propaganda are 'scientific' imitations of art, seeking to cast a spell upon us the nature of which we are barely aware of. Advertising, marketing, and political propaganda are, for Tolkien, like art, in that they are a form of 'magic' that fills our minds with illusions, but they are not art (but an imitation only) because they treat human beings as objects to be manipulated.

I think its worth bearing in mind that OFS was composed in two stages, the lecture of 1939 and the composition of 1943, which not only bracket composition of the story between Moria and Isengard but also have the context of the shadow of WWII. My own belief is that in Saruman and Wormtongue we see Tolkien's reflections on 'Appeasement,' the counsel of peace in Britain in the face of Nazi aggression, which is to say that I think Tolkien saw his fellow countrymen, or at least the politicians of 1938, as acting under the influence of an evil magical spell.

[Androthelm]

Sure @Chrysophylax Dives -- I'm looking back through my copy for some quotes now. Full disclosure I'm typing this directly into the quick reply box as I read, so apologies if there are any typos.

I think we're basically in agreement on the points made by OFS about Magic and science. Still, to reiterate: on page 10 of my edition (the 1988 Tree & Leaf) he introduces his definition of a fairy-story. He says:

a 'fairy-story' is one which touches on or uses Faërie, whatever its own main purpose may be: satire, adventure, morality, fantasy. Faërie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic -- but it is a magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician.

.

Later, he expands on the role of the magician, again in contrast to what he's discussing:

We need a word for this elvish craft, but all the words that have been applied to it have been blurred and confused with other things. Magic is ready to hand, and I have used it above (p. 10), but I should not have done so: Magic should be reserved for the operations of the Magician. Art is the human process that produces by the way (it is not its only or ultimate object) Secondary Belief. Art of the same sort, if more skilled and effortless, the elves can also use, or so the reports seem to show; but the more potent and specially elvish craft I will, for lack of a less debatable word, call Enchantment. Enchantment produces a Secondary World into which both designer and spectator can enter, to the satisfaction of their senses while they are inside; but in its purity it is artistic in desire and purpose. Magic produces, or pretends to produce, an alteration in the Primary World. It does not matter by whom it is said to be practised, fay or mortal, it remains distinct from the other two; it is not an art but a technique its desire is power in this world, domination of things and wills.
To the elvish craft, Enchantment, Fantasy aspires, and when it is successful of all forms of human art most nearly approaches. At the heart of many man-made stories of the elves lies, open or concealed, pure or alloyed, the desire for a living, realized sub-creative art, which (however much it may outwardly resemble it) is inwardly wholly different from the greed for self-centred power which is the mark of the mere Magician.

.
In both cases, bolded emphasis mine. Italics original.

While I'd agree that both strands of thought (let's call them anti-Industrial and ant-Magical, if we understand Magic to be limited, as he says it is, to the production or pretending to produce an alteration in the primary world) are present, I think they are closer linked than you're giving them credit for, if only because Industrialists in Tolkien's world tend also to be Magicians. I don't have my copy of either LoTR or The Silmarillion close at hand, but I think we can fairly easily see the anti-Industrial viewpoint in Tolkien's descriptions of the domains of Saruman, Sauron, and Morgoth -- but also the anti-Magical viewpoint in conversations between Gandalf and Saruman (who seeks domination over the world), Gandalf and Denethor (who has been tricked, by Sauron's "magic," into losing hope), and... Aule's creation of the Dwarves (which is "true" artistic creation, albeit modified for the parameters of the story, differing from Morgoth's "creations" by virtue of Morgoth's "greed for self-centred power.")

I do think the reference to "casting spells" in my original post was misguided, though -- that has very little to do with this. I'm also fully in agreement with your points about advertising -- there's obviously a lot more resonance with the points Tolkien is making in the real-world, I'm just also interested in their apparent links in his fiction.

EDIT: Oh my! I got so caught up in my own points I forgot to respond to the second half of your post. The point on Appeasement, especially, are interesting... I wonder, though, how that links with what you're saying about voluntary or involuntary engagement with art? I see the applicability of the "spell" concept, but not the willfullness. Still, I think I agree with you, but I'm a little confused.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Androthelm

Magic produces, or pretends to produce, an alteration in the Primary World.

Yes, that does not fit what I was arguing, which was that 'magic' is a form of involuntary mind control. And perhaps that is why Saruman's voice is described as an 'enchantment' - which is a very odd choice of words given the definition of enchantment in OFS. I need to think on this a bit more.

I also think now, in light of what you write, that you are correct on the link between magic and industry - both are all about (self-interested) power.

But I do think that the idea of enchantment set out in OFS illuminates the heart of LOTR, at least as the story was imagined after 1939 (after Bombadil). The 'magic' of the story is all about mind control, of one kind or another, with seeing the mind of another the first step to control (e.g. Sauron needs the Ring to penetrate the mind of Galadriel). I introduced the real world instances of adverts and political propaganda to point to what I think is going on in the Rohan and Isengard parts of the story we have been reading. My point being that, while the power of Bombadil's voice is certainly 'magical,' that of Saruman (as @Boromir88 indicated in his recent post) is not as obviously magical as one might at first think, and Wormtongue is certainly not a wizard; yet Wormtongue had ensnared Theoden in his net of soft words and lies while the king of Rohan is able to overcome the power of Saruman's voice. The way that I read this is that Tolkien believes that all speaking beings have the power to work magic with their words and that between the wizard Saruman and the counselor Wormtongue is a difference of degree rather than kind. As in the quote you give above, the mortal storyteller (e.g. Tolkien) aspires to the enchantment of the elves, so the story seems to tell us that the mortal necromancer, Wormtongue, aspires to the (evil) enchantment of Saruman - and in both cases there is a real mortal magic at work here.

[Androthelm]

I would agree -- and think there's room for involuntary mind control as a kind of magic, if not all magic as a form of involuntary mind control. After all if the alteration which one produces in the Primary World is an alteration to another's state of mind, isn't that all the same?

I also like your addition to the "aspirations" framework. It does a good job of explaining Wormtongue's role in the strange hierarchy of evil whisperers (Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, Wormtongue) as the only mortal present.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

I give you another quotation, which i think addresses your title: magic & magicians.

Faërie cannot be caught in a net of words; for it is one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not imperceptible.

I cannot properly explain to you (or myself) the meaning of these words. This sentence is penned by a man in his study in Oxford in the summer of 1943, eighteen months or so after taking the Company from Moria into Lorien. It is very difficult (for you or me) to think what this sentence means because we have not just behind us the greatest attempt to describe Faërie that this man knows he can hope to make in his lifetime. Frodo, Sam, the Lady & the Mirror is Tolkien's masterpiece, and in this sentence we have JRRT's distilled reflection on what he drew in the elvish Mirror. Here is a magician showing us the magic - only, its very hard for us to fathom such deep knowledge.

[Boromir88]

I haven't read "On Fairy Stories," so I'm not sure how much I can add to this illuminating topic. I was trying to save some of my comments from the book reading these last few chapters with Saruman gave me a lot of ideas.

To expand a bit on @Chrysophylax Dives comment: The way that I read this is that Tolkien believes that all speaking beings have the power to work magic with their words and that between the wizard Saruman and the counselor Wormtongue is a difference of degree rather than kind.

Yes, the magic of words is I think a good way of describing it. Wormtongue's poisoned counsels has an effect on Theoden. When it's realized he has ridden from Edoras to join the battle, there is a morale boost. Gandalf says "Too long have you sat in the shadows and trusted to twisted tales and crooked promptings." (The King of the Golden Hall).

Grima's poisoned words did have an effect on giving the appearance Theoden was feeble and aged before his time. Now he doesn't become Benjamin Button like the movies portray, he's still an old King who seems to know his time is coming to an end, but he is "refreshed" to a certain extent. It's interesting that there's a similar effect on Denethor. The strain of using the palantir, and the deceits of Sauron, caused Denethor to look older than he actually was.

I agree that there is a power of words and words spoken by story tellers. "Twisted tales and crooked promptings." Take "oaths" and "sworn words" for example as well.

'Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,' said Gimli.
"Or break it,' said Elrond... (The Ring Goes South)

I always loved that exchange between Gimli and Elrond. Elrond would know full well the powers of "sworn words" and the consequences of breaking an oath.

The Men of Dunharrow's oath to Isildur. They broke their oath and now cannot rest until Isildur, or a rightful heir, holds it fulfilled.
'Then Isildur said to their king: "Thou shalt be the last king. And if the West prove mightier than thy Black Master, this cure I lay upon thee and thy folk: to rest never until your oath is fulfilled. For this war will last through the years uncounted, and you shall be summoned once again ere the end." (The Passing of the Grey Company)

Like Grima, Isildur is not a magician. So, I've read this exchange when Isildur "curses" them, it's not he's a "magician" casting a spell. He's more acting as a messenger. Maybe as the aggrieved party, the Men broke their oath to him, Isildur also become the "judge" and passes the "sentence." But the power is in the words, and the consequences in breaking the sworn word.

That's why I've always argued Aragorn was wrong when he first rides to Edoras. He tries to put his authority over Theoden's, as the heir to the throne of Gondor. If there was a King restored in Gondor, Aragorn's making the argument that we enter into some political turmoil. The Steward Cirion granted Rohan to Eorl. So, since Cirion was not a King, would a King of Gondor be able to undo Cirion's gift? Aragorn to an extent tries to make that argument when he says he didn't understand why Theoden's will should triumph of the King of Gondor's. I've always argued Aragorn was wrong, because yes Rohan was a "gift" to Eorl for riding to Gondor's aid, but it was made (or sealed) in an oath, a sworn word. It wasn't some law written on paper that can be unwritten. They rode to Elendil's tomb (a "holy place") and swore an oath before Iluvatar:

Hear now all the peoples who bow not to the Shadow in the East, by the gift of the Lord of the Mundburg we will come to dwell in the land that he names Calenardhon, and therefore I vow in my own name and on behalf of the Eotheod of the North that between us and the Great People of the West there shall be friendship for ever: their enemies shall be our enemies, their need shall be our need, and whatsoever evil, or threat, or assault may come upon them we will aid them to the utmost end of our strength. This vow shall descend to my heirs, all such as may come after me in our new land, and let them keep it in faith unbroken, lest the Shadow fall upon them and they become accursed. (Unfinished Tales: Cirion and Eorl)

Then Cirion answered:

This oath shall stand in memory of the glory of the Land of the Star, and of the faith of Elendil the Faithful, in the keeping of those who sit upon the thrones of the West and of the One who is above all thrones for ever.

Such an oath had not been heard in Middle-earth since Elendil himself had sworn alliance with Gil-galad King of the Eldar. (Unfinished Tales: Cirion and Eorl)

As long as Rohan continued to fulfill their part of the oath, Aragorn would have been in a lot of trouble if he tried to take back Calenardhon to rule it.

[Androthelm]

@Boromir88 your thoughts are always welcome, especially since you raise some significant points. The importance of oaths -- particularly oaths on the powers and the one -- seem to have a power of their own. Fëanor's oath, after all, was "An oath which none shall break, and non should take, by the name even of Illúvatar, calling the Everlasting Dark upon them if they kept it not; and Manwë they named in witness, and Varda, and the hallowed mountain of Taniquetil"

I would note that your quote from Cirion seems to echo this -- the oath shall stand "in the keeping of those who sit upon the thrones of the West and of the One who is above all thrones for ever" I.e. is witnessed by the Valar and by Eru. There's certainly power in that sort of oath.

@Chrysophylax Dives Faërie being quintessentially represented in Lorien is right, I think. I wrote a little bit (somewhat mindlessly) about that when the read-through was passing through there, on Tolkien's use of "perilous" to describe Galadriel.

On a note related to our earlier conversation, I found some relevant material in the Preface to the Second Edition of The Silmarillion, I.e. Letter no. 131. On page xvi of my copy he notes that "this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine." and then goes on later to refer to "the Machine (or Magic) ... [by this] I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of developments of the inherent inner powers or talents--or even the use of these talents with the corruptive motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills. The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised."

He spends some time lamenting his inconsistent use of the word "Magic" (calling, as we have, on that conversation between Galadriel and Sam) but then defines elf-magic clearly again "Its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation."

This is in line with what we were saying before.

On the machine note, though, I think this supports both of our comments from earlier. The "Magic" of the enemy is both the industrial machine which dominates the earth and the cunning word which dominates the unwilling mind.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Responding to @Boromir88,

Fëanor's oath, after all, was "An oath which none shall break, and none should take, by the name even of Illúvatar, calling the Everlasting Dark upon them if they kept it not; and Manwë they named in witness, and Varda, and the hallowed mountain of Taniquetil"

There is an early article (I think in Tolkien Studies) that charts a long biographical arc in the Silmarillion versions and LOTR in relation to the lie, which in early stories may be told by a good heart to an evil power, but after LOTR can no more be uttered by a good person (without dire consequences). Ted Sandyman and Grima Wormtongue and Saruman are stepping stones in Tolkien working through a new orientation or moral compass, in which the oath is a ground of all our utterances: these mini-necromancers do not lie, not exactly, their honey words ring true (glitter without true gold). Behind this newly fashioned vision of true words that sound dull and false words that glitter is an idea, stewing away in the cauldron of Tolkien's mind as he composes The Lord of the Rings, of the One Ring as the very model of (founded on, but the archetype of) a lie; the One Ring = The Lie.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Chrysophylax Dives Faërie being quintessentially represented in Lorien is right, I think. I wrote a little bit (somewhat mindlessly) about that when the read-through was passing through there, on Tolkien's use of "perilous" to describe Galadriel.

On a note related to our earlier conversation, I found some relevant material in the Preface to the Second Edition of The Silmarillion, I.e. Letter no. 131. On page xvi of my copy he notes that "this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine." and then goes on later to refer to "the Machine (or Magic) ... [by this] I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of developments of the inherent inner powers or talents--or even the use of these talents with the corruptive motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills. The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised."

He spends some time lamenting his inconsistent use of the word "Magic" (calling, as we have, on that conversation between Galadriel and Sam) but then defines elf-magic clearly again "Its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation."

This is in line with what we were saying before.

On the machine note, though, I think this supports both of our comments from earlier. The "Magic" of the enemy is both the industrial machine which dominates the earth and the cunning word which dominates the unwilling mind.

I am still looking through the old thread to find your post on the perilous Lady, Androthelm. On your letter 131 - yes, i think the point now well established about magic and art: enchantment is the very moral opposite of magic and - as both art and craft - is solely occupied with the imagination of artist and audience; while magic encompasses science and industry and aims at physical change in the world of things and people.

So how, I ask, can we square what we learn in OFS and in this letter (which seems to continue just this train of thought in the essay) with the One Ring?

[Chrysophylax Dives]

I suppose the domination of the minds of others that Sauron seeks is for him but an end to a properly governed world (where everyone does what he* thinks is best), while the art of the elves (whose craft mortal artists aspire to) is content to play with your imagination to expand your understanding of the world and yourself (yet this play of imagination is not without peril: the Lady gives dangerous knowledge when she looks into your eye and sees the heart of you). The fairy story is a mirror.

Edit: *he: Sauron.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Androthelm, i have been delving into earlier read-along posts i had not read (as you will see). all my pottering and meandering through these (most interesting) comments has helped me frame what i think is a helpful image to have in mind when reading 'On Fairy-stories.'

Remember, i keep coming back to chronology. But that is just a way of impressing two imaginative elements that seem to be worth analyzing together. What the biography gives us here is a man who had told one story in the first book of 'Fellowship,' adjusted in the second, entered a third through the Gates of Moria, drawn the heart of the matter in Lorien, and then told the tale of Rohan, Saruman, and the Ents. With the conclusion of this tale - the victory of the king of Rohan in his interview with Saruman - a Seeing Stone is hurled into the mix, and the story concludes with Pippin's finding the face of Sauron looking out at him from a most terrifyingly magical crystal ball.

When reading OFS I think we should always have to mind, or close to mind, an image of our author with a pen in one hand and this round globe of dark crystal on his desk in front of him. With the Palantir Tolkien has made the fantasy that he wants and needs out of the metaphor of the Tower that looks on the sea and the 'seeing stones' out of which it is made. The man who has just resolved the literary riddle he had set himself now prepares to give us a tour of Fairy; but all through this tour the crystal ball in his study is invisible to us, if not to him. This is the report of the man who had just cracked The Lord of the Rings, and had the Stone in his hand to prove it!

Edit: Another way of putting this is that it seems very easy to read 'On Fairy-stories' like a duck in water - and emerge without even having got wet! New soul: @Mathom House. You are only starting to read this very, very strange essay when you first have a glimmer at how odd it is; J.R.R. Tolkien is not saying what you (and i) so readily think he is saying. One should, to lay down an exegetical dogma, take the words of the essay seriously.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

And how it draws one to itself! Have I not felt it? Even now my heart desires to test my will upon it, to see if I could not wrench it from him and turn it where I would – to look across the wide seas of water and of time to Tirion the Fair, and perceive the unimaginable hand and mind of Fëanor at their work, while both the White Tree and the Golden were in flower!’ He sighed and fell silent.

[Boromir88]

@Chrysophylax Dives: these mini-necromancers do not lie, not exactly, their honey words ring true (glitter without true gold). Behind this newly fashioned vision of true words that sound dull and false words that glitter is an idea, stewing away in the cauldron of Tolkien's mind as he composes The Lord of the Rings, of the One Ring as the very model of (founded on, but the archetype of) a lie; the One Ring = The Lie.

Ooh, nice point about "the lie" and how Evil doesn't lie, per se, but misleads and deceives. I think about the palantir here and as seeing objects no matter how powerful a user is they cannot manipulate the palantir to lie/show false images. Sauron misleads Denethor and Saruman by revealing certain images he wants them to see, but they are not "lies".

And good characters can bring bad news but facing the truth is often hard. Gandalf is often accused of being a harbinger of bad news, in Rohan he's named Lathspell and Stormcrow by Grima and Theoden:

"Here you come again! And with you come evils worse than before, as might be expected. Why should I welcome you, Gandalf Stormcrow?" (Theoden)

"Why indeed should we welcome you, Master Stormcrow? Lathspell I name you, Ill-news; and ill news is an ill guest they say." (Grima) - The King of the Golden Hall

I think there's a theme that hearing news that you want to hear is the the quicker and easier path than hearing the truth. Evil is the path of half-truths (not the giving the full picture) and honeyed words. Look how Saruman attempts to work his Voice on Theoden and company:

'But my lord of Rohan, am I to be called a murderer, because valiant men have fallen in battle? If you go to war, needlessly, for I did not desire it, then men will be slain. But if I am a murderer on that account, than the House of Eorl is stained with murder; for they have fought many wars, and assailed many who defied them. Yet with some they have afterwards made peace, none the worse for being politic. I say, Theoden King: shall we have peace and friendship, you and I? It is ours to command.' (The Voice of Saruman)

Saruman tries to turn the deaths in a war on Theoden and blame him because it was Theoden who rode to war. I won't quote Theoden's response in full, because as he states even if this was a justified war (which it wasn't) Saruman would still have to answer for war crimes and murders that were not in the field of battle:

"...-even so, what will you say of your torches in Westfold and the children that lie dead there? And they hewed Hama's body before the gates of the Hornburg, after he was dead." (The Voice of Saruman)

Theoden speaking the truth is contrasted with Saruman's Voice, which if I may, I think "the Voice of Saruman" is like the One Ring (the Lie), albeit to a lesser degree of power:

The Riders gazed up at Theoden like men startled out of a dream. Harsh as an old raven's their master's voice sounded in their ears after the music of Saruman. (The Voice of Saruman)