# Gandalf's Death in Moria - An Afterthought?



## Walter (Oct 16, 2002)

Could it be?


----------



## Walter (Oct 18, 2002)

Well, since none seems to be interested to discuss this topic here, I guess I should see if I'm more lucky when I post it elsewhere...


----------



## Tyaronumen (Oct 18, 2002)

LOL -- you think that no one is interested? Maybe you've just come upon something that people don't really have anything to say about . . . except 'wow...'...?

I was definitely interested -- but what sort of response would I give you...? An uneducated opinion?


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 19, 2002)

I agree with Tyaronumen. Wow! 
It is not the sort of question to answer straight away. Need some time to think this over.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Oct 19, 2002)

Could it have been an editorial choice? Maybe if the editors knew of two different versions, they may have made the choice themselves, or Tolkien made the choice AFTER this letter.

I like the 'death' version myself, but Tolkien at first, being Catholic, may have felt qualms about implying so much supernatural or 'reincarnation' ideas. But, I'm glad they did, because that version really opens the readers mind to a greater extent. 

Or maybe he DID have an affinity to ideas of reincarnation (as many thinkers thru the ages have), but early on had to repress them because of his religion.


----------



## Walter (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin _
> Could it have been an editorial choice? Maybe if the editors knew of two different versions, they may have made the choice themselves, or Tolkien made the choice AFTER this letter.
> 
> I like the 'death' version myself, but Tolkien at first, being Catholic, may have felt qualms about implying so much supernatural or 'reincarnation' ideas. But, I'm glad they did, because that version really opens the readers mind to a greater extent.
> ...


 As for editorial changes, I am hoping that someone with an early version of the LotR will help us throwing some light on the issue.

Considering Tolkien's religious background I think he might have seen it rather as "resurrection" than "reincarnation".


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Oct 20, 2002)

I wonder if anyone has an old "English" edition, i.e., before it was published here in the U.S. Anybody?

(I still think people may contemplate reincarnation, even though they don't buy into it. I grew up Catholic and have a generalized memory of the idea of a PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus as being, for the most part, left vague and ambiguous in our catechisms.)


----------



## Ancalagon (Oct 20, 2002)

I do not think Gandalfs death was an afterthought, though neither do I think it was his original intention, as it is an essential transition for him and the fellowship in breaking. 

From the Treason of Isenguard, HOME;



> On the way they ask Gandalf how he escaped. He refuses the full tale- but tells how he passed through fire (and water?) and came to the 'bottom of the world', there he finally overthrew the Balrog, who fled. Gandalf followed up a secret way to Durin's Tower on the summit of the mountains (?of Caradhras). There they had a battle - those who beheld it from afar thought it a thunderstorm with lightening. A great rain came down. The Balrog was destroyed, and the tower crumbled and stones blocked the door of the secret way. Gandalf was left on the mountaintop. The Eagle Gwaihir rescued him. He went then to Lothlorien. While Gandalf was on the mountain-top he saw many things - a vision of Mordor etc.


 This is taken from Tolkiens first draft of notes on the subject. The fact that while he had visions on the mountain-top, he was still fully alive and well suggests no original thoughts of 'death and spiritual travel beyond Arda.'


----------



## Walter (Oct 21, 2002)

Many thanks, Anc. This was the quotation I referred to in my opening post and which I did not give (as I said I would).

You wouldn't happen to know someone owning one of the first printed versions of LotR, now would you?


----------



## Ancalagon (Oct 21, 2002)

Hehe, sorry, I don't. I own a Second Edition, but the terminology is the same. However, it would be interesting to know what triggered the change in direction for Tolkien?! Why does Gandalf go through death to return stronger, more invigorated and enlightened?


----------



## Walter (Oct 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ancalagon _
> *Hehe, sorry, I don't. I own a Second Edition, but the terminology is the same. However, it would be interesting to know what triggered the change in direction for Tolkien?! Why does Gandalf go through death to return stronger, more invigorated and enlightened? *


 Now if you replace Gandalf with Jesus in your last sentence, this might provide us with an answer why Tolkien finally choose this turn of the story rather than what he had initially drafted (and maybe even had delivered for publication, assuming he had been quoting from the book in his draft for a letter).


----------



## Chymaera (Nov 4, 2002)

Gandalf's "death", if a Maia can die, say transformation instead.

I see it as a device to break up the Fellowship cleanly. That is to say that If Gandalf just defeated the Balrog on the bridge and stayed the leader then the story goes in a totally different direction.

Gandalf had to fall.

Otherwise only Boromir would have left the group not having an opportunity to waylay Frodo, off everyone goes to Mordor following Gandalf's lead.

No, interaction of Frodo, Sam and Gollum. 
No Pippin Merry and Treebread. 
No, Rohan. 
No, Isengard. 
No, Helms Deep, well no victory at Helms Deep.
No, Paths of the Dead
Lots of the story just dies.

Gandalf has to fall at the Bridge, but he also has to come back too.


----------



## Walter (Nov 4, 2002)

I didn't question that Gandalf had to fall at the bridge, and disappear for a while, but the question is: Did he have to die after he fell? I had gotten the idea that Gandalf's death was maybe an afterthought of Tolkien from the discussion in another thread, and the quotations in my first post are meant to indicate that there may have been a different storyline even in the first printed versions of LotR...


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 4, 2002)

From letter 181:


> Gandalf is a created person; though possibly a spirit that excisted before in the physical world. His function as a wizard is an angelos or messenger from the Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-Earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided. But since in the view of this tale & mythology Power - when it dominates or seeks to dominate other wills and minds (except by the assent of their reason) - is evil, these 'wizards' were incarnated in the life-forms of Middle-Earth, and so suffered the pains both of mind and body. They were also, for the same reason, thus involved in the peril of the incarnate: the possibility of 'fall', of sin, if tou will. The chief form this would take with them would be impatience, leading to the desire to force others to their own good ends, and so inevitably at last to mere desire to make their own wills effective by any means. To this evil Saruman succumbed. Gandalf did not. But the situation became so much the worse by the fall of Saruman, that the 'good' were obliged to greater effort and sacrifice. Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back as he seya, with enhanced power.



I therefore do not see Gandalfs death as an afterthought, but rather as something that was inevitable. Tolkien had to let Gandalf die, so that he could come back with more power, strong enough to counter Saruman. The Valar probably found this nescesarry (sp?) since Saruman was their own making, and as such, their problem to solve.


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 4, 2002)

Regarding the need for 'death' in respect of Gandalf is a questionable term. For 'death', he would have needed to be reborn, which in this case did not happen. What did happen however was that he was 're-housed' within his body. Death is final, yet it seems in Tolkiens mythology, there are a number of cases whereby the dead have been returned to physical form, though only in extreme circumstances. Beren is a primary example of 'death' without 'rebirth' and from what I can remember, alone in the world of Men to have been granted this second opportunity at life. 

Yet, Gandalf was Maia, and did not suffer the same fate of death, that was the gift of Men. One wonders then at the consequence of death in this case, if it was not to be reborn, then what?


> ...Then darkness took me; and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell.


 This quote seems to offer some deeper insight into the question of his death (or transcendence) and has been argued by others, but is relevant to this debate. I believe Tolkien uses Gandalfs passing 'out of time and thought' to his eventual return ''Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death' as an example that can only be compared to Christs own transfiguration. He had become a more exalted form, not reborn but an actual metamorphic change in stature. How so? Well, I think Tar-Elenion touched on this before, but it seems more likely that Gandalf passed beyond the realm of Arda, beyond the Valar and possibly out to Eru himself. If so, Eru sent him back to complete his task, and this is significant if one remembers that Olorin was the reluctant Istari. 

Tolkien could well have considered the meaning of this as he wrote it, however I do not see an actual comparison between Jesus and Gandalf other than that of the transfiguration. Gandalf certainly did not die in order to open the gateway of heaven. However, one thing that strikes me about this is the possibility that Gandalf actually 'gave up' his body deliberately. Tolkien may have considered this, possibly in the same vein as Jesus wanted to give up his spirit and reutn to the Father before his task was complete??!! (Now there is a similitude for you Maedhros)

I suppose one cannot simply envisage Tolkiens reflections on death as squarely a Christian perspective, much can be made of his understaning of Norse mythology. Whether there is some influence relating to the death of Balder as a result of Loki's actions and his eventual return described of Ragnarok, I cannot say.


----------



## Chymaera (Nov 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Walter _
> *...the quotations in my first post are meant to indicate that there may have been a different storyline even in the first printed versions of LotR... *



I see what you are asking about. 

After reading HoME VI - VII; You can see that there were quite a few changes. So It is possibile that the death was an afterthought.


----------



## Maedhros (Nov 4, 2002)

An interesting topic Walter. My guess would be that when Gandalf refers to his "death", he means the slaying of his hröa (body) to relate his experience to humans so that they could understand better.
I think that Saruman gets the idea when he talks to him about his "death." Both of them are Maia, and I think that that interaction was made more for the "public" to know than they themselves. There was no HOME at that time.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 5, 2002)

Posted by Anc:


> Regarding the need for 'death' in respect of Gandalf is a questionable term. For 'death', he would have needed to be reborn, which in this case did not happen. What did happen however was that he was 're-housed' within his body.


I agree, to a certain extent. Olorin var originally a Maia, and he was sort of issued a human-type body when he was sent by the Valar to ME. I believe it is the Middle-Earth life-form Gandalf that died, not the soul and spirit that is Olorin. He was sent back, maybe even by Eru, I don't know, with powers strong enough to defeat Saruman. Even if the Ents had destroyed the works of Saruman in and around Orthanc, he was still a force to be reckoned with, and possessed great powers.


> I believe Tolkien uses Gandalfs passing 'out of time and thought' to his eventual return ''Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death'


A wild guess: Maybe this quote had a rather different meaning to Saruman than to the others present. Maybe Gandalf by saying this, actually said to Saruman: " I have been with the Valar, and you know why I'm here: You're fired!" Or something similar.


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 5, 2002)

> A wild guess: Maybe this quote had a rather different meaning to Saruman than to the others present. Maybe Gandalf by saying this, actually said to Saruman: " I have been with the Valar, and you know why I'm here: You're fired!" Or something similar.



I am not sure if I agree with the part pertaining to the Valar, I think Gandalf not only passed through fire and death, but evolved with a greater sense of conviction about his own role, and in particular a greater sense of authority. The sharp rebuke of Saruman was particularly commanding and visibly potent. He had risen above his station, transcended his own doubts and spoke with the greatest authority, possibly as one who speaks in the name of Eru himself.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 5, 2002)

I do not disagree with your thoughts on Eru, as you well can read in my previous post. I only didn't add it in the wild guess. Actually, I think we are on to something here. It would make a perfectly good explanation for the whole question, wouldn't it?


----------



## Walter (Nov 5, 2002)

There have been quite a few very good interpretations brought up and interesting comparisons made, but those were mostly intrinsic to the story. 

What keeps me puzzled, though, is if Tolkien laid that much meaning into Gandalf's death and "resurrection", why then would he call the way Gandalfs return is presented a _"defect in the story"_ and even somehow seems to accept it had been called _"cheating"_ by a critic.
I mean if he had actually put that much thought and "inner meaning" into it, why wouldn't he utterly refuse such an interpretation as "defect" or "cheating"?


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 5, 2002)

As far as I read the letter, I understand Tolkien in the way that he only accepts the _cheating_ to be that he describes death as something that made no difference.


> Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference.


The cheating here mentioned is the fact that death isn't something definitive as we men are used to.


> And so on. 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.


Maybe we have worked harder to mend it than Tolkien did?


----------



## Chymaera (Nov 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Walter_
> ...why then would he call the way Gandalfs return is presented a "defect in the story" and even somehow seems to accept it had been called "cheating" by a critic.



I think that it is possible that Tolkien was listening to the critics a little more then he usually did on this subject was because he had some personal doubts at the time of this letter.


His earliest drafts had Gandalf destroying the Balrog and then he is flown to Lorien and clad in white by Galadierl {and this was written in 1944}

If their was any afterthought it was in hinting at mystic or divine intervention that you could take or leave at your choice. 

As I look in to this matter, I find that the whole episode was elegently written.


----------



## Vanwalotion (Nov 28, 2002)

I think i see a similarity between Gandalf and Jesus though I'm not sure if its right. Jesus gave up his life so that we could all be saved and would not have to go to hell. Gandalf may have given up his own life so that the rest of the fellowship could be saved. If Jesus hadn't died for us we would have gone to hell and if Gandalf hadn't died for them then they may have been killed and the ring taken thus leading to Sauron taking over middle earth and all of its population living in a hell on earth. But I'm not sure.
But in the end both Jesus and Gandalf (If he did die) defeated death.


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 28, 2002)

> With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss. 'Fly, you fools! ' he cried, and was gone.



It isn't as though he deliberately cast himself into the chasm, as a sacrificial lamb for the good of the fellowship! None other among them was capable of facing this enemy, but whether he was defeated in the exchange or not, does not constitute a conscious or willing decision to cast himself in for their benefit.


----------



## Maedhros (Nov 28, 2002)

> I think i see a similarity between Gandalf and Jesus though I'm not sure if its right. Jesus gave up his life so that we could all be saved and would not have to go to hell.


I would put Frodo instead of Gandalf.
From _The Return of the King: The Grey Havens:_


> I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.


Frodo is the real hero. He volunteered for his mission, no one had to ask him to do so, unlike Gandalf in _Unfinished Tales_, where Manwë asks him to go to ME.


----------



## Walter (Nov 28, 2003)

I have recently read (in a Tolkien-newsgroup) that in the original version of TTT Gandalf indeed says to Grima:

_...I have not passed through fire and flood..._

and that this was changed to "fire and
death" in the 4th printing of TT in 1956.

Can anyone confirm this?

Was Gandalf's death an afterthought, then?


----------



## Rangerdave (Nov 29, 2003)

**DISCLAIMER**
**The following post is purely conjecture on my part and should in no way be thought of as evidence**

I would think that Gandalf's death was not so much of an afterthought as a later discovery. If you take the story from the begining to just prior to Gandalf taking up the mantle of "White", it would make perfect sense to have him simply make some trite cliff-hanger type of escape from the depths of Moria. Or for that matter, just leave his escape as one more of the Book's many unsolved riddles. I believe that the Good Professor had no intent to literally kill Gandalf's physical rainment, nor saw the need for it until the confortation of Saruman following the Battle of Helm's Deep. 
Or to put it simply, his death became necessary only when Gandalf became "White". 

Saruman began as the White:


> I have come," I said. "I have come for your aid, Saruman the White." And that title seemed to anger him... For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours! "
> 'I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours. and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.
> ' "I liked white better," I said.
> ' "White! " he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
> ' "In which case it is no longer white..."


 The "White" of Saruman, had becomed stained by the "Black" of Mordor. 

Since Grey cannot defeat Black, Gandalf needed to be cleansed of all stains of the world. In short, The "Grey" was washed "White" by fire and flood.

The transformation makes perfect sense in the grand overview, but would have probably only became apparent to Tolkien once he decided that Gandalf must not only take up the mantle of leadership, but also cast Saruman physically and spiritually from their Order.



So in short, death was not an afterthought per se, but rather a logical progression that only became obvious as the story progressed.




RD


Cringing in fear at Walter's scholarly rebutal which I am fairly sure will completely destroy this pitiful attempt of a theory


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 29, 2003)

I couldn't possibly compare various sources of the LOTR in order to witness the difference in that short line that excited Walt so much, for I simply don't have them available!  
But the matter of comparing the various sources is, if I have correctly understood, to understand why Tolkien changed his mind about Gandalf's death!
This is what I dislike in the criticism-stage of any piece of any art!
An author creates a piece of art. And if he is a genius then I am absolutely sure that he will find a lot of "flaws" later when looking at his own creation. If he may and if he's able to - he will correct them. If not.... he may only comment on the comments of the public.
But there come the critics !!!!  
And often they ascribe ideas to the author that had never crossed his mind in reality!
It is sad that it is quite a common practice that literature is being taught upon the opinions of the critics!
So... I guess Tolkien's statement in the quoted letter concerning the "cheating" and the "defect" of Gandalf's death is just his attempt to reconcile with the critics.... I can't be sure..... 

From MY point of view however, I understand Gandalf's death as a necessary step in the story, sth. that must have happened.
Of course, I first of all should say that I absolutely agree with everything said here about the "death" of a Maia!
But.... I'd comment on the necessity of letting Gandalf return as "white" wizard.

Up until that moment the story as covered by the "Hobbit" and the LOTR (this far) we see a character whom I call an "organizer"  . Besides, Gandlaf so far is just a "merry-old-jolly fellow who, they say, is a wizard!" 
I somehow think that to turn this character into an "action hero"   he must have "suffered" a certain change.... No! Not "certain" but a _major_ one! So, Tolkien, I suppose found the most "convenient" moment to do this change to one of the central characters of his story. For the previous Gandalf would NOT be as convincing and "in-place" in the events to come in the further story.
This is how I understand the "cheating" part. It was just a "method" used by the author, a way, a"trick" of writing.
Perhaps Tolkien at a certain point understood that Gandalf as he had been up to that point would not fit in any further, so he had to be changed. The rest is only a reflection of the author's fantasy-set mind.

This is of course my opinion, but I cannot see Gandalf as any biblical character! Please!


----------



## Walter (Nov 29, 2003)

RD this green on green is somewhat hard to read.... 

Other than that I have not much to criticise in your post, your theory is probably as valid as mine or maybe even more so since yours is supported by the fact that Tolkien - at some point - felt the need to change the thread of the story as we can see from Anc's quote here...


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 29, 2003)

Ahhh Walter, almost a year to the very hour since this thread was last visited

I have another thought on the matter regarding Gandalfs form, his bodily form if you will. I am unsure whether there is a quote somewhere that can support my theory, but I feel that Tolkien may have considered it important to ensure that while Gandalf was housed in the body of a man, then he must, while in Middle-Earth abide somewhat by the rules that governs all men, that death finds each of us, Istari included. Even Gandalf cannot cheat death, in actual fact he cannot cheat the separation of the fea and hroa while he occupies this house. The divine intervention comes only after the death itself takes place, which of course must occur for Gandalf cannot avoid the natural separation as it takes its course following the long battle with the Balrog of Moria. He has to die like any man, even though he is Maia. 

His departure from beyond the realms of Arda strangely enough seems exactly like the journey mens spirit would make as they pass from death into life to the place Eru has set aside for them. The difference being, Gandalf is sent back, unlike Men. It seems to have religious connoctations to it, yet somehow I wonder if Tolkien in doing this makes Gandalf more like Man than Maia, to glimpse the death of Man in order for Gandalf to understand why he must return and complete his task on behalf of the race of Men?!


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 4, 2003)

> _Lhun_: This is what I dislike in the criticism-stage of any piece of any art!
> An author creates a piece of art. And if he is a genius then I am absolutely sure that he will find a lot of "flaws" later when looking at his own creation. If he may and if he's able to - he will correct them. If not.... he may only comment on the comments of the public.
> But there come the critics !!!!
> And often they ascribe ideas to the author that had never crossed his mind in reality!
> ...


I wonder how much the criticism got to Tolkien. As well as the above, he also attempted a major re-write of his cosmogony to fit it in with the actual history and state of the universe. Thankfully, it never got consistent enough to get included in the work that C.Tolkien cobbled together as The Silmarillion. I wouldn't be surprised if Lord of the Rings underwent major reconstruction if, instead of the clamour for publication, it had been lukewarmly received like the Silmarillon. Tolkien's humility wouldn't have needed much of a nudge, I suspect, for him to doubt his work, and to change it to a lesser thing, based on the ideas of people who thought they knew better.


----------



## Lantarion (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ancalagon_
> 
> 
> I have another thought on the matter regarding Gandalfs form, his bodily form if you will. I am unsure whether there is a quote somewhere that can support my theory, but I feel that Tolkien may have considered it important to ensure that while Gandalf was housed in the body of a man, then he must, while in Middle-Earth abide somewhat by the rules that governs all men, that death finds each of us, Istari included. Even Gandalf cannot cheat death, in actual fact he cannot cheat the separation of the fea and hroa while he occupies this house. The divine intervention comes only after the death itself takes place, which of course must occur for Gandalf cannot avoid the natural separation as it takes its course following the long battle with the Balrog of Moria. He has to die like any man, even though he is Maia.
> ...


Spectacular! Brilliant! Genius! 
That makes all kinds of sense ( to don a phrase from Yay ), I've never really looked at it like that before.. Fantastic though!!


----------



## aragil (Dec 6, 2003)

Anc asked me to look in here- unfortunately I don't have much to add. For those who are interested, here's (as I find it) the earliest sketch of Gandalf's fall, apparently written in late 1941 and recounted in the last few pages of HoME VI (chapt XXV THE MINES OF MORIA):


> They are pursued by goblins and a B[lack] R[ider] [written above: a Balrog] after escaping from Balin's Tomb - they come to a bridge of slender stone over a gulf. Gandalf turns back and holds off [?enemy], they cross the bridge but the B[lack] R[ider] leaps forward and wrestles with Gandalf. The bridge cracks under them and the last they see is Gandalf falling into the pit with the B[lack] R[ider]. There is a flash of fire and blue light up from abyss.
> Their grief. Trotter now guides party.
> (Of course Gandalf must reappear later - probably fall is not as deep as it seemed. Gandalf thrusts Balrog under him and so....... and eventually following the subterranean stream in the gulf he found a way out - but he does not turn up until they have had many adventures: not indeed until they are on [?borders] of Mordor and the King of Ond is being beaten in battle.)
> 
> {CT} This seems to show clearly that before ever the story of the fall of Gandalf from the Bridge of Khazad-dum was written, my father fully intended that he should return.


 Looks like the very first idea was to give Gandalf a gentle splash-down on the back of the Balrog; so gentle in fact that he was able to immediately (no divine intervention necessary) find a way out from the subterranean passages (the balrog presumably having died during the fall).


----------



## Lantarion (Dec 6, 2003)

That would have been really lame, IMO: 
This is of-topic, but what was 'Ond' in these earlier versions? I asume it's Gondor because _ond_ means 'stone'..


----------



## Walter (Dec 6, 2003)

Your theory, Anc, sounds very convincing indeed, especially from an internal point of view, but it somehow has the air of "hindsight". 

And besides, isn't it a little probematic that Tolkien created 2 different instances of "re-housing" of Maiar? On the one hand we learn that they can easily "clad" themselves with bodily forms and Tolkien seems to see no need of further explanation for the recurrent "re-housing" of Sauron. On the other hand, with Gandalf, he changes the plot even when _The Lord of the Rings_ has been already published and goes great lengths to explain and interpret this as some sort of re-incarnation (similar to Christ's), while in the same breath he is calling it a "defect" in the story and "cheating". 

Most of Tolkien's own interpretation of this issue comes from his letter to Robert Murray (Letters #156 from 1954 - where a few more arguments can be found to back up RD's line of argumentation), a close friend of the Tolkien family, who had - largely under Tolkiens influence, it is said, converted and decided to become a Jesuit priest. Unfortunately part of the letter, which deals with death and reincarnation of Gandalf is omitted by Carpenter. 

I think C.T. has a strong point when he notes about his father, that: 



> In his later writing mythology and poetry sank down behind his theological and philosophical preoccupations: from which arose incompatibilities of tone.
> 
> C.T. in the Foreword of the Silmarillion



and that the issue of Gandalf's death in Moria as an afterhought is one of these cases where Tolkien's original conception _sank down behind his theological and philosophical preoccupations_....


----------



## Walter (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *That would have been really lame, IMO:
> This is of-topic, but what was 'Ond' in these earlier versions? I asume it's Gondor because ond means 'stone'.. *


 Very well combined, Watson 

_Ond_ is indeed the earliest name of the _Stone-land_ Gondor...


----------



## aragil (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Walter _
> *And besides, isn't it a little probematic that Tolkien created 2 different instances of "re-housing" of Maiar? On the one hand we learn that they can easily "clad" themselves with bodily forms and Tolkien seems to see no need of further explanation for the recurrent "re-housing" of Sauron. *


 Not sure they're so different here, Walter. Sauron's various re-housings are arduous, and take years to centuries. If Gandalf had done it that way the 3rd Age of the world would have long since passed into a fourth Age of Darkness.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 8, 2003)

Sauron's re-housing was achieved without the blessing of Eru, took longer to achieve each time and was probably the result of a massive act of will on his part.

Gandalf was re-embodied, turned round and sent back on a time scale that, compared with Sauron's, was immediate, because it had both the blessing and power of The One behind it.

I believe the capital 'O' was no accident when Aragorn said in TTT "Do I not say truly, Gandalf, that you could go withersoever you wished quicker than I? And this I also say: you are our captain and our banner. The Dark Lord has Nine. But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider. He has passed through the fire and the abyss, and they shall fear him. We will go where he leads."


----------



## Lantarion (Dec 8, 2003)

Hmm, if by this reference to 'the One' you are implying that Eru himself re-clad Gandalf, then I suppose that might be so; except that we do not know how well Aragorn understood Gandalf's true origins or the ways of Ilúvatar. 
Also wouldn't it be fairly blasphemous to compare a lowly Maia to Eru Ilúvatar?!


----------



## jallan (Dec 8, 2003)

One should look at all the relevant passages in in letter 156 following the passage that Walter orginally cited in this thread:


> But G. is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I wd. venture to say that he was an _incarnate_ ‘angel’ — strictly an ἃγγελος² that is, with the other _Istari_, wizards, ‘those who know’, an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By ‘incarnatel’ I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being ‘killed’, though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.
> 
> Why they should take such a form is bound up with the ‘mythology’ of the ‘angelic’ Powers of the world of this fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of ‘power’ on the physical plane, and so that they should do what they were primarily sent for: train, advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own strengths; and not just to do the job for them. They thus appeared as ‘old’ sage figures. But in this ‘mythology’ all the ‘angelic’ powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers or ‘gods’. The ‘wizards’ were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). For in his condition it was for him a _sacrifice_ to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to ‘the Rules’: for all he could know at that moment he was the _only_ person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all _his_ mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success.
> 
> ...


This partly answers some of the questions raised in this thread. 

As to Tolkien admitting that Gandalf’s death was somewhat a cheat, I think possibly Tolkien might have been looking at it in either or both of two ways.

First, it was and is a common trope in adventure ficture for a person to be killed apparently, and then turn out later to be alive, the person’s survival often being weakly explained. (Does anyone recall a recent film in which a hero was knocked over a cliff but roused by the kisses from his horse?)

It seems from the citation provided by Aragil that Tolkien originally did intend such normal, common, hackneyed adventure melodrama. But, Gandalf, after is not really a mortal, though one doesn’t know when Tolkien actually decided what Gandalf was. 

But having decided that Gandalf was a Maia from the West, embodied in flesh, a new embodiment would not be the same stretch that it would be if a mortal were returned to bodily form. Why not have Gandalf actually slain and then brought back stronger?

As it comes out in the tale however, the feeling is still not that far from the original normal hackneyed authorial deception that Tolkien had originally planned. The rules of Tolkien’s world may explain how Gandalf could be brought back, but the reader doesn’t know those rules.

What would have improved the situation would have been a setup of some kind before Gandalf’s death to give the reader a hint about Gandalf’s true stature, e.g. a few words about how embodied spirits like Sauron cannot quite be killed in the same sense that mortal are killed and somewhere else some speculation about Gandalf s origin in which someone suggests he is an embodied spirit.

The reader ought to have been given more clues.

Also, the return of Gandalf is somewhat _deus ex machina_, a term meaning ‘god from the machine’ referring to Greek tragedies, not the best Greek tragedies, where a god descends from heaven (actually lowered from above by some kind of crane machine) and ties up the plot. This also feels like cheating.

Gandalf of course doesn’t tie up the ends by himself and is still far from being an omnipotent god.

I am also not entirely sure that Tolkien’s explanations here are totally adequate. If those Ainur entered Eä were bound to it until the End, then why and how does Gandalf’s spirit leave the world? Why would it simply not return to the West?

Of course one can invent the explanation that Eru simply took Gandalf’s spirit as one of the various exceptions that Tolkien believes are found to most rules. But that explanation seems a bit of a cheat also.


----------

