Before we leave the Council...

R

Rachel Port

Well-Known Member
To be exact, in episode 136, long before I could participate live, I had a question - well, actually, it goes back to Bree - about Aragorn carrying the shards of Narsil. Not the movie stuff - I watched the movies once on TV and was so traumatized I had to go and reread the whole thing immediately, and have managed to block most of the movies out. But about why Aragorn has the broken sword with him at this time, on this particular journey. All my life I have thought he is carrying the shards at this time because he is taking them to Rivendell to be reforged. That is, I don't think he has carried it through so many years - when he is not fighting the Nazgul he needs something besides burning sticks. He has for years fought the forces of evil he has needed other weapons. To me it has always seemed that he knows that the Ring is going to Rivendell, carried by the halfling and that his time is coming. This is his time, and will be his test, so his carrying it is full of meaning for him, and adds force to his pledge to Frodo in the inn at Bree. And I haven't found a reason to change this opinion.

Which raises the question of where has it been kept? I think while he was living in Rivendell it was there, and probably remained there during his time in the South, between the ages of 20 and 49, which are the years of his travels in the south, fighting in Rohan and Gondor, learning about the conditions in Gondor -and scouting out the state of Gondor's enemies. But then, after his meeting with Elrond in which Elrond tells him that Arwen will not marry him until he is king of Gondor and Arnor. I think he then takes the shards of Narsil with him.

Now I get to speculation. The Rangers have settlements - they must, and they must also have wives and children. Aragorn's parents lived somewhere, and their parents before them, and during this time Gilraen leaves Rivendell and returns to where her people live, and where Aragorn has his last visit with her. My guess is that Aragorn lives with his people some of the time and in Rivendell some of the time when he is not upon his travels. So I believe that he has kept the shards of Narsil in the home base of the Rangers. It's what's left of the realm and people of Arnor. We know he has kin. When he is there, he might carry it. But I don't think he takes it very far. I don't think he carried it south looking for Gollum, for example.

But this carrying it to Rivendell is a solemn occasion - he is entering a new phase of his life, and he knows everything that it could mean for him.
 
Last edited:
I can see how this would work and it gives this a certain gravitas that would be lost if he carried it all the time, or even most of the time.
It also gives new significance to the fact that he can use it in concert with the poem to identify himself to the Hobbits in the Prancing Pony.

The only problem that I see with it is that Eriador is getting more dangerous, and so traveling on this journey without a functional primary weapon seems like an oversight. We don’t know that he doesn’t have one, but wearing a second weapon seems like something that would draw mention in the text. So there’s an oversight here somewhere; either by Tolkien or Aragorn.
 
Anthony Lawther said:
The only problem that I see with it is that Eriador is getting more dangerous, and so traveling on this journey without a functional primary weapon seems like an oversight. We don’t know that he doesn’t have one, but wearing a second weapon seems like something that would draw mention in the text. So there’s an oversight here somewhere; either by Tolkien or Aragorn.
Click to expand...

Aragorn on foot by himself is capable of being almost invisible, of moving in shadow, very quietly - in Bree he told the hobbits so. Fighting is not the only way to travel through dangerous territory. Part of being a great warrior is knowing when something other than fighting is best.

His primary weapons when he goes to get the shards of Narsil are his stealth and his woodcraft.

P.S. I did some serious editing of my post above - things seem to have transposed themselves into other places. It should be clearer now.
 
Last edited:
Hi Rachel,

I like your speculation. I wonder about one thing you said. "The Rangers have settlements - they must." In appendix A we are told that after the fall of the North Kingdom, "the Dunedain passed into the shadows and became a secret and wandering people."

I have always envisioned them as nomads. Perhaps travelling with yurts, like the Mongols, or tepees like Native Americans, or wagons or caravans, like Gypsies. I have never thought that they had settlements?
 
I guess I see it as a sort of hybrid society. Perhaps at first they all became wanderers, but over the centuries some went back to their old cities and reclaimed the habitable parts so that now there are several fixed places as well as the caravanseries. There may also be fixed camps, but I can't imagine Aragorn trusting Narsil to any place not solid and permanent. Aragorn and many of the other men spend most of their time wandering, protecting places like the Shire and Bree from the servants of the Enemy, fighting battles when necessary, joining with other forces as Aragorn did with Rohan and Gondor. But there are some home bases.

Granted, it's still speculation.
 
Rachel Port said:
I guess I see it as a sort of hybrid society. Perhaps at first they all became wanderers, but over the centuries some went back to their old cities and reclaimed the habitable parts so that now there are several fixed places as well as the caravanseries. There may also be fixed camps, but I can't imagine Aragorn trusting Narsil to any place not solid and permanent. Aragorn and many of the other men spend most of their time wandering, protecting places like the Shire and Bree from the servants of the Enemy, fighting battles when necessary, joining with other forces as Aragorn did with Rohan and Gondor. But there are some home bases.

Granted, it's still speculation.
Click to expand...
Sauron is at moment convinced that the line of Isildur is extinguished. So maybe they do feel a little safer now to settle down somewhere.
But I doubt that Aragorn would trust any known place as there is always the possibility of treachery. Sonner I will think he would have a personal hiding place for it in the wilderness only known to himself.
 
That's interesting Odola. I was thinking more of his leaving it with Gilraen until her death. He might have taken it somewhere else (or maybe she gave it to him) on his last visit when she tells him she will die soon. It really is interesting to think about the possibilities.
 
Answering Rachel's first post above:
Let's review the text about this. After the reading of the Gandalf Letter and some discussion: "[Aragorn threw] back his cloak, he laid his hand on the hilt of a sword that hung concealed by his side." This is vague but not obviously so. In what manner hanging by his side? And in what manner concealed? I will submit that hanging at his side is not a scabbard with sword fragments in it. That would be cumbersome and need tying up so the fragments would not spill out in combat. Try this on(!). At his side is a thick leather knapsack sort of affair. In it are the fragments each one wrapped in layers of fabric because they would be sharp and hard to avoid clanking or damaging each others' sharpness. I know from experience the edges of a good sword are razor sharp. So I see Aragorn opening this knapsack and pulling forth the hilt of the sword (which itself would not need wrapping, only the portion of the blade attached to it is). This knapsack could easily be carried most of the time on his back and would not be need to be over sized. Slung on a belt that goes over one shoulder and around under the other arm, it could be easily swung into accessibility at this moment. Tolkien does not go into this kind of pedestrian detail, because it would spoil the dramatic suddenness of the moment.
The text goes on to say: "He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt." Now, as Aragorn notes, this is not a functional, useful sword whatsoever. I have to think that this is a bit of a lapse on Tolkien's part. I am sure that Aragorn would not need to go about the Prancing Pony fully armed. His functional sword is back in his room. But he would be loathe to part with the Shards of Narsil or leave them unwatched lying about in some lodging room. So he has them with him carried as I speculated above. It's an important dramatic moment which perhaps led to a bit of an oversight which the film tried to resolve by giving him another "Strider's Sword" and leaving the Shards back in Rivendell. It does not say, note, that he drew out "his sword" from a scabbard, although a quick reading might think so. "His sword" here refers to the sword that is bound up with his identity, not his other practical sword to be used in possible combat.
OK, I just thought of a more cleverly Elvish solution, rather than just a knapsack holding jumbled wrapped up Shards -- Aragorn has connections with prime Rivendell craftselves, in particular with leather workers -- maybe even Arwen herself made it. So perhaps they did up for him a bespoke soft leather pouch with the Shards sewn in leather sheathes. Something compact and yet with each Shard safely in its own sealed leather affair each one affixed to a flap or a common background. The only thing readily visible is the hilt of Narsil with a leather strap holding it in place. Easy to see, easy to extract.
 
Last edited:
Timdalf said:
Answering Rachel's first post above:
Let's review the text about this. After the reading of the Gandalf Letter and some discussion: "[Aragorn threw] back his cloak, he laid his hand on the hilt of a sword that hung concealed by his side." This is vague but not obviously so. In what manner hanging by his side? And in what manner concealed? I will submit that hanging at his side is not a scabbard with sword fragments in it. That would be cumbersome and need tying up so the fragments would not spill out in combat. Try this on(!). At his side is a thick leather knapsack sort of affair. In it are the fragments each one wrapped in layers of fabric because they would be sharp and hard to avoid clanking or damaging each others' sharpness. I know from experience the edges of a good sword are razor sharp. So I see Aragorn opening this knapsack and pulling forth the hilt of the sword (which itself would not need wrapping, only the portion of the blade attached to it is). This knapsack could easily be carried most of the time on his back and would not be need to be over sized. Slung on a belt that goes over one shoulder and around under the other arm, it could be easily swung into accessibility at this moment. Tolkien does not go into this kind of pedestrian detail, because it would spoil the dramatic suddenness of the moment.
The text goes on to say: "He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt." Now, as Aragorn notes, this is not a functional, useful sword whatsoever. I have to think that this is a bit of a lapse on Tolkien's part. I am sure that Aragorn would not need to go about the Prancing Pony fully armed. His functional sword is back in his room. But he would be loathe to part with the Shards of Narsil or leave them unwatched lying about in some lodging room. So he has them with him carried as I speculated above. It's an important dramatic moment which perhaps led to a bit of an oversight which the film tried to resolve by giving him another "Strider's Sword" and leaving the Shards back in Rivendell. It does not say, note, that he drew out "his sword" from a scabbard, although a quick reading might think so. "His sword" here refers to the sword that is bound up with his identity, not his other practical sword to be used in possible combat.
OK, I just thought of a more cleverly Elvish solution, rather than just a knapsack holding jumbled wrapped up Shards -- Aragorn has connections with prime Rivendell craftselves, in particular with leather workers -- maybe even Arwen herself made it. So perhaps they did up for him a bespoke soft leather pouch with the Shards sewn in leather sheathes. Something compact and yet with each Shard safely in its own sealed leather affair each one affixed to a flap or a common background. The only thing readily visible is the hilt of Narsil with a leather strap holding it in place. Easy to see, easy to extract.
Click to expand...
I’m certain that there are many Elven craftsman that could devise an arrangement such as you describe. I have two problems with your proposal: A separate bespoke pack for this seems unnecessary, when the wrapped pieces could be carried in a more general purpose pack along with his other needs; and the reaction of the Hobbits. They seem to feel threatened, at least for a moment, and while I agree that Tolkien could be economical in his descriptions, he also demonstrated a willingness to include details to explain
for the reader.
Throwing back his cloak, he laid his hand on the hilt of a sword that had hung concealed by his side. They did not dare to move. Sam sat wide-mouthed staring at him dumbly.
Click to expand...
This conveys to me that it was immediately recognizable as a sword, and one that appears functional until he draws the hilt shard. This is a nice parallel to Strider himself in this moment, where he looks like he might be a threat to them, but proves not to be.

Perhaps it’s a combination of both ideas: Maybe there are separate pouches for each of the shards ( We don’t know how many pieces the sword broke into; there might be only two or three shards including the hilt) but contrived in such a way that a casual glance makes it look like any other sword. After all, he is trying to conceal his identity, and who else would go around with a broken sword?
 
My guess would be that he is carrying the hilt-shard (which includes part of the blade) in a scabbard, though he would probably carry the other shard(s) - I have always pictured the sword in two pieces - wrapped for safety with his other gear. As I said in the original post, this journey is a solemn, almost ceremonial, occasion for him, and so he wears a ceremonial sword, as a promise of what is coming, even while hiding it from others.
 
I took a look back to Session 59 where this issue of the hilt shard of Narsil in the Prancing Pony is discussed about an hour into the video. Prof Corey seems to assume that it is indeed Aragorn's primary weapon, impractical though that might be. I would say that just because Tolkien does not mention another sword does not mean that Aragorn/Strider does not indeed have one. At this moment of determining his identity in regard to the Gandalf Letter and the poem, it is irrelevant. But I think it very highly improbable that Aragorn, as Ranger in a very dangerous region, even if his primary mode is stealth, would not be armed with the most typical and necessary weapon of the era, a functional full sword. As I indicated above, there is no evidence to conclude he carries Narsil in a scabbard, and thus would have two swords visible at his side. A functional practical sword is so typical a weapon it would attract no special attention even in a town like Bree. Bree is a fronteir town. He is cloaked, so it would not be immediately apparent anyway. But to be without a handy full sword impresses me as being foolhardy and about as typical as a stranger wandering into Dodge City without a Colt pistol in a holster. It just isn't done!! Whether he wears it inside the inn, is an open question. So maybe at the moment of his interaction with the hobbits he is not wearing it and thus it would not prompt mention. But to carry a hilt with one foot of blade as a primary weapon is beyond arrogance. And Aragorn is not arrogant. Tolkien obviously has no need to state the obvious; so he does not mention Aragorn's primary weapon, his other sword. As Prof Corey notes, this is a mythic moment, not a practical one so giving a catalogue of Aragorn's daily weaponry is would only serve to dilute the impact of it.
 
Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town. Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

Seriously though, I agree that in most (or all other) instances Aragorn was more traditionally armed. I remember that discussion and couldn't figure out why neither of you thought of this as a special instance - Aragorn is carrying the shards of Narsil to be reforged. It is not an ordinary journey, so it isn't a matter of whether he carried a broken sword in a scabbard all the time, or a more traditional primary weapon. Perhaps this is another instance of his trusting to Providence. This journey of his is the fulfillment of prophesy, after all, and trusts that he will be able to complete it. He certainly is at no loss when he and the hobbits face terrible danger between Bree and Rivendell. But before Bree, where he was probably expecting to join Gandalf's group of travelers, he was alone, and most likely traveled by ways largely untraveled to avoid meeting others until he got to Bree.

By the way, I never pictured him renting a room at the inn, and he wasn't mounted, so he would have his pack with him, not in his room or with his horse. Indeed, the Rangers bring him his horse when they go to find him in Rohan. And past Bree, most of what he carried would be provisions, as he explains. He isn't carrying an armoury.
 
Well, of course, I was referring to the Dodge City of prior to Dec. 31, 1877... the Mythic Dodge of ripsnortin rootin tootin larlessness! Back in thar days when men wuz men and every real man carried The Great Equalizer! Sigh.....
I would say, if he is carrying the Mythic Identity Conferring Narsil, all the more reason to be well armed. No ordinary journey, indeed, and all the more to be on guard and well equipped! Trusting Providence does not preclude having a trusty blade. Among Rangers the saying goes, He who trusts Providence bladeless is risking Providence's test. Or so I've heard. Or he who trusts Providence often meets the unexpected. Why, as an experienced travellor, the first thing he would do would be to secure a room. Carrying the one sword needful is far from c"carrying an armoury"! His whole persona and behaviour at the inn bespeaks of extreme watchfulness.
 
I might be able to imagine Aragorn taking a room at the inn, but not Strider. I think that when Rangers do come to Bree, they camp outside the town, and that is what I always assumed Strider had been doing, and had planned to do on this night as well. And Strider came into the common room later than the hobbits, so quietly that they didn't notice, after Butterbur tells them that the inn is so full that he wouldn't have been able to house them if they weren't hobbits.
 
Rachel Port said:
I might be able to imagine Aragorn taking a room at the inn, but not Strider. I think that when Rangers do come to Bree, they camp outside the town, and that is what I always assumed Strider had been doing, and had planned to do on this night as well. And Strider came into the common room later than the hobbits, so quietly that they didn't notice, after Butterbur tells them that the inn is so full that he wouldn't have been able to house them if they weren't hobbits.
Click to expand...

But would he have been let in at all not beeing local and not having a room?
 
Odola said:
But would he have been let in at all not beeing local and not having a room?
Click to expand...
Would Butterbur turn away a paying customer, even if they were staying at another inn? I wouldn’t think so, unless the common room was so full that there was nowhere to sit or stand.
 
Anthony Lawther said:
Would Butterbur turn away a paying customer, even if they were staying at another inn? I wouldn’t think so, unless the common room was so full that there was nowhere to sit or stand.
Click to expand...
But a suspicious one? Just for 2-3 beers? Endanger his guest?
 
Strider is known to Butterbur. If Strider was too suspicious to allow in for a few beers or a meal then he would definitely be too suspicious to accommodate for the night.
 
I disagree. An hour in the common room with the opportunity for supervision, is a much lower risk than hours of unsupervised access to the hallway where locks could be picked or forced and guests valuables stolen from their rooms.
We see that Butterbur is the sort to take responsibility for the loss of guests property even when that loss is due to the actions of people not staying in the inn. We know Butterbur has a club for dealing with troublemakers when the Hobbits return from the south. While the area has become more dangerous in the absence of the Rangers (somewhat ironically for this discussion) I doubt the club is a recent acquisition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top