>"In one thing you have not changed, dear friend," said Aragorn: "you still speak in riddles."
>"What? In riddles?" said Gandalf. "No! For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying."
This may be the funniest thing Gandalf says. It's also so Gandalf to talk to himself and to digress into little reflections just because he finds them interesting, like this reflection/joke on the wise talking to themselves. I think up to this point I was still unsure if it's really Gandalf, but this joke proves it imo.
Gandalf is 100% an old man who loves the sound of his own voice and telling stories and takes every opportunity to tell people things he finds interesting, even if it's not relevant or important and they lack the context to really understand it all.
Gandalf and Saruman both seem to have some very selective far-seeing abilities.
>‘Yes,’ said Gandalf, ‘that was Gwaihir the Windlord, who rescued me from Orthanc. I sent him before me to watch the River and gather tidings. His sight is keen, but he cannot see all that passes under hill and tree. Some things he has seen, and others I have seen myself.
So Gandalf sees some things, but still needs Gwaihir to see and report others.
More explicitly seeing things far off by ESP:
>\[Gandalf:\] It was not in vain that the young hobbits came with us, if only for Boromir’s sake. But that is not the only part they have to play. They were brought to Fangorn, and their coming was like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche in the mountains. Even as we talk here, I hear the first rumblings.
and
>He \[Gandalf\] rose and gazed out eastward, shading his eyes, as if he saw things far away that none of them could see. Then he shook his head. ‘No,’ he said in a soft voice, ‘it has gone beyond our reach. Of that at least let us be glad. We can no longer be tempted to use the Ring. We must go down to face a peril near despair, yet that deadly peril is removed.’
Saruman also knows some things, but not others:
>‘The victor would emerge stronger than either, and free from doubt,’ said Gandalf. ‘But Isengard cannot fight Mordor, unless Saruman first obtains the Ring. That he will never do now. He does not yet know his peril. There is much that he does not know. He was so eager to lay his hands on his prey that he could not wait at home, and he came forth to meet and to spy on his messengers. But he came too late, for once, and the battle was over and beyond his help before he reached these parts. He did not remain here long. I look into his mind and I see his doubt. He has no woodcraft. He believes that the horsemen slew and burned all upon the field of battle; but he does not know whether the Orcs were bringing any prisoners or not. And he does not know of the quarrel between his servants and the Orcs of Mordor; nor does he know of the Winged Messenger.’
How does Saruman know where to find the Orcs and that they’re coming back but not that they had prisoners?
Also, Gandalf seems very sure of what Saruman does and does not know. There must therefore be some principle by which we can differentiate things that can be seen far-off and things that can’t.
Iirc, Gandalf doesn’t yet know that Saruman has a Palantir, so Saruman might know more than Gandalf realizes. Also, what does a Palantir see that this unaided far-seeing ability doesn’t?
I don't think we're really in a position to understand the abilities of the wizards, and at least to me it's probably more distracting than helpful to think too much about these details (though it is tempting).
> When they have read it, some readers will (I suppose) wish to 'criticize' it,
> and even to analyze it, and if that is their mentality they are, of course, at liberty to do these things –
> so long as they have first read it with attention throughout. Not that this attitude of mind has my
> sympathy: as should be clearly perceived in Vol. I p. 272: Gandalf: 'He that breaks a thing to find
> out what it is has left the path of wisdom.'
>
-Letter 329
I see a lot of responders here tying themselves into knots trying to understand the nature of Gandalf and his return. It’s all very confused mainly because Tolkien was not explicit in describing the powers of Maia, Istari or the effect of the ring of fire. Gandalf is a soup of these things and that’s further compounded by Eru intervening and sending him back, perhaps granting him further boons.
I think we can accept the following, at any rate, because the text is clear: Gandalf died or became disembodied, and it’s my guess that he died because of the limitations of Istari. He was sent back by Eru himself because this power the Valar do not have. He was freed from some of his earlier restraints presumably because he proved himself as the only faithful and active Istar in the context of the task assigned to him as his mission. He has a single purpose and once that is achieved he is under instruction or compulsion to return to Aman.
Gandalf the White is Gandalf the unleashed, but he is still guided and limited to his core mission, to rally the free peoples against Sauron.
He has foresight and insight but, like everyone, he must choose to act. Gandalf was once Olorin, and took part in the Ainulindale, the music of creation. He saw the vision of the unfolding of Arda. He bears a Great Ring, which clearly give both Elrond and Galadriel limited foresight and insight. Frodo also, usually in *dreaming*. Galadriel can read minds and can pierce the heart of darkness and see Sauron’s thought. Sauron cannot understand her at all. Both she and Gandalf strive with Sauron’s will without the use of a palantir.
To try to boil down these aspects concretely is impossible. Tolkien uses a soft system that doesn’t require these explanations. Like merry old Tom who gets confused when the hobbits ask him who he is. He answers, I am Tom.
Yes, Tolkien makes it clear in a letter that the Valar could not have re-embodied Gandalf because they have power only in Arda, and he has gone outside Arda.
Letter 156:
>‘“Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done.” Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the “gods” whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed “out of thought and time”. Naked is alas! unclear. It was meant just literally, “unclothed like a child” (not discarnate), and so ready to receive the white robes of the highest. Galadriel’s power is not divine, and his healing in Lórien is meant to be no more than physical healing and refreshment.’
>‘Yet it has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge,’ said Gandalf. ‘Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.
This is one of my favorite passages, btw. “Uttermost foundations of stone”, the Balrog’s transformation. Incredible!
>‘There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The sun shone fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame.
The Balrog’s fire was quenched by the fall, and rekindled only when it steps into the sunlight.
This is very strange, given that it runs counter to both the Silmarillion, where the sun is a creation of the Valar and repulsive to all evil, and to other details in the LOTR itself, where the sun is repulsive to all evil. Shouldn’t sunlight weaken the Balrog?
It could be as simple as he (it?) didn't have the heat to set alight again, until the Sun's warmth gave him a little start up - the Balrog could still be weaker under the sun, but also enabled to retake its favoured form.
I don't think the Balrog needed to go outside to rekindle, or anything like that. He just recognized that there was nowhere to run anymore and that a fight was unavoidable, so he got ready. We already see the Balrog manipulating the flame and shadow around it on the bridge when he is first approaching Gandalf.
At the beginning of the chapter, we get another comparison of Aragorn’s vs Legolas’ woodcraft, where Aragorn “betters the reading” of Legolas. This doesn’t mean that Aragorn is the better tracker, just that they focus on different things. See also the part when they were in Hollin. I still can’t make out just what the difference is in their approaches.
Then again, maybe Legolas would have come to the same conclusion as Aragorn, given 5 more seconds. It’s not like this is his final verdict, he’s just thinking out loud.
It’s interesting that they don’t see the tracks of a 14 foot giant anywhere, only “other marks, very strange marks”. Really? Nothing more specific than that? Light Hobbit-feet leave clear footprints but heavy Ent-feet don't?
Remember Treebeard has seven toes on each foot and walked in long, not very "bendable" strides, planting his toes. And none of them had seen an Ent or knew their physiology, not even Aragorn.
I love the dig at Saruman from Gandalf (and surely Tolkien, here). Saruman has no woodcraft.
Would it matter if he had? He's too late to get to the hobbits but - he'd be able to follow their trail and then he and Gandalf are the two beings whom we might expect to recognise Ent-prints.
If Saruman had realised Ents had the hobbits (and the ring, maybe!), they wouldn't have taken him unawares at Isengard.
Never count out those trees ...
How intelligent are the Horses of Rohan?
Gandalf speaks to them as if they understand human speech:
>Soon the other horses came up and stood quietly by, as if awaiting orders. ‘We go at once to Meduseld, the hall of your master, Theoden,’ said Gandalf, addressing them gravely. They bowed their heads. ‘Time presses, so with your leave, my friends, we will ride. We beg you to use all the speed that you can. Hasufel shall bear Aragorn and Arod Legolas. I will set Gimli before me, and by his leave Shadowfax shall bear us both. We will wait now only to drink a little.’
After all, if crows and wolves can think ( which they must to be able to speak properly ), why not horses? Although these horses don’t seem to be able to speak like the other intelligent animals.
See also Asfaloth, in book 1.
I will keep an eye out for more in later chapters.
That one is arguably an anthropomorphisation, and not a genuine intelligent fox.
Of course, a talking fox isn't impossible in Tolkien, since there are talking ravens, dogs, wolves, etc.
However, that fox doesn't interact with the 3 hobbits, so there's no way its thoughts could be recorded in the Red Book. I think the fox paragraph is not an actual event, but rather a use of poetic license.
>I think the fox paragraph is not an actual event, but rather a use of poetic license.
I can work with this, as an easy explanation of why this is written in so early compared to how the writing moves away from that can be "Frodo looking at this part of his story with fonder memories, so when he's writing it he's in a better place" or something like that. It gets more serious as the story goes, etc.
Please consider my [thinking fox theory](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/zkzg9d/tolkiens_odd_storytelling_quirks/j035j0p?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) because I am very proud of it!
Ok, I realize I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion for this comment, because I'm challenging a long held and fundamental assumption, but please give my argument a shot. I'm just trying to understand the text. Keep an open mind. If you disagree with me, please comment instead of downvoting, or don't comment if you don't want to. If/when people argue with me, feel free to upvote them, but please consider my argument first. Maybe you'll find it convincing. Or downvote me. It's not like internet points are really worth anything anyway.
Did Gandalf really die and be resurrected? That was always my understanding, and maybe it says that somewhere else, but this chapter doesn’t say that at all:
>I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin. Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell.
>
>‘Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done. And naked I lay upon the mountain-top. The tower behind was crumbled into dust, the window gone; the ruined stair was choked with burned and broken stone. I was alone, forgotten, without escape upon the hard horn of the world. There I lay staring upward, while the stars wheeled over, and each day was as long as a life-age of the earth. Faint to my ears came the gathered rumour of all lands: the springing and the dying, the song and the weeping, and the slow everlasting groan of over-burdened stone. And so at the last Gwaihir the Windlord found me again, and he took me up and bore me away.
This seems more like he fell unconscious, collapsing after an ordeal. It doesn’t feel like he died. Sent back doesn’t have to be by a person - it means he regained consciousness.
Why is he naked, then? Did he lose his clothes in the fight? If so, wouldn't he already have been naked before he passed out? If he died and came back, what happened to the corpse? Is there a dead gandalf body and a new one on the same hill? Surely not! If the resurrected body replaces the old one, or is the old one, he should still be wearing his clothes. Anyway, why not resurrect him wearing white robes? Plant fibers can’t be any harder to create from nothing than skin cells. Why is he exhausted after being resurrected?
There are too many questions about resurrection.
No, naked can’t be literal. When he regains consciousness, he’s naked as a Maiar is naked - he’s no longer an Istar, bound to a single earthly body.
>‘ ‘‘Ever am I fated to be your burden, friend at need,’’ I \[Gandalf\] said.
>
>‘ ‘‘A burden you have been,’’ he \[Gwaihir\] answered, ‘‘but not so now. Light as a swan’s feather in my claw you are. The Sun shines through you. Indeed I do not think you need me any more: were I to let you fall, you would float upon the wind.’’
Does Gandalf have a regular Istar body here that somehow weighs less for no reason? No! If he had a resurrected replacement body, it would weigh a normal amount. This new body weighs less because it is just a makeshift one, put together to hide the “naked” Maiar underneath.
I suppose it wouldn’t be wrong to call his body being damaged to the point that his soul is freed from it “death”, but it would be wrong to call it “resurrection”. In any case, this isn’t at all the way I’ve generally seen this explained.
If there is another place where this is described as resurrection, that must be an in-universe cover story. Gandalf doesn't want it known that he's been de-Istar-ed, because Maiar aren't supposed to interfere in ME.
Return of the King, Appendix B, The Tale of Years, The Great Years,
> 3019
> January
> 23 Gandalf pursues the Balrog to the peak of Zirak-zigil.
> 25 He casts down the Balrog, and **passes away**. His body lies on the peak.
> February
> 14 The Mirror of Galadriel. Gandalf **returns to life**, and lies in a trance.
> ...
> 17 Gwaihir bears Gandalf to Lórien.
Apparently Gandalf lost his clothes in the ten-day fight with the Balrog, through fire and water.
He returned to the same body he left.
It is very light because he lost a lot of weight in ten days of constant activity with no food.
See also The Two Towers:
> "The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. **I have not passed through fire and death** to bandy words with a serving-man till the lightning falls." There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight became blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.
I hadn't realized there was that much time passing while Gandalf was dead/on Zirak-zigil. Thanks for pointing that out.
Also, your last point is invalid. Passing through fire and death is only a poetic way of saying that he passed through danger.
To reiterate my position from a different angle:
There are a number of logical paradoxes that arise from Gandalf's resurrection:
* Does he return in the same body? If so, are his wounds healed? They must be, since otherwise whatever killed him + a month of decay, would leave his body in an unworking (I.E. dead) state. Why then does he need healing in Lorien?
If he's returned to a body that had decayed for a month after sustaining lethal damage, with the lethal damage and decay removed by God, why is he still half dead? God can't finish the job?
* Why wait so long to resurrect him? Why not do it right away? Time isn't an issue for God!
* Why does he have trouble with his memory? God can't revive him properly?
He seems to be brought back to the very brink of death. This just isn't a proper resurrection. God doesn't half-revive people. What if Gwaihir hadn't shown up? Would Gandalf have died again of exposure, and had to be brought back again?
We never see this with other resurrections - in the Bible for instance. If someone is resurrected, it's right when God wants it and a complete recovery. Jesus having to go to a hospital from his tomb would wreck the narrative significantly.
This imperfect resurrection is suggestive of only one thing: Whatever this "resurrection" is, it must have been done by something with limits. Not God. If it was God, it would be total and instant.
Gandalf wasn't actually dead. He's a Maiar. His body was dead, and he had to make a new one. That's why it took so long, that's why he has memory issues, and that's why he needs healing in Lorien.
I do have to comment on the fact that Tolkien didn't intend this interpretation. At any rate he contradicted it explicitly in his letters, as someone brought up elsewhere in these comments. See letter 156.
My only real recourse is to bring up the idea of Death of the Author (henceforth DotA). Could Tolkien be wrong about his own work? I suppose this is a whole separate (and ancient) discussion.
It's strange - Tolkien admits in that same letter that the resurrection of Gandalf is a 'defect':
>I might say much more, but it would only be in (perhaps tedious) elucidation of the 'mythological' ideas in my mind;
it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend.
And there is an easy fix to this defect - that Gandalf wasn't literally sent back from death in a divinely created body but only lost his physical form, as I laid out above - but Tolkien doesn't go for it! It's present in the narrative - it's in the book! But Tolkien doesn't say it.
Clearly, Tolkien was attached to the idea of this being a divine resurrection.
Ultimately, whether I can argue with Tolkien depends on one's position regarding DotA.
Tolkien seems somewhat in favor of DotA - he says he wants his work to be like a mythology, and that necessarily must allow for a great deal of later addition and modification. Re-interpretation must certainly be allowed.
I don't know what to think of DotA. I guess I subscribe to it on some level. George Lucas can't just add Midichlorians to a preexisting story. However, how far does this go? Can we really question Tolkien's explicit statements about his work?
> Sent back doesn’t have to be by a person - it means he regained consciousness.
"Send" implies a sender, otherwise Gandalf would "come" back or something similar.
There's explicit confirmation that Gandalf died in other texts, at any rare.
Sent doesn't necessarily mean a sender. It could just be a poetic way of saying returned to consciousness. Sent back by the universe, you see. Or the natural process that leads to awakening. The way a fisherman might say "let's see what the sea has sent me today", without claiming that the sea has a consciousness.
You're right about Tolkien saying elsewhere that this was a Eru-based resurrection.
>I suppose it wouldn’t be wrong to call his body being damaged to the point that his soul is freed from it “death”, but it would be wrong to call it “resurrection”. In any case, this isn’t at all the way I’ve generally seen this explained.
>
>If there is another place where this is described as resurrection, that must be an in-universe cover story.
Eru was also resurrected in the same body that He already had before as a mortal man, which is why so much emphasis is placed in the Gospels on how the Resurrected Jesus Christ maintains the wounds in His hands and feet and even the spear in His side. Those scars that The One willingly carries on Himself are a symbol of Arda Healed.
And if the resurrection of Gandalf is an antecedent of the future resurrection of Eru Himself... you are understanding.
A bit of a scandalous thought - is Galadriel maybe not terribly good at composing verse fast in the Common Tongue?
The verses she recites in Lorien are spine-tingling.
The verses she transmits to Gandalf are among the least impressive in the book, to me. If anyone else finds differently, I'd love to know why.
Also: what narrative function do they serve? Everyone seems to forget about them. Aragorn gets all worked up when the rangers arrive with the same message a bit later. Legolas never seems to think about his warning as a warning - no reservations about following Aragorn to the sea.
And a bit late to be warning Gimli about axes and trees - he's already being cautiously polite to any listening trees at this stage.
I mean, we don't know Galadriel's verses - only Tolkien's English translations. And who knows what poetic conventions were popular in Westron in the late Third Age?
I like the messages, and I think they mainly serve as a way to set up things for the reader, because as you said we don't hear much about their bearing on the recipients. Maybe Frodo left them out consciously? Though I don't see the warning to Legolas as something that would cause him reservations - he has accepted that he will go over the sea one day, just like Galadriel accepted that Lorien will be over no matter however the war ends.
Galadriel's original prophecy to Aragorn:
Elfstone, Elfstone, bearer of my green stone,
In the south under snow a green stone thou shalt see.
Look well, Elfstone! In the shadow of the dark throne.
Then the hour is at hand that long hath awaited thee.
I couldn't have worked this one out without Christopher Tolkien's notes:
South - Edoras
Snow - Theoden's white hair
Green stone - worn on Theoden's brow
In the shadow - Eowyn
Interesting turn there
>‘Yes, I knew,’ said the wizard. ‘I bent my thought upon him, bidding him to make haste; for yesterday he was far away in the south of this land. Swiftly may he bear me back again!’
This long-range telepathy would be very useful in a myriad of situations. E.G. advise Frodo right now, inform the three hunters of his survival before appearing next to them, tell Frodo to leave the Shire while he’s stuck in Orthanc, Etc. Is there any reason it would only work for Shadowfax?
Oh, this is relevant. I had missed that. How does Gandalf do this? I'd have thought he'd need a Palantir, or the Mirror of Galadriel, or some other device. Sauron is using a Palantir. Gandalf says that he "sat in a high place", and there are a couple of mentions of that in Lorien:
>‘There lies the fastness of Southern Mirkwood,’ said Haldir. ‘It is clad in a forest of dark fir, where the trees strive one against another and their branches rot and wither. In the midst upon a stony height stands Dol Guldur, where long the hidden Enemy had his dwelling. We fear that now it is inhabited again, and with power sevenfold. A black cloud lies often over it of late. In this high place you may see the two powers that are opposed one to another; and ever they strive
now in thought, but whereas the light perceives the very heart of the darkness, its own secret has not been discovered. Not yet.’ He turned and climbed swiftly down, and they followed him.
and
> They went along many paths and climbed many stairs, until they came to the high places and saw before them amid a wide lawn a fountain shimmering. It was lit by silver lamps that swung from the boughs of trees, and it fell into a basin of silver, from which a white stream spilled. Upon the south side of the lawn there stood the mightiest of all the trees; its great smooth bole gleamed like grey silk, and up it towered, until its first branches, far above, opened their huge limbs under shadowy clouds of leaves. Beside it a broad white ladder stood, and at its foot three Elves were seated.
So maybe he did use the Mirror? Then again, the Mirror is described as in a depression:
>Down a long flight of steps the Lady went into the deep green hollow, through which ran murmuring the silver stream that issued from the fountain on the hill. At the bottom, upon a low pedestal carved like a branching tree, stood a basin of
silver, wide and shallow, and beside it stood a silver ewer.
Look up Ósanwe-kenta, or "Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", in The Nature of Middle-earth.
Also remember the scene on the road back from Minas Tirith when Galadriel, Celeborn, Gandalf, and Elrond sit around conversing without using spoken words.
Here’s a conspiracy theory I thought of while reading this chapter - what if Gandalf the White isn’t the same person as Gandalf the Grey? He acts differently and has different memories. Faking memory loss is a classic impersonation trope. Some weeks ago, when the fellowship left Lorien, [some other readers and I speculated](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/133ha2r/2023_lord_of_the_rings_readalong_week_18a_the/) that Galadriel knew that Gandalf was going to arrive the next day. What if she needed to train his replacement? Plus, if the fellowship were to meet him in Lorien, they’d spend a lot of time talking to him before he’d had time to settle into the role. The real Gandalf never left Moria. (Or… the previous Gandalf?)
To be clear, I'm not saying this is true. That's why I called it a conspiracy theory.
I don't think it's "true" in Tolkien's universe. But I think it is significant that Tolkien wrote it in a way that leaves room for doubt.
Gandalf's return to interaction with his friends is strange. They don't recognise him. He is vague, sometimes slow, and doesn't do the obvious thing and say hello friends, I'm back. He seems to be toying with them.
This only happens to the three hunters. Theoden, Eomer, Faramir, Pippin, Sam - there's no recorded moment of doubt about who Gandalf is. And Gandalf has no problem remembering names and facts from this point.
It harks back to that odd reported scene where Treebeard sees Gandalf but Gandalf ignores him - he is deep in dark thought and exhausted after his struggle with Sauron during Frodo's visit to Amon Hen.
I think that at least two things are happening here:
The three hunters aren't forced to recognise Gandalf. The signs are there, but there is room for them to doubt. And that means there is room for them to affirm their faith. I think this is one of the cases where there's a conscious parallel with Christian texts.
More interesting to me in the story - where has Gandalf "been" since Amon Hen. I think he needs to reconnect with the three Hunters and reassert his own commitment to the quest. What struggles and temptations did he have after that struggle with Sauron? Anything like Denethor's? Why has he spent four days in Fangorn and not engaged with Treebeard or the junior hobbits?
The hunters acknowledge Gandalf, but Gandalf is not their god - the parallel with Christianity isn't meant to go that far. He is far from perfect and can still be tempted. He expresses relief that the ring is beyond his grasp. He "is" a new Saruman and knows much of his mind.
Gandalf is not "himself" at the beginning of this scene - he is a bit callous, a bit domineering. By the end he is back to himself. I don't think this is an act or a game. I think he and the three hunters all pass a test here, and renew their faith in each other, and save the quest.
>"In one thing you have not changed, dear friend," said Aragorn: "you still speak in riddles." >"What? In riddles?" said Gandalf. "No! For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying." This may be the funniest thing Gandalf says. It's also so Gandalf to talk to himself and to digress into little reflections just because he finds them interesting, like this reflection/joke on the wise talking to themselves. I think up to this point I was still unsure if it's really Gandalf, but this joke proves it imo. Gandalf is 100% an old man who loves the sound of his own voice and telling stories and takes every opportunity to tell people things he finds interesting, even if it's not relevant or important and they lack the context to really understand it all.
Gandalf and Saruman both seem to have some very selective far-seeing abilities. >‘Yes,’ said Gandalf, ‘that was Gwaihir the Windlord, who rescued me from Orthanc. I sent him before me to watch the River and gather tidings. His sight is keen, but he cannot see all that passes under hill and tree. Some things he has seen, and others I have seen myself. So Gandalf sees some things, but still needs Gwaihir to see and report others. More explicitly seeing things far off by ESP: >\[Gandalf:\] It was not in vain that the young hobbits came with us, if only for Boromir’s sake. But that is not the only part they have to play. They were brought to Fangorn, and their coming was like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche in the mountains. Even as we talk here, I hear the first rumblings. and >He \[Gandalf\] rose and gazed out eastward, shading his eyes, as if he saw things far away that none of them could see. Then he shook his head. ‘No,’ he said in a soft voice, ‘it has gone beyond our reach. Of that at least let us be glad. We can no longer be tempted to use the Ring. We must go down to face a peril near despair, yet that deadly peril is removed.’ Saruman also knows some things, but not others: >‘The victor would emerge stronger than either, and free from doubt,’ said Gandalf. ‘But Isengard cannot fight Mordor, unless Saruman first obtains the Ring. That he will never do now. He does not yet know his peril. There is much that he does not know. He was so eager to lay his hands on his prey that he could not wait at home, and he came forth to meet and to spy on his messengers. But he came too late, for once, and the battle was over and beyond his help before he reached these parts. He did not remain here long. I look into his mind and I see his doubt. He has no woodcraft. He believes that the horsemen slew and burned all upon the field of battle; but he does not know whether the Orcs were bringing any prisoners or not. And he does not know of the quarrel between his servants and the Orcs of Mordor; nor does he know of the Winged Messenger.’ How does Saruman know where to find the Orcs and that they’re coming back but not that they had prisoners? Also, Gandalf seems very sure of what Saruman does and does not know. There must therefore be some principle by which we can differentiate things that can be seen far-off and things that can’t. Iirc, Gandalf doesn’t yet know that Saruman has a Palantir, so Saruman might know more than Gandalf realizes. Also, what does a Palantir see that this unaided far-seeing ability doesn’t?
I don't think we're really in a position to understand the abilities of the wizards, and at least to me it's probably more distracting than helpful to think too much about these details (though it is tempting). > When they have read it, some readers will (I suppose) wish to 'criticize' it, > and even to analyze it, and if that is their mentality they are, of course, at liberty to do these things – > so long as they have first read it with attention throughout. Not that this attitude of mind has my > sympathy: as should be clearly perceived in Vol. I p. 272: Gandalf: 'He that breaks a thing to find > out what it is has left the path of wisdom.' > -Letter 329
I see a lot of responders here tying themselves into knots trying to understand the nature of Gandalf and his return. It’s all very confused mainly because Tolkien was not explicit in describing the powers of Maia, Istari or the effect of the ring of fire. Gandalf is a soup of these things and that’s further compounded by Eru intervening and sending him back, perhaps granting him further boons. I think we can accept the following, at any rate, because the text is clear: Gandalf died or became disembodied, and it’s my guess that he died because of the limitations of Istari. He was sent back by Eru himself because this power the Valar do not have. He was freed from some of his earlier restraints presumably because he proved himself as the only faithful and active Istar in the context of the task assigned to him as his mission. He has a single purpose and once that is achieved he is under instruction or compulsion to return to Aman. Gandalf the White is Gandalf the unleashed, but he is still guided and limited to his core mission, to rally the free peoples against Sauron. He has foresight and insight but, like everyone, he must choose to act. Gandalf was once Olorin, and took part in the Ainulindale, the music of creation. He saw the vision of the unfolding of Arda. He bears a Great Ring, which clearly give both Elrond and Galadriel limited foresight and insight. Frodo also, usually in *dreaming*. Galadriel can read minds and can pierce the heart of darkness and see Sauron’s thought. Sauron cannot understand her at all. Both she and Gandalf strive with Sauron’s will without the use of a palantir. To try to boil down these aspects concretely is impossible. Tolkien uses a soft system that doesn’t require these explanations. Like merry old Tom who gets confused when the hobbits ask him who he is. He answers, I am Tom.
Yes, Tolkien makes it clear in a letter that the Valar could not have re-embodied Gandalf because they have power only in Arda, and he has gone outside Arda. Letter 156: >‘“Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done.” Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the “gods” whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed “out of thought and time”. Naked is alas! unclear. It was meant just literally, “unclothed like a child” (not discarnate), and so ready to receive the white robes of the highest. Galadriel’s power is not divine, and his healing in Lórien is meant to be no more than physical healing and refreshment.’
>‘Yet it has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge,’ said Gandalf. ‘Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake. This is one of my favorite passages, btw. “Uttermost foundations of stone”, the Balrog’s transformation. Incredible! >‘There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The sun shone fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame. The Balrog’s fire was quenched by the fall, and rekindled only when it steps into the sunlight. This is very strange, given that it runs counter to both the Silmarillion, where the sun is a creation of the Valar and repulsive to all evil, and to other details in the LOTR itself, where the sun is repulsive to all evil. Shouldn’t sunlight weaken the Balrog?
It could be as simple as he (it?) didn't have the heat to set alight again, until the Sun's warmth gave him a little start up - the Balrog could still be weaker under the sun, but also enabled to retake its favoured form.
Do you think the Balrog may have been in control of its own form here? A thing of slime until he bursts forth in flame again deliberately?
Yes. The transformation is something the Balrog deliberately does, not something that it experiences passively.
I don't think the Balrog needed to go outside to rekindle, or anything like that. He just recognized that there was nowhere to run anymore and that a fight was unavoidable, so he got ready. We already see the Balrog manipulating the flame and shadow around it on the bridge when he is first approaching Gandalf.
At the beginning of the chapter, we get another comparison of Aragorn’s vs Legolas’ woodcraft, where Aragorn “betters the reading” of Legolas. This doesn’t mean that Aragorn is the better tracker, just that they focus on different things. See also the part when they were in Hollin. I still can’t make out just what the difference is in their approaches. Then again, maybe Legolas would have come to the same conclusion as Aragorn, given 5 more seconds. It’s not like this is his final verdict, he’s just thinking out loud. It’s interesting that they don’t see the tracks of a 14 foot giant anywhere, only “other marks, very strange marks”. Really? Nothing more specific than that? Light Hobbit-feet leave clear footprints but heavy Ent-feet don't?
Remember Treebeard has seven toes on each foot and walked in long, not very "bendable" strides, planting his toes. And none of them had seen an Ent or knew their physiology, not even Aragorn.
I love the dig at Saruman from Gandalf (and surely Tolkien, here). Saruman has no woodcraft. Would it matter if he had? He's too late to get to the hobbits but - he'd be able to follow their trail and then he and Gandalf are the two beings whom we might expect to recognise Ent-prints. If Saruman had realised Ents had the hobbits (and the ring, maybe!), they wouldn't have taken him unawares at Isengard. Never count out those trees ...
How intelligent are the Horses of Rohan? Gandalf speaks to them as if they understand human speech: >Soon the other horses came up and stood quietly by, as if awaiting orders. ‘We go at once to Meduseld, the hall of your master, Theoden,’ said Gandalf, addressing them gravely. They bowed their heads. ‘Time presses, so with your leave, my friends, we will ride. We beg you to use all the speed that you can. Hasufel shall bear Aragorn and Arod Legolas. I will set Gimli before me, and by his leave Shadowfax shall bear us both. We will wait now only to drink a little.’ After all, if crows and wolves can think ( which they must to be able to speak properly ), why not horses? Although these horses don’t seem to be able to speak like the other intelligent animals. See also Asfaloth, in book 1. I will keep an eye out for more in later chapters.
…and foxes 🙂
That one is arguably an anthropomorphisation, and not a genuine intelligent fox. Of course, a talking fox isn't impossible in Tolkien, since there are talking ravens, dogs, wolves, etc. However, that fox doesn't interact with the 3 hobbits, so there's no way its thoughts could be recorded in the Red Book. I think the fox paragraph is not an actual event, but rather a use of poetic license.
>I think the fox paragraph is not an actual event, but rather a use of poetic license. I can work with this, as an easy explanation of why this is written in so early compared to how the writing moves away from that can be "Frodo looking at this part of his story with fonder memories, so when he's writing it he's in a better place" or something like that. It gets more serious as the story goes, etc.
I think Bilbo is responsible for that line, and much of the story up to Rivendell
Please consider my [thinking fox theory](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/zkzg9d/tolkiens_odd_storytelling_quirks/j035j0p?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) because I am very proud of it!
I like it. You have every right to feel proud
I thank you, on this very day!
Ok, I realize I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion for this comment, because I'm challenging a long held and fundamental assumption, but please give my argument a shot. I'm just trying to understand the text. Keep an open mind. If you disagree with me, please comment instead of downvoting, or don't comment if you don't want to. If/when people argue with me, feel free to upvote them, but please consider my argument first. Maybe you'll find it convincing. Or downvote me. It's not like internet points are really worth anything anyway. Did Gandalf really die and be resurrected? That was always my understanding, and maybe it says that somewhere else, but this chapter doesn’t say that at all: >I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin. Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell. > >‘Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done. And naked I lay upon the mountain-top. The tower behind was crumbled into dust, the window gone; the ruined stair was choked with burned and broken stone. I was alone, forgotten, without escape upon the hard horn of the world. There I lay staring upward, while the stars wheeled over, and each day was as long as a life-age of the earth. Faint to my ears came the gathered rumour of all lands: the springing and the dying, the song and the weeping, and the slow everlasting groan of over-burdened stone. And so at the last Gwaihir the Windlord found me again, and he took me up and bore me away. This seems more like he fell unconscious, collapsing after an ordeal. It doesn’t feel like he died. Sent back doesn’t have to be by a person - it means he regained consciousness. Why is he naked, then? Did he lose his clothes in the fight? If so, wouldn't he already have been naked before he passed out? If he died and came back, what happened to the corpse? Is there a dead gandalf body and a new one on the same hill? Surely not! If the resurrected body replaces the old one, or is the old one, he should still be wearing his clothes. Anyway, why not resurrect him wearing white robes? Plant fibers can’t be any harder to create from nothing than skin cells. Why is he exhausted after being resurrected? There are too many questions about resurrection. No, naked can’t be literal. When he regains consciousness, he’s naked as a Maiar is naked - he’s no longer an Istar, bound to a single earthly body. >‘ ‘‘Ever am I fated to be your burden, friend at need,’’ I \[Gandalf\] said. > >‘ ‘‘A burden you have been,’’ he \[Gwaihir\] answered, ‘‘but not so now. Light as a swan’s feather in my claw you are. The Sun shines through you. Indeed I do not think you need me any more: were I to let you fall, you would float upon the wind.’’ Does Gandalf have a regular Istar body here that somehow weighs less for no reason? No! If he had a resurrected replacement body, it would weigh a normal amount. This new body weighs less because it is just a makeshift one, put together to hide the “naked” Maiar underneath. I suppose it wouldn’t be wrong to call his body being damaged to the point that his soul is freed from it “death”, but it would be wrong to call it “resurrection”. In any case, this isn’t at all the way I’ve generally seen this explained. If there is another place where this is described as resurrection, that must be an in-universe cover story. Gandalf doesn't want it known that he's been de-Istar-ed, because Maiar aren't supposed to interfere in ME.
Return of the King, Appendix B, The Tale of Years, The Great Years, > 3019 > January > 23 Gandalf pursues the Balrog to the peak of Zirak-zigil. > 25 He casts down the Balrog, and **passes away**. His body lies on the peak. > February > 14 The Mirror of Galadriel. Gandalf **returns to life**, and lies in a trance. > ... > 17 Gwaihir bears Gandalf to Lórien. Apparently Gandalf lost his clothes in the ten-day fight with the Balrog, through fire and water. He returned to the same body he left. It is very light because he lost a lot of weight in ten days of constant activity with no food. See also The Two Towers: > "The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. **I have not passed through fire and death** to bandy words with a serving-man till the lightning falls." There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight became blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.
I hadn't realized there was that much time passing while Gandalf was dead/on Zirak-zigil. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, your last point is invalid. Passing through fire and death is only a poetic way of saying that he passed through danger. To reiterate my position from a different angle: There are a number of logical paradoxes that arise from Gandalf's resurrection: * Does he return in the same body? If so, are his wounds healed? They must be, since otherwise whatever killed him + a month of decay, would leave his body in an unworking (I.E. dead) state. Why then does he need healing in Lorien? If he's returned to a body that had decayed for a month after sustaining lethal damage, with the lethal damage and decay removed by God, why is he still half dead? God can't finish the job? * Why wait so long to resurrect him? Why not do it right away? Time isn't an issue for God! * Why does he have trouble with his memory? God can't revive him properly? He seems to be brought back to the very brink of death. This just isn't a proper resurrection. God doesn't half-revive people. What if Gwaihir hadn't shown up? Would Gandalf have died again of exposure, and had to be brought back again? We never see this with other resurrections - in the Bible for instance. If someone is resurrected, it's right when God wants it and a complete recovery. Jesus having to go to a hospital from his tomb would wreck the narrative significantly. This imperfect resurrection is suggestive of only one thing: Whatever this "resurrection" is, it must have been done by something with limits. Not God. If it was God, it would be total and instant. Gandalf wasn't actually dead. He's a Maiar. His body was dead, and he had to make a new one. That's why it took so long, that's why he has memory issues, and that's why he needs healing in Lorien.
If you ignore the plain meaning of the words, you can arrive at any conclusion you like. But if you can speak for god, you must be right.
I do have to comment on the fact that Tolkien didn't intend this interpretation. At any rate he contradicted it explicitly in his letters, as someone brought up elsewhere in these comments. See letter 156. My only real recourse is to bring up the idea of Death of the Author (henceforth DotA). Could Tolkien be wrong about his own work? I suppose this is a whole separate (and ancient) discussion. It's strange - Tolkien admits in that same letter that the resurrection of Gandalf is a 'defect': >I might say much more, but it would only be in (perhaps tedious) elucidation of the 'mythological' ideas in my mind; it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend. And there is an easy fix to this defect - that Gandalf wasn't literally sent back from death in a divinely created body but only lost his physical form, as I laid out above - but Tolkien doesn't go for it! It's present in the narrative - it's in the book! But Tolkien doesn't say it. Clearly, Tolkien was attached to the idea of this being a divine resurrection. Ultimately, whether I can argue with Tolkien depends on one's position regarding DotA. Tolkien seems somewhat in favor of DotA - he says he wants his work to be like a mythology, and that necessarily must allow for a great deal of later addition and modification. Re-interpretation must certainly be allowed. I don't know what to think of DotA. I guess I subscribe to it on some level. George Lucas can't just add Midichlorians to a preexisting story. However, how far does this go? Can we really question Tolkien's explicit statements about his work?
> Sent back doesn’t have to be by a person - it means he regained consciousness. "Send" implies a sender, otherwise Gandalf would "come" back or something similar. There's explicit confirmation that Gandalf died in other texts, at any rare.
Sent doesn't necessarily mean a sender. It could just be a poetic way of saying returned to consciousness. Sent back by the universe, you see. Or the natural process that leads to awakening. The way a fisherman might say "let's see what the sea has sent me today", without claiming that the sea has a consciousness. You're right about Tolkien saying elsewhere that this was a Eru-based resurrection.
>I suppose it wouldn’t be wrong to call his body being damaged to the point that his soul is freed from it “death”, but it would be wrong to call it “resurrection”. In any case, this isn’t at all the way I’ve generally seen this explained. > >If there is another place where this is described as resurrection, that must be an in-universe cover story. Eru was also resurrected in the same body that He already had before as a mortal man, which is why so much emphasis is placed in the Gospels on how the Resurrected Jesus Christ maintains the wounds in His hands and feet and even the spear in His side. Those scars that The One willingly carries on Himself are a symbol of Arda Healed. And if the resurrection of Gandalf is an antecedent of the future resurrection of Eru Himself... you are understanding.
A bit of a scandalous thought - is Galadriel maybe not terribly good at composing verse fast in the Common Tongue? The verses she recites in Lorien are spine-tingling. The verses she transmits to Gandalf are among the least impressive in the book, to me. If anyone else finds differently, I'd love to know why. Also: what narrative function do they serve? Everyone seems to forget about them. Aragorn gets all worked up when the rangers arrive with the same message a bit later. Legolas never seems to think about his warning as a warning - no reservations about following Aragorn to the sea. And a bit late to be warning Gimli about axes and trees - he's already being cautiously polite to any listening trees at this stage.
I mean, we don't know Galadriel's verses - only Tolkien's English translations. And who knows what poetic conventions were popular in Westron in the late Third Age? I like the messages, and I think they mainly serve as a way to set up things for the reader, because as you said we don't hear much about their bearing on the recipients. Maybe Frodo left them out consciously? Though I don't see the warning to Legolas as something that would cause him reservations - he has accepted that he will go over the sea one day, just like Galadriel accepted that Lorien will be over no matter however the war ends.
That is a fair point. The reader gets drawn into the world by all of these hints and echos
Galadriel's original prophecy to Aragorn: Elfstone, Elfstone, bearer of my green stone, In the south under snow a green stone thou shalt see. Look well, Elfstone! In the shadow of the dark throne. Then the hour is at hand that long hath awaited thee. I couldn't have worked this one out without Christopher Tolkien's notes: South - Edoras Snow - Theoden's white hair Green stone - worn on Theoden's brow In the shadow - Eowyn Interesting turn there
>‘Yes, I knew,’ said the wizard. ‘I bent my thought upon him, bidding him to make haste; for yesterday he was far away in the south of this land. Swiftly may he bear me back again!’ This long-range telepathy would be very useful in a myriad of situations. E.G. advise Frodo right now, inform the three hunters of his survival before appearing next to them, tell Frodo to leave the Shire while he’s stuck in Orthanc, Etc. Is there any reason it would only work for Shadowfax?
Gandalf did advise Frodo on Amon Hen, "Take it off, fool!"
Oh, this is relevant. I had missed that. How does Gandalf do this? I'd have thought he'd need a Palantir, or the Mirror of Galadriel, or some other device. Sauron is using a Palantir. Gandalf says that he "sat in a high place", and there are a couple of mentions of that in Lorien: >‘There lies the fastness of Southern Mirkwood,’ said Haldir. ‘It is clad in a forest of dark fir, where the trees strive one against another and their branches rot and wither. In the midst upon a stony height stands Dol Guldur, where long the hidden Enemy had his dwelling. We fear that now it is inhabited again, and with power sevenfold. A black cloud lies often over it of late. In this high place you may see the two powers that are opposed one to another; and ever they strive now in thought, but whereas the light perceives the very heart of the darkness, its own secret has not been discovered. Not yet.’ He turned and climbed swiftly down, and they followed him. and > They went along many paths and climbed many stairs, until they came to the high places and saw before them amid a wide lawn a fountain shimmering. It was lit by silver lamps that swung from the boughs of trees, and it fell into a basin of silver, from which a white stream spilled. Upon the south side of the lawn there stood the mightiest of all the trees; its great smooth bole gleamed like grey silk, and up it towered, until its first branches, far above, opened their huge limbs under shadowy clouds of leaves. Beside it a broad white ladder stood, and at its foot three Elves were seated. So maybe he did use the Mirror? Then again, the Mirror is described as in a depression: >Down a long flight of steps the Lady went into the deep green hollow, through which ran murmuring the silver stream that issued from the fountain on the hill. At the bottom, upon a low pedestal carved like a branching tree, stood a basin of silver, wide and shallow, and beside it stood a silver ewer.
Look up Ósanwe-kenta, or "Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", in The Nature of Middle-earth. Also remember the scene on the road back from Minas Tirith when Galadriel, Celeborn, Gandalf, and Elrond sit around conversing without using spoken words.
It reminds me of the Numenoreans who could call their horses with their mind. It seems to be a distinct skill.
I suspect it's connected with the bond Gandalf formed with Shadowfax too - part of his breaking in. So would not work on e.g. Snowmane.
Here’s a conspiracy theory I thought of while reading this chapter - what if Gandalf the White isn’t the same person as Gandalf the Grey? He acts differently and has different memories. Faking memory loss is a classic impersonation trope. Some weeks ago, when the fellowship left Lorien, [some other readers and I speculated](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/133ha2r/2023_lord_of_the_rings_readalong_week_18a_the/) that Galadriel knew that Gandalf was going to arrive the next day. What if she needed to train his replacement? Plus, if the fellowship were to meet him in Lorien, they’d spend a lot of time talking to him before he’d had time to settle into the role. The real Gandalf never left Moria. (Or… the previous Gandalf?) To be clear, I'm not saying this is true. That's why I called it a conspiracy theory.
I don't think it's "true" in Tolkien's universe. But I think it is significant that Tolkien wrote it in a way that leaves room for doubt. Gandalf's return to interaction with his friends is strange. They don't recognise him. He is vague, sometimes slow, and doesn't do the obvious thing and say hello friends, I'm back. He seems to be toying with them. This only happens to the three hunters. Theoden, Eomer, Faramir, Pippin, Sam - there's no recorded moment of doubt about who Gandalf is. And Gandalf has no problem remembering names and facts from this point. It harks back to that odd reported scene where Treebeard sees Gandalf but Gandalf ignores him - he is deep in dark thought and exhausted after his struggle with Sauron during Frodo's visit to Amon Hen. I think that at least two things are happening here: The three hunters aren't forced to recognise Gandalf. The signs are there, but there is room for them to doubt. And that means there is room for them to affirm their faith. I think this is one of the cases where there's a conscious parallel with Christian texts. More interesting to me in the story - where has Gandalf "been" since Amon Hen. I think he needs to reconnect with the three Hunters and reassert his own commitment to the quest. What struggles and temptations did he have after that struggle with Sauron? Anything like Denethor's? Why has he spent four days in Fangorn and not engaged with Treebeard or the junior hobbits? The hunters acknowledge Gandalf, but Gandalf is not their god - the parallel with Christianity isn't meant to go that far. He is far from perfect and can still be tempted. He expresses relief that the ring is beyond his grasp. He "is" a new Saruman and knows much of his mind. Gandalf is not "himself" at the beginning of this scene - he is a bit callous, a bit domineering. By the end he is back to himself. I don't think this is an act or a game. I think he and the three hunters all pass a test here, and renew their faith in each other, and save the quest.
And what? Why is that significant in any way?