Elves and Ringwraiths

[Gurthang]

Does anyone besides me find it rather ironic that the men who accepted the rings from Sauron became more powerful than elves?

Now, it is generally assumed that on a normal day elves are more powerful than men. Not necessarily in strength, but in will, magic, skills, and vitality. But, the men who were consumed by the nine were different. They almost gained more from their 'transformation' than they lost.

One perk is that they became invisible. This would come in handy for eavesdropping ;) , but it also creates a good fear tactic and would be useful in combat. They became semi-immortal. They could not die, and their spirits would always remain even if they were defeated, so they never could truly be defeated.

Due to these changes, it seems to me that the Nazgul became more powerful than the average elf. They were seduced by their rings(which is bad), but ended up more powerful than before(which is good for them, bad for everyone else). Which brings me back to the beginning. Doesn't that seem like its backwards?

[Boromir88]

No one could combat all 9 at once, but one-on-one, a lot of people could contend with them. Heck, Aragorn took 5 of them, anymore he might have been defeated though. I believe Gandalf combatted all 9 on Weathertop, but he had to retreat. In a fight, no one could take on all 9. One-on-one, I feel as a different story, Galadriel, Elrond, Glorfindel, Cirdan, Gildor would probably mop the floor. But, these are some of the most powerful elves on Middle-earth (well Gildor left, but he was once there). To an average elf (which I would classify even below Legolas who I think is above-average) then ya the Wraiths would beat them. But a man can beat an average elf.

[Gurthang]

So the average man could beat the average elf one-on-one? I'd always thought of the Eldar as a superior race, being the first-born and all. But maybe that reputation comes from their countless years fighting Morgoth before men showed up.

But Boromir brings up a good point. The wringwraiths relied on their numbers quite often when they battled. At least when facing one opponent, or a small group of weaker ones, such as the hobbits. In big battles, like outside Minas Tirith, they spread out more to take out as many of the grunt soldiers as possible. Which makes sense. They didn't want to confront Gandalf right at the beginning, after all.

[Fingolfin II]

Gandalf said that Aragorn and Glorfindel together couldn't defeat the Nazgul on foot. As Boromir said, it is doubtful whether anyone not wielding the Ring can defeat all Nine by themselves. However, if anyone could do it, I'd back Gandalf the White- he was capable of fighting the Nazgul when he was Gandalf the Grey and he could defeat (albeit, he might not be able to kill- the prophecy) the Witch-King in the form of Gandalf the White.

As to whether who would win out of Elves and Men, I'd say it's an individual thing. Turin beat Saeros and Beren defeated Celegorm and Curufin, though I'd certainly say that Elves would probably be the superior fighting race, as they are in lore, music, etc.

Remember, the Numenoreans learned a lot from the Eonwe and the Eldar, as well as discovering a lot for themselves, so my bet is that any Elf from the Blessed Realm (and even the 'average' Elf) has a greater chance of defeating a man. However, there are exceptions. It's hard to say who'd win a fight between the 'average' Man and the 'average' Elf, because although Men are said to be stronger, we all know there are many factors in a fight rather than just brute strength- i.e. stamina, speed, skill, etc. It's like asking who would win a fight between Fingolfin and Hurin, or Gil-Galad and Tuor, or Aragorn and Glorfindel- there's no real telling who would win.

To get back to the original question, I would say yes, the Nazgul are stronger than most Elves as a result of the power instilled in them by Sauron's Nine Rings. However, we have seen that some Elves, such as Glorfindel and even Men - specifically Aragorn and Eowyn - have defeated the Nazgul, whether temporarily or in Eowyn's case, for good. Elves born in the Blessed Realm live both in the Ringwraith and 'normal' world and are said to have a great power against the 'shadows of Men' that are the Nazgul.

However, as I said before, this is an individual case, so therefore sweeping generalisations cannot be made. I acknowledge though that Elves are the 'superior race' in general compared to Men. To me, the Nine Rings put the Ulairi (I'm getting sick of saying 'Nazgul' all the time ;)) on the same plane as most Elves, though people like Elrond, Glorfindel and Galadriel could defeat them individually. Whether they could defeat them in whole group remains to be seen.

EDIT: The Nazgul have an advantage over Men that they can travel unseen and also the advantage of fear. After all, this is said to be the King of the Nazgul's main weapon (aside from that beastly mace- urgh!).

[davem]

But the Rings don't make them more powerful in themselves - they become enslaved to Sauron & its basically his power which they manifest, not their own. Its more a case, I think, of Sauron being more powerful than the Elves - yet even he was no undefeatable. He was beaten by Elendil & Gil-galad, even when he had possession of the Ring.

The power thing is a difficult issue, as this 'power' is more a negative thing than a positive one. It is a 'power' to negate, consume & destroy, not to create & build. The power of the High Elves could drive it back - hence Glorfindel could drive back the Nine simply by approaching them. The Light of Aman was in his face: he had seen the Two Trees before they were destroyed. The Darkness could not stand against that so the Nazgul were driven back.

I think that what we're dealing with is not a contest of strength - whether the Elves are stronger that the Nazgul in the sense of one human being more powerful than another - but of different 'forces' creation vs destruction, life versus not death but 'unlife', Light versus 'unkight'. Or 'presence', being, versus 'absence', unbeing

[drigel]

If there is anything to compare, its possibly with the unseen side of things. Elves can walk both in the seen and the unseen world. Mabye thats what is implied here: that while a mighty enough elf could destroy the physical rainment of a Nazgul, the undead spirit could never be destroyed while Sauron existed. Hence the "Nazgul can never be defeated" quote. An elf could clearly see that. :) The unhoused Nazgul spirit would simply recloak itself (in time) in another physical shell...?..?

[Frodo Baggins]

Now here is an interesting topic. a bit off topic, but there were some men, such as Beren and Turin, that were, or seemed to be, physically stronger than the "Average" Elf.

As for the Ulairi, they work with Sauron's power mostly. Truthfully I'm not sure an average, everyday elf could take them on. Remember how they all shoved their fingers in thear ears when Gandalf spoke the black speech.

Here's an intersting key. It says that Morgoth and Sauron feard Varda above all the other Valar. Aragorn says to Frodo after the attack upon Amon Sul, "More deady to him (the witch-king) was the name of Elbereth." The Ringwraiths got really scared when they heard that name.

Aragorn didn't really defeat the Wraiths, he just temporarily chased them off. Still, the Hobbits themselves attempted to fight them, Frodo even stabbed one of them, so apparently even Little Ones can put up a fight. If not for very long.

Now as for elves. Perhaps the average elf could put up a bit of a fight, just as hobbits and rangers/exiled kings. Gandalf said there were few in Rivendell who could ride against the nine. Glorfindel is one. He saw the two trees, and the light of Aman is in his face. Also, he had encountered the Witch-King before in the wars with Angmar earlier in the Third Age. It was there that the Ulairi learned that Glorfindel was scary and not to be messed with. He could very likely mop the floor with at least one or two.

Galadriel as well. She saw the Trees before they were destroyed and I think lived partly in Aman (at least in her thoughts) while in MIddle Earth. And she is a fighter, they didnt call her Man-maiden for nothing.

Gandalf, Olorin, Maia of Lorien. In a sense he is equal to Sauron and above the Ulairi on the power scale. He drove the Witch-King from the gate of Minas Tirith. We don't really know what he did on Weathertop, but I think all nine would likely be too much even for him.

Forgive me but I'm not sure Elrond would be able to take on more than one at a time. Yes he does have Vilya but I'm not sure that would be much help. Also, he was born in Middle-earth, after the destruction of the trees. I doubt he would be in both realms at once, but he may. But then, Eowyn didn thave anything but her sword, her wrath, and a loophole on a porphecy. So who knows?

[Boromir88]

I would give Elrond more credit then that. I know Galadriel, Glorfindel, Gildor, and Cirdan probably all out-rank him, power-wise, or wisdom-wise, but after them I would put Elrond. He also used Vilya to summon the flood.

Your normal elf soldier wouldn't put up too much of a fight against a Wraith. You have to admire Frodo's courage, for stabbing at the wraith, but he didn't put up much of a fight besides stabbing at his feet. But, that was more then the other hobbits, who threw themself to the ground, or in Sam's case shrunk beside Frodo and wimpered. (Don't worry Sam your time will come).

[Mithalwen]

Actually I think Elrond is unlikely to be outranked by anyone by anyone but Galadriel if push came to shove - I think that he is a bit of a special case as Peredhil. Glorfindel is shown as a deputy of Elrond. In HoME, I believe, that there is a is a feeling that the crafts of warrior and healer were incompatible. It is my instinct that Elrond may have renounced warfare after the Last Alliance or that in order to protect Imladris withg Vilya he had to remain there. In either case it seems that once Glorfindel had returned he became the military leader of the forces of Rivendell.

Elrond may not have been born in Valinor but look at his ancestry - and it seems power is passed through blood in Middle Earth. He was Gil Galad's heir, child of Earendil and Elwing, grandson of Tuor and Idril, Great grandson of Luthien and Beren and Turgon and Huor.... as herald of Gil-galad he would have been in the thick of it when Sauron was cast -down, it was his craft that swept the Nazgul away .... a match for most of the Nazgul in my book.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Did the original point suggest that being enslaved by Sauron was desirable?

[Boromir88]

Mith, Gildor might be pushing it, he is from the house of Finrod, and one of the Exiles. However, you bring up good points about Elrond's lineage.

But I would still put Glorfindel above Elrond for the fact that he slew a balrog, something I'm not sure Elrond could do.

[Frodo Baggins]

Thank you Mith, I totally Forgot about Elrond being related to Melian. :rolleyes:

[drigel]

Since the primary weapon of Nazgul was undeath and fear I would submit that, other than the nasty weapondry that they wielded, there would be nothing any elf would be afraid of. But, saying that, I dont think any being (Istari included) had the capability to destroy the Nazgul spirit utterly, given that Sauron was still active, and the ring was still in existance.

[Neithan]

Now, it is generally assumed that on a normal day elves are more powerful than men.
Although Elves do seem to be born with some skills that other races don't have, most of their greatness follows naturally from being immortal. They live longer and so they have more time to learn and practice skills. So if a Man had enough natural skill to compensate for his lack of experience he could still defeat the Elf.
To an average elf (which I would classify even below Legolas who I think is above-average) then ya the Wraiths would beat them.
How do you define an "average Elf". There are different kinds of Elves all distinctly different, so there can not be an average that applies to all of them.
As to whether who would win out of Elves and Men, I'd say it's an individual thing. I agree

As for the Ringwraiths they seldom fought anyone directly if they could help it (with the occasional exeption of the Witch King). They preferred to achieve their ends by stealth and deception, sometimes getting others to do their work for them (Bill Ferny). They would not directly attack the Inn at Bree even though few of its inhabitants were likely to stand and fight. They use their powers to strike fear into others and whenever possible they debilitate their enemies and strike when they are defenseless (Dark Breath, Morgul Blade). They are of the darkness and they use it against others, and they hate the light. Glorfindel who had seen the light of the trees, was as much a wielder of light as they were of darkness and so they feared him.

[King of the North]

The "power" given to the nine is not a gift. Once they accepted the rings they were seduced and were bound to the One Ring. Their sole purpose is to find it. That is the only reason why they have power. Always they feel the presence of the ring, they yearn for it. They are slaves to Sauron's will. Never, will they stop hunting for it. Being a nazgul is not as good as u would like to believe.

[Boromir88]

Neithan, I would classify an average elf as right around Legolas' ability. Not Noldor elves, they are some of the more powerful elves. So just your basic elf Silvan or Sindarin elf warrior.

Obviously someone could hold a different view :) .

[drigel]

Being a Noldor in itself wouldnt neccessarily translate into being a powerfull warrior. I would say the Eldar in general would apply as more powerfull. Granted, most Eldar in ME at this time were Noldo, and most of these had seen many years of war. By LOTR, there werent a lot of Eldar around ME, but there would be no comparison IMO with any other type elf.

But, as warrior prowess goes, I would submit that there were at least as many (if not more) Sindarin elves who I would rate as high (at least on the warrior skills rating).

Silvan/Avari - eh .... probably quite a few who were way up there on the "ranger" type skills: hunters, trackers etc., that could translate very well into warrior type skill sets. But yea for the most part - better at partying than fighting :)

Against a Ringwraith, any elf who didnt bring an Eldar to the fight would be sorely tasked.

[A_Brandybuck]

I think, we cannot judge, whether a Nazgul is more powerful as an elf, because their strengths are lying in total other fields.
As Neithan pointed out, the Nazgul's dreadful weapon was the fear. They aren't really good warriors. Aragorn (as it was altready posted serveral times) banished five of them at Weathertop. He didn't kill them, because they are really difficult to kill (at least the body). But not very difficult to banish.
The Nazgul fear themselves a lot. They fear flowing water, fire, "Elbereth", their master ;-) ...
Banishing them is not the problem, if the person, who tries, have enough bravery to fight against them. There is the crux.
It is necessary for fighting against them, that the person have got a strong spirit, strong will power, like Aragorn have it obviously. He can fight against them and banish them. Obviously Glorfindel have these attributes, too.
Elves seems to have an advantage over Men anyway. Men are mostly more weak. A good example, where we can see the weakness is the Ring.
So, when we are talking about who is more powerful: Elf or Nazgul, then I would say, that a Nazgul is a more powerful weapon against not strongminded enemies (i.e. Battle at the Pelennor), but Elves are generally better warriors and could defeat (or banish) the Nazgul, when they are strongminded enough.

[Boromir88]

Nothing against you Brandybuck, but the problem with that argument is this...
Due to these changes, it seems to me that the Nazgul became more powerful than the average elf.
That is the subject that is up to in debate. Your examples, which are valid, all deal with some of the most powerful people people in middle-earth. Aragorn, for a man, is one of the more powerful men, and better swordsmen. The thing that's in debate, is that an elf is usually more powerful then a man. But, in the 9 wraiths it seems like their rings enhanced their ability, making them stronger then the elves.

In some cases, Elrond, Aragorn, Glorfindel, Gandalf, are able to drive away the nazgul, but these are again some of the most powerful people on middle-earth. Where a wraith would mop the floor with one of you every day elves.

I think when comparing them, the nazgul are stronger then MOST elves, would be fair to say. Certainly not all elves, because as shown, they can be beaten, however it takes people like Glorfindel or Gandalf to do that, and they are no slouches.

Elf or Nazgul, then I would say, that a Nazgul is a more powerful weapon against not strongminded enemies (i.e. Battle at the Pelennor), but Elves are generally better warriors and could defeat (or banish) the Nazgul, when they are strongminded enough.
I agree, and let's look at the people who are able to do that. The four mentioned above. Imrahil and his knights were able to withstand the shriek, now would they be able to defeat the nazgul? We don't have any word of them squaring off, so no one knows. Since, they are able to withstand the shriek though, and not cower in fear, one could assume that they could "banish" the nazgul.

[Gurthang]

Although, despite being able to overcome the fear that the Nazgul create, you still must have suitable skill to defeat them in combat. They have been around for a long time, and I don't doubt they have gained plenty of experience using weapons. So there are really two stages of battle, overcoming the fear, and then overcoming the physical.

So whereas Glorfindel was able to fend them off with just the light of his presence, Gandalf, Elrond, Imrahil, Aragorn, and the others who had not seen the Trees would actually have to push them back physically(Elrond used a river, Aragorn his sword and voice). So it also does matter how much skill you have, not just being able to master your fear.

[drigel]

Although, despite being able to overcome the fear that the Nazgul create, you still must have suitable skill to defeat them in combat.

Thats what I would see the advantage elves would have over men. Like Legolas at the Paths of the Dead, the fear of undead things is absent in the immortal elves. Not to say that elves fear nothing, but in this case they have the upper hand on the fear thing, IMO

[A_Brandybuck]

Nothing against you Brandybuck, but the problem with that argument is this...

Due to these changes, it seems to me that the Nazgul became more powerful than the average elf.

I must admit, that I forgot to mention, that my post was an answer of the following statement of drigel:

Being a Noldor in itself wouldnt neccessarily translate into being a powerfull warrior. I would say the Eldar in general would apply as more powerfull. Granted, most Eldar in ME at this time were Noldo, and most of these had seen many years of war. By LOTR, there werent a lot of Eldar around ME, but there would be no comparison IMO with any other type elf.

I wanted to express, that we can't mess the Eldar by the qualities as warrior, when comparing them with the Nazgul, because in the direct duell, it is more important that they are strongminded.
Sorry, that I expressed that in that mistakable way.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Some silly statements, but an good thread

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course the Nine Rings bestowed increased power on the Men who took them. That is rather the point of the Rings. They wouldn't have taken them otherwise. At first, they were able to use this power to further their own desires and so gain political power, wealth etc. Ultimately, however, the Nine Rings bound them to Sauron and, as davem has pointed out, their enhanced power was directed solely towards furthering his will.

Whether or not they became more powerful than Elves is not really the point. The fact is that they became Nazgul and that surely is not a desirable state of being, however powerful they became. Given their time again, with the benefit of hindsight, do you think that they would have made the same choices?

[Nightwalker]

Good Day. My first post:

No, if the Nine Kings had known the outcome of these "gifts" they would have surely rejected the Rings. If we have a look at what these Men were initially looking for, we could enumerate might, wealth, prestige, longer life, wider realms, etc. Given that they, for a short time, were able to achieve these results with the help of the rings we have to confront these profane benefits with the price they have to pay for all that.

Losing one´s physical body, becoming an obedient servant of Sauron (who is indeed not famous for fair rewards), ever yearning for the One, living a restless life that is (similar to gollum´s) more "stretched" than prolonged, fearing the light of Aman in all its embodiments and worst of all not knowing to what end one, as a wraith, will come cannot demonstrate a king´s wishlist for the next decades. Where do their spirits go after they are defeated? Are they still allowed to leave Arda and lose the burden of being part of it?
The fate of men after their fall is not declared to the Valar, and even the most evil men will surely remember the power of Eru that they are subject to and reflect the deeds, either with shame or pride, before they die.

I guess the light of Aman can be more terrifying than Sauron´s devices of torture when all is over.

Men cannot escape fear, for it is part of both sides, good and evil. Being empowered by Sauron´s Rings does not add to their worthiness of their lives nor to the fulfillment of their human desires. Yet (I love this sentence in the Sil. altough it is not used in this context.) it is for them neither reward nor punishment, but the fulfillment of their own being.

This issue strongly reminds me of Goethe´s Dr. Faustus but this would be too much off-topic.

Anyway, think twice before accept gifts from fair looking strangers ;)

[Osse]

Please excuse the fact that I skew from the power of the Nazgul over the Elves in this one post...

Reading through the discussion on the Elvish capability to endure the fear of the undead, it seems to me that my own thoughts of the fear created by the Nazgul differ somewhat from some of yours.

I do not believe that the fear the Nine produce is the same as that of the spirits of fallen men - though spirits of fallen men they actually are. It is, as Tolkien outlines it, especially through the siege of the pelennor, a fear that debilitates - that drives any thought of fight from the mind of the subject. It's a crushing, morale quelling fear, a fear that there is no hope. It, I feel is a fear that is straight from the hatred of the Dark Lord - of destruction, perversion and death. I do not believe this to be the same fear that was awakened in those who came close to the shades of men in LOTR. I always saw the fear of the dead, as it was in ME, as being a very personal fear - a fear for your own safety, a fear of the unknown, and it was personalized in the case of men because it was so close to home - it affected them most because it was part of them, if that makes any sense.

The fear of the dead didn't affect Elves because it was alien to them - they were immortal, or rather the Halls of Mandos were known to them - it was rooted in their culture.

Whereas Men had no idea what the afterlife was for them - what the Doom of Man really entailed, or whether they themselves would fetch up as a wretched spirit such as the ones tormenting their fears. This of course was all subliminal - but it added, I believe to the fear felt by Men in the presence of their own kind's spirits. It was a personal fear. Typically, the Men of ME were scared or unsure of death - the Elves were not.

The fear of the Nazgul on the other hand could be seen as impersonal - it's about destruction - cares not who or what you are, but will enslave and destroy you, as the Nine themselves are enslaved and destroyed.

I guess this brings up the idea of the fear linked to the fate of the nine kings- is that why Men seem to have less sucess in weathering the fear? Does the fact that the Nine are really of their kindred affect them?

Your thoughts are appreciated!

Regards,
Ossë

[drigel]

osse - good points!
I would think an average elf's fear was concerned with the Nazgul's accutrements: poisoned / spellbound blades, etc. An Eldar's concern would be this too, as well as his/her abitlities or powers in the unseen arena vs. the particular Nazgul's.

As for men's basis in fear - I think all the points you brought up all add to the fear. It would seem to me that the combo you described (unsure about death and destruction) best summs it up.

[elfearz1]

I guess it depends on your point of view. I don't think they were more powerful. In some aspects it would seem they were, but in many ways they weren't. As soon as the ring was destroyed they were too so all their "power" in middle-earth in the end amounted to nothing. The elves are immortal and therefore have the better end of the deal in my opinion. ;)

[Lhundulinwen]

I'm sorry, this is probably totally not what you meant, but here goes-

The average man and the average elf were probably pretty equal. But how many strictly average elves are there in LOTR? All the ones we get to know very much about are great in some way. Legolas was a prince, remember.

BUT- with the prophecy and a WOMAN killing the witch king, doesn't it seem that women, or at least Eowyn were greater than a man? Eowyn was of high birth, but she was the one who finally killed one of the nine. Not Gandalf, not Aragorn, not Eomer, not even Legolas. She got the job done. By fate, happenstance, or whatever, she was the one who killed him. Personally, I think that is one of the best parts of the book!

A woman, not a man, might be greater than an elf. There were no girl Nazgul, after all. Kings fell, not Queens.

[The Saucepan Man]

There were no girl Nazgul, after all. Kings fell, not Queens.Do we know that for sure?

[Gurthang]

That's a really good point Lhundulinwen.

I guess I should have mentioned that when I was saying man, I was meaning the human race. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Which does bring up a good point. Some of the women in ME are more powerful than the men. Galandriel is a good example, I'd consider her one of the most powerful beings in the books. But let's not get into a discussion about one gender or the other specifically. I don't want this to become an arguement over if there is a dominant sex. (BTW, I don't think any of the Nazgul were women. Didn't someone say something about 'nine kings of men', or am I mixing book and movie?)

Originally posted by Lhundulinwen
A woman, not a man, might be greater than an elf.

I don't know that this makes much sense. If you're being gender specific about the humans, then you should be with the elves, too. Which really brings us back to the previous discussion. One-on-one, would a man be superior to an elf (or a women superior to a she-elf)? And then what would the outcome be if it were a Nazgul rather than a man?

It makes a little more sense to go with the elf having the upper hand on the man. The elf generally has much more time to develope combat skills, and their race has been around much longer than the human race, so they would have a larger range of knowledge and skills. That alone gives them a pretty big advantage, so they would get my vote.

But the Nazgul have that same advantage, too. And considering there are probably more 'dark-elves' in ME, a Nazgul would not shy away initially. After these equalizers, a Ringwraith would have the advantage. The power they derive from their ring would give them a huge boost. So I think that the Nazgul would easily overpower an everyday elf.

[The Saucepan Man]

BTW, I don't think any of the Nazgul were women. Didn't someone say something about 'nine kings of men', or am I mixing book and movie?In LotR, Gandalf says:


Nine he gave to mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them.In the Silmarillion, it is said:


Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerors, and warriors of old.Neither quote precludes one or more of the original holders of the Nine being women. The capitalised 'Men' could denote either sex, while the warriors or sorcerors referenced in the second quote could have been female.

[Neithan]

BUT- with the prophecy and a WOMAN killing the witch king, doesn't it seem that women, or at least Eowyn were greater than a man?
Not really, as pointed out earlier there definitely were female characters that were greater than most males; Galadriel, Luthien, and so on. But Eowyn was not that impressive, in fact she was quite weak. I think that Tolkien was making several different points by having the Witch King die in this manner.

First, that the weak can sometimes make the biggest difference.

Second, that no matter how great you are, you can not escape your fate.

Third, that you should not base decisions on incomplete information. Hearing the prophesy, everyone assumed that the Witch King would be killed by a great Elf Lord or by Gandalf, and so he let his gaurd down when fighting these "lesser beings" and was killed by a women and a hobbit.

All of these lessons can be found elsewhere in Tolkiens stories. The first is the main idea behind The Lord of the Rings. The second can be found when Eru tells Melkor that even Melkor's secret thoughts have their source in him. The third is found in the Mirror of Galadriel and the Palantiri.

[Lhunardawen]

The power thing is a difficult issue, as this 'power' is more a negative thing than a positive one. It is a 'power' to negate, consume & destroy, not to create & build.
This "negative" power was the reward of the Nazgul for their gullibility ( ;) ). Their greatest weapon was fear, and their purpose is to kill and destroy as Sauron commands, which is always tied up with their mission of retrieving the Ring.

The Elves - Elrond and Galadriel, specifically - were, on the other hand, given the power to restore and rebuild through the Elven Rings.

In this viewpoint, there is no sense comparing Elves and Ringwraiths. They are given entirely different powers. These we cannot compare.

As for physical strength, which seems to be the main idea in this thread, some are right in saying that Elves can stand up against the Nazgul. They can overcome fear, and strength in battle to reckon with. But if ever they were matched up against the Ringwraiths, I doubt they would be able to wipe them off the face of the earth. Their existence is tied with Sauron's and only through his defeat can they also be defeated. With exception to the Witch-King. We all know what happened to him. ;)

[Neithan]

In this viewpoint, there is no sense comparing Elves and Ringwraiths. They are given entirely different powers. These we cannot compare.
True. In fact, I would say they are opposites. Because of this it is hard to say who would win a fight, it depends on many factors, including the time of day (Ringwraiths are strongest at night, weakest at noon).

[Gurthang]

Maybe Tolkien was trying to make a point with these opposite powers: that the power to build up is greater than the power to destroy.

Look at the rings themselves. If you say they were completely opposite, then they should counter-balance each other. The Elven Rings are three, but the Nazgul's are obviously nine. This would mean that Sauron had to make three 'negative' rings to each one of the more powerful elven rings.

This could also elude to the power of good being a greater force than the power of evil, even though evil seems to way outnumber the good. As in the case of Mordor vs. Gondor/Rohan.

[Neithan]

This would mean that Sauron had to make three 'negative' rings to each one of the more powerful elven rings.
There are no completely "negative" Rings. All were made by the Elven smiths (most with Sauron's help). But in beginning none were evil. The Three had a strong tendancy to good because Sauron never touched them. The Nine (and the Seven) had a tendancy towards evil since Sauron had gained control over them, the Dwarves proved harder to ensnare though.
This could also elude to the power of good being a greater force than the power of evil, even though evil seems to way outnumber the good. As in the case of Mordor vs. Gondor/Rohan.
Yeah, good point.

[Gurthang]

There are no completely "negative" Rings.
True, I was speaking in the sense that they were more geared for destruction after the nine attained them.


All were made by the Elven smiths (most with Sauron's help).
Oh yes, my mistake. Thanks for correcting my error, Neithan. But there was one ring that was pretty much negative: The One Ring.

[Neithan]

But there was one ring that was pretty much negative: The One Ring.
My bad, so one completely negative ring then.

[arathorn]

Gandalf said that Aragorn and Glorfindel together couldn't defeat the Nazgul on foot. As Boromir said, it is doubtful whether anyone not wielding the Ring can defeat all Nine by themselves. However, if anyone could do it, I'd back Gandalf the White- he was capable of fighting the Nazgul when he was Gandalf the Grey and he could defeat (albeit, he might not be able to kill- the prophecy) the Witch-King in the form of Gandalf the White.

As to whether who would win out of Elves and Men, I'd say it's an individual thing. Turin beat Saeros and Beren defeated Celegorm and Curufin, though I'd certainly say that Elves would probably be the superior fighting race, as they are in lore, music, etc.

Remember, the Numenoreans learned a lot from the Eonwe and the Eldar, as well as discovering a lot for themselves, so my bet is that any Elf from the Blessed Realm (and even the 'average' Elf) has a greater chance of defeating a man. However, there are exceptions. It's hard to say who'd win a fight between the 'average' Man and the 'average' Elf, because although Men are said to be stronger, we all know there are many factors in a fight rather than just brute strength- i.e. stamina, speed, skill, etc. It's like asking who would win a fight between Fingolfin and Hurin, or Gil-Galad and Tuor, or Aragorn and Glorfindel- there's no real telling who would win.

To get back to the original question, I would say yes, the Nazgul are stronger than most Elves as a result of the power instilled in them by Sauron's Nine Rings. However, we have seen that some Elves, such as Glorfindel and even Men - specifically Aragorn and Eowyn - have defeated the Nazgul, whether temporarily or in Eowyn's case, for good. Elves born in the Blessed Realm live both in the Ringwraith and 'normal' world and are said to have a great power against the 'shadows of Men' that are the Nazgul.

However, as I said before, this is an individual case, so therefore sweeping generalisations cannot be made. I acknowledge though that Elves are the 'superior race' in general compared to Men. To me, the Nine Rings put the Ulairi (I'm getting sick of saying 'Nazgul' all the time ;)) on the same plane as most Elves, though people like Elrond, Glorfindel and Galadriel could defeat them individually. Whether they could defeat them in whole group remains to be seen.

EDIT: The Nazgul have an advantage over Men that they can travel unseen and also the advantage of fear. After all, this is said to be the King of the Nazgul's main weapon (aside from that beastly mace- urgh!).

Give us a proof that men are stronger than Eldar.
Don't come with that "Turin thing" because he wasn't fighting an Eldar.

[arathorn]

The average man and the average elf were probably pretty equal

No man... you must look the hole scenario.
Eldar>>>Avari(wood elves)
Men(descendants from the mixed Edain)=Avari
Eldar>>>Men
Eldar=Numenoreans or some of the Edain Hadoreans(pure blood)

The average Eldar are many times described as being strong.
Much taller.
Sight far superior than of Men.
Better coordination(higher degree of concentration and ambidexterity).
More stamina.
More durable.
Higher metabolism and greater spiritual contact what makes their healing more effective.
Faster/more lithe.
better skills(crafts and fighting)
And there are certain degree of Spiritual power.

Here are some later statements and comparisons made by Tolkien.
1.“…and they were tall and dark-haired and strong like fir-trees, and from them most of the Noldor later were sprung.
2.“…that time the Noldor still walked the lands here, the most powerful and most beautiful children in the world, and their languages were still heard by mortals.”
3.“…The Noldor, outnumbered and taken at unawares, were yet swiftly victorious; for the light of Aman was not yet dimmed in their eyes, and they were strong and swift, and deadly in anger, and their swords were long and terrible."
4.They were called “halflings”; but this refers to the normal height of men of Númenórean descent and of the Eldar (especially those of Ñoldorin descent), which appears to have been about seven of our feet.’
5.'The Quendi were in origin a tall people. The Eldar (...) they were in general the stronger and taller members of the Elvish folk at that time. In Eldarin tradition it was said that even their women were seldom less than six feet in height; their full-grown elfmen no less than six and a half feet, while some of the great kings and leaders were taller.'
6.They (Elves) were thus capable of far greater and longer physical exertions (in pursuit of some dominant purpose of their minds) without weariness; they were not subject to diseases; they healed rapidly and completely after injuries that would have proved fatal to Men; and they could endure great physical pain for long periods. Their bodies could not, however, survive vital injuries, or violent assaults upon their structure; nor replace missing members (such as a hand hewn off).
7.In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe."
8."The Númenóreans ... are in constant communication with their ancient friends and allies, either in the bliss of Eressea, or in the kingdom of Gilgalad on the shores of Middle-earth. They became thus in appearance and even in powers of mind, hardly distinguishable from the Elves..."
9. Sauron indeed achieved even greater control over his Orcs than Morgoth had done. He was, of course, operating on a smaller scale, and he had no enemies so great and so fell as were the Noldor in their might in the Elder Days.
And we must remember about Beren who could defeat Celegorm and was always said to be very strong and remember along with Turin because of his limbs. However when he and Finrod were captured who was the one who burst his bonds with spiritual/physical power and disarmed killed the werewolf?? Probably Beren wasn't stronger than Celegorm but more skilled and less arrogant.

[Nerwen]

Give us a proof that men are stronger than Eldar.
Don't come with that "Turin thing" because he wasn't fighting an Eldar.
Yes, he was, actually, according to the definition of "Eldar" used in the published "Silmarillion"- there the Nandor were Teleri, thus Eldar. Mind you, Tolkien's concept of "Eldar" vs "Avari" was one he revised quite a bit, as he did many other things... but that's in itself a reason not to get too dogmatic on these sort of issues.

More to the point, the member of whom you're demanding "proof" made that post ten years ago, and hasn't been around for a while... so I'm afraid you could be waiting a long time for a reply.;)

Welcome to the Downs!

[arathorn]

Yes, he was, actually, according to the definition of "Eldar" used in the published "Silmarillion"- there the Nandor were Teleri, thus Eldar. Mind you, Tolkien's concept of "Eldar" vs "Avari" was one he revised quite a bit, as he did many other things... but that's in itself a reason not to get too dogmatic on these sort of issues.

More to the point, the member of whom you're demanding "proof" made that post ten years ago, and hasn't been around for a while... so I'm afraid you could be waiting a long time for a reply.;)

Welcome to the Downs!

Yeah that seems correct but it is also stated that they become very different from the Sindar, probably they weren't so strong and Saeros wasn't also a militar.

The Elves in Middle-earth were "a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the world, and among them the Eldar [referring to the Noldor Eldar] were as kings, who now are gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars.

'The Quendi were in origin a tall people. The Eldar (...) they were in general the stronger and taller members of the Elvish folk at that time. - One of his latest notes.

[Galin]

The Elves in Middle-earth were "a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the world, and among them the Eldar [referring to the Noldor Eldar] were as kings, who now are gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars.

First I note that the passage continues: '... People of the Stars. They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finarfin.'

Christopher Tolkien's objection to this passage is in reference to the fact that the mostly golden-haired Vanyar are Eldar by any definition, and the larger passage seems to say that the Eldar were generally dark-haired. This is being corrected in new editions of The Return of the King where a footnote has been added to note that: ['These words describing characters of face and hair in fact applied only to the Noldor: see The Book of Lost Tales, Part One, p. 44']

But there is further explanation from Christopher Tolkien about this matter too, where, in The Peoples of Middle-Earth he explains that despite the notion of the 'golden Vanyar' appearing to have pre-dated the final form of Appendix F, his father yet carefully revised this passage to refer to the Eldar, not just the Noldor.

Moreover, although the added footnote is correct in one sense, in my opinion in an internal sense the characteristics can easily apply to the Sindar too -- thus 'the Eldar of Middle-earth' . Which I think is a good way to view this passage, considering that the Vanyar were 'hardly' in Middle-earth from a relative, historical standpoint at least. As you quoted yourself above...


7. In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe."

And Tolkien further notes here that it was the [I]brightness of the eyes of the Exiles that helped make them distinct from the Sindar.

WCH has well argued that Tolkien probably goofed here Vanyar-wise, but JRRT later changed 'House of Finrod' here to 'House of Finarfin' for the Second Edition, and so must have missed his own suggestion about the Vanyar here once again? I guess it's possible.

Anyway in the end the text was never corrected [besides Finarfin I mean] by the author himself, and CJRT's objection also supports that the term Eldar is meant, not the Noldorin Eldar only. And in any case I don't see Christopher Tolkien's objection as pertaining to anything but the characteristics that follow the part of the passage you quoted -- although that said, I can see why, if one accepts 'they' as the Noldor as far as hair and so on, then the Noldor can be meant in the earlier passage too.

For myself, I say can't we just leave it as Eldar? I'm all for getting the hair colour right... ;)

... but I'm not sure even CJRT would know Tolkien's move if he noted the 'problem' here. If his father thought it was a problem! I mean why can't we have dark-haired Vanyar as a 'fix' [the idea of the golden Vanyar is the 'unpublished' part in any case], and some golden haired East-elves?

There's seemingly one in Lorien already :D

__________

*Nerwen has already spoken to the changing nature of the term Eldar, and in The Lord of the Rings itself [but not necessarily in other works], in my opinion Eldar refers properly to the Vanyar** Noldor and Sindar only -- changing internally from its original reference to all Elves of course.

**The Vanyar are not noted, if I recall correctly, but are included as Eldar by implication, being Elves who passed Over Sea.

It does appear that Tolkien changed his mind to include the Nandor, and any who started the Great Journey, not simply those who passed Over Sea save the Sindar only, or [essentially] 'West-elves' [again based on text in The Return of the King].

[cellurdur]

Give us a proof that men are stronger than Eldar.
Don't come with that "Turin thing" because he wasn't fighting an Eldar.

Men are no where near as strong as an average elf and they lack the 'magic' the elves have. The exceptions being the men with divine ancestry or the ones practicing black magic.

The exceptions to this are the Numenoreans who experienced a new enlightening and restoration in the Numenor. The Numenoreans are not distinguishable from the Eldar. When Tolkien compares the average heights the Numenoreans are equal with the Noldor.


However, if we are talking about individual houses then the House of Hador and Beren are physically the stronger than elves. Tolkien may have decided to drop the story of even Fingon being unable to wear the Dragon's helm, but there is lot's of other evidence.

Turin and Beren are probably the two strongest physically out of any elf or man. After that comes the House of Hador and House of Fingolfin. The early Numenorean Kings being descendants of Hador and Fingolfin would be there as well.

[Nerwen]

cellurdur, what is your source for all this? "Strength" can mean a lot of things- certainly Elves are *tougher* than Men- but the counter-examples you and arathorn mention suggest you're both thinking largely in terms of brute force. Is there a chart ranking everyone by this that I missed, somehow?

-Galin, I think that physical description of the Eldar in the "Return of the King" appendices may indeed refer to those of Middle-earth only- if you assume the point is to describe the Eldar as Men knew them (in which case the appearance of the Vanyar isn't relevant).

[cellurdur]

cellurdur, what is your source for all this? "Strength" can mean a lot of things- certainly Elves are *tougher* than Men- but the counter-examples you and arathorn mention suggest you're both thinking largely in terms of brute force. Do I really just mention brute force? I thought I mentioned the inability of Men to use what we would call magic. I talk about how Numenoreans were blessed and had the gifts humans before they came into contact with Melkor. The telepathy the Numenoreans have is certainly 'magical' to us.

I talk about a variety of issues and Tolkien does tend to give us ranking charts and it appears you have missed it. Or do you disagree that Luthien is the fairest of all elves? Daeron the best out of all singers or Earendil the best out of all sailors? Maybe Feanor was the not the finest or all craftsmen after all?

What exactly do you want me to provide a source for?

[Nerwen]

I have indeed missed these ranking charts of which you speak.

Tolkien does often describe various people and things as the "---est"; while this is no doubt literally true in the case of, say, Feanor being the "greatest craftsman", much of the time it's a matter of him saying different things at different times, and not being particularly consistent. Judging from things you've said here and elsewhere, I gather you believe that there is a precise, thought-out system underlying all this. I doubt it.

Anyway, I'm not disputing the "magic" issue- but most of your post is, seemingly, concerned with physical strength. That's what I'm asking about.

[cellurdur]

I have indeed missed these ranking charts of which you speak.

Tolkien does often describe various people and things as the "---est"; while this is no doubt literally true in the case of, say, Feanor being the "greatest craftsman", much of the time it's a matter of him saying different things at different times, and not being particularly consistent. Judging from things you've said here and elsewhere, I gather you believe that there is a precise, thought-out system underlying all this. I doubt it.

Anyway, I'm not disputing the "magic" issue- but most of your post is, seemingly, concerned with physical strength. That's what I'm asking about.

When you write a work as detailed and vast as Tolkien's you are going to have mistakes. In the earliest drafts there is even intentional author bias.

The contradictions are not really that many considering how long he has been writing the story. A lot of the time they are consistent.

You mentioned Feanor, but why not comment on Daeron, Luthien or Earendil? In all three cases we are told several times that they are the best in a certain field. If you want to accept that Feanor is the mightiest craftsmen then how can you reject that Daeron is the mightiest singer?

How many different types of strength are there? Once we dismiss men from the 'strength' in magic, then there is only strength of body and strength of will left. Nor is strength of 'will' the same as wisdom. Ar-pharazon had strength of will, but lacked wisdom. In terms of strength of will once more the House of Hador stand at the forefront.

The House of Finarfin seemed particular adapt at 'magic' with the likes of Galadriel and Finrod.

When I commented on strength of body, I specifically mentioned 'physical strength'.

'But Turin had been long in a hard school, and had grown as agile as any Elf, but stronger.'-UT

As for strength of will Hurin is elsewhere called the mightiest in this and we see this in action when he is not daunted by Morgoth's eyes.

' and he sought to daunt him (Hurin) with his eyes. But Hurin could not yet be daunted and he defied Morgoth.'-UT

[Morthoron]

' and he sought to daunt him (Hurin) with his yes.

But he just said "No".

Ummm...sorry. Too much coffee not to comment.

[cellurdur]

But he just said "No".

Ummm...sorry. Too much coffee not to comment.

I have corrected that mistake now.

[Morthoron]

I have corrected that mistake now.

It was funnier the other way. ;)

As far as the subject, I've come to the conclusion that for every statement you can quote from Tolkien, there is an equal and opposite contradictory reply. Like the elves, Tolkien says both yes and no.

So, whichever side of a discussion you wish to be on, there are plenty of quotes to cull. Except, of course, for Balrog's wings, which were an undeniable certainty.

[cellurdur]

It was funnier the other way. ;)

As far as the subject, I've come to the conclusion that for every statement you can quote from Tolkien, there is an equal and opposite contradictory reply. Like the elves, Tolkien says both yes and no.

So, whichever side of a discussion you wish to be on, there are plenty of quotes to cull. Except, of course, for Balrog's wings, which were an undeniable certainty.

Not when you take things into context.

For example Tolkien might call Galadriel a 'queen' in a letter to a friend outlining the story. He is not being literal here, because in the story we know she is not a 'queen' and in a more detailed letter he goes into it.

The same with Arwen being an 'elf'.

I think there is this great desire to dismiss the consistency in the work, even when there are no contradictions.

[Galadriel55]

The thing is, half the major characters are praised half as well as they deserve, and less than half are praised half as much, and they are never told to line up and run a race or something. How do you compare Sam with any other hero? Or even a more similar twain, Aragorn and Turin? How do you tell who had the greater will, physical strength, or greatness of character? LOTR provides the solution: get a sword and call for an axe. ;)

[cellurdur]

The thing is, half the major characters are praised half as well as they deserve, and less than half are praised half as much, and they are never told to line up and run a race or something. How do you compare Sam with any other hero? Or even a more similar twain, Aragorn and Turin? How do you tell who had the greater will, physical strength, or greatness of character? LOTR provides the solution: get a sword and call for an axe. ;)

Tolkien was not a relativist.

'Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves and dwarves and another among Men.'

[Galadriel55]

Tolkien was not a relativist.

'Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves and dwarves and another among Men.'

That has nothing to do with anything. Please mark that I am not discussing the nature of good and evil but the "strength" of the characters. Last time I checked strength is not some transcendent quality but is very subjective; it depends on many considerations and conditions. Moreover, no one is put through the same task at the same time with the same situation. People do different strong and heroic things. How do you determine which is the more heroic, or who is stronger? You don't, you just appreciate both as much as they deserve and don't compare. It's not like they are competing for points for ranking.

[cellurdur]

That has nothing to do with anything. Please mark that I am not discussing the nature of good and evil but the "strength" of the characters. Last time I checked strength is not some transcendent quality but is very subjective; it depends on many considerations and conditions. Moreover, no one is put through the same task at the same time with the same situation. People do different strong and heroic things. How do you determine which is the more heroic, or who is stronger? You don't, you just appreciate both as much as they deserve and don't compare. It's not like they are competing for points for ranking.

Strength is as subjective as good and evil. Can we determine with certainty what is always 'good' and what is always 'evil'? No. However, as the Aragorn quote says we have a choice to make.

The same way we cannot always determine who had the greatest strength, but we can still use our opinion to make a judgement call. Fortunately for us we don't always need to use our own judgement, but can rely on what Tolkien said.

When Tolkien tells us that Luthien and Beren stealing a Silmarillion was the greatest deed accomplished, then I take him for his word.

When Tolkien said Hurin had the greatest strength of 'will' ever when he defied Morgoth, once more I take him at his word.

The same way I take him at his word when he tells me that Finwe was the father of Feanor or Arathorn was the father of Aragorn.

[Galadriel55]

Strength is as subjective as good and evil. Can we determine with certainty what is always 'good' and what is always 'evil'? No. However, as the Aragorn quote says we have a choice to make.

Ummmm.... no. Good is good and bad is bad, and they are not always clear but always constant. And then you have a basketball player and a swimmer: who is stronger? Go figure. How do you even judge or compare them? Or even, let's say, two biathletes - one skis in good weather and makes faster timing, the other skis in a storm and completes the same track in more time. Who is stronger? Dunno, they have a different situation. Maybe the second is naturally slower, or maybe the first wouldn't have been able to complete the track in bad conditions. And to add to that, the Canadian news reporter says that the first biathlete is the strongest of the bunch while the American reporter really praises the second for his superior strength. Who do you trust? Is one lying?

The same way we cannot always determine who had the greatest strength, but we can still use our opinion to make a judgement call. Fortunately for us we don't always need to use our own judgement, but can rely on what Tolkien said.

Especially when he called most of his characters "great", "strong", "fair", etc at some point or another.

When Tolkien tells us that Luthien and Beren stealing a Silmarillion was the greatest deed accomplished, then I take him for his word.

So do I, but I read his word differently. He writes a story, not a code of law. When he says that something or someone was greatest/strongest/fairest/, I understand it to be very great/strong/etc. Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel all compete for the title of the "fairest" woman in ME (get the axes ready!), but to me that just means they were all quite beautiful in their own ways. One statement does not have to contradict another, and neither has to mean that literally out of the whole legendarium one lady gets the most points for beauty.

When Tolkien said Hurin had the greatest strength of 'will' ever when he defied Morgoth, once more I take him at his word.

I myself admire Hurin for his willpower very very very much, but I have a couple problems with your statement:

1) You can't compare him with many others since he's one of the extremely few Eruhini who faced Morgoth. You don't know how others would have reacted, since they were never there. A great will won't show itself until it is tested, and he's the only one to get the test. It's like me saying "you are my favourite sister" when I only have one sister. It means that I like her very much. Perhaps she would be my favourite if I had more.

2) Tolkien says this and then spends over a thousand pages marvelling at the strength of will of the hobbits. Sure, they never defeat a Morgoth, but once again, it's relative. Look were Hurin starts out and where they start out. It is quite expected that Hurin would have the strength to resist to a point, while hobbits don't seem to have any strength at all. It's undeniably a great feat to defy Morgoth, but is it not also a great feat to resist Sauron in a Palantir? How many times to Gandalf and Elrond and the rest wonder at Frodo's strength after Weathertop and in general, throughout the journey? Of Pippin with the Palantir? Or Merry and the Nazgul? Feats that greater men could not do? It's subjective.

3) Tolkien is very liberal with his superlatives. If you take all of them to be literally true, you find yourself in a paradox. Therefore, you must also be liberal in understanding the value of those superlatives - not to diminish the deed or quality, but to understand that it's not really being ranked, just singled out as extraordinary.

4) If everything becomes important based on its rank of superlative, everything just loses the point. Do I care about Hurin because Tolkien described him as the strongest, physically or in will? Do I care about his strength that way? I really don't. What I do care about is that despite the hoplessness of the situation and the superhuman pressure he has to withstand, he does not crack and defies Morgoth. [I]This makes me understand and admire his strength. A superlative statement just confirms my own feelings in ME people. At the same time, I also admire Aragorn's battle of wills with Sauron and Gandalf's battle of wills with the Balrog. I don't admire them less just because they don't have a Morgoth, or because they are not the greatest deeds ever. If you begin ranking events and characters based on pure superlatives, they will soon be reduced to pokemon cards. This one has 400 magic power, that one has 500 strength power...

The same way I take him at his word when he tells me that Finwe was the father of Feanor or Arathorn was the father of Aragorn.

Well, technically... :Merisu:

;) I had to. Never mind this.

[Ivriniel]

Does anyone besides me find it rather ironic that the men who accepted the rings from Sauron became more powerful than elves?

Now, it is generally assumed that on a normal day elves are more powerful than men. Not necessarily in strength, but in will, magic, skills, and vitality. But, the men who were consumed by the nine were different. They almost gained more from their 'transformation' than they lost.

One perk is that they became invisible. This would come in handy for eavesdropping ;) , but it also creates a good fear tactic and would be useful in combat. They became semi-immortal. They could not die, and their spirits would always remain even if they were defeated, so they never could truly be defeated.

Due to these changes, it seems to me that the Nazgul became more powerful than the average elf. They were seduced by their rings(which is bad), but ended up more powerful than before(which is good for them, bad for everyone else). Which brings me back to the beginning. Doesn't that seem like its backwards?

Hi everyone,

I remember reading that "...Elves do not fear them" (ringwraiths), though I can't for the life of me cite the quotation and place it to someone, though, I recall encountering the quote when looking up Annatar, the Ost-In-Edhil and history of Elves and Sauron. The nub of it was that Elves--already in two worlds at once--are either immune, or more resistant to the fear effects of the Nazgul--(and this bit we know from many precedents, including what was said about Glorfindel, for example, and what occurred when he assisted Frodo).

I've been trying to fathom what, exactly, it is then, that defines the core difference between Nagul in the wraith/spirit world and Elves when they are in that realm. Icy touch, death stares and so on don't come with the Eldar when they go into their 'fey' form. So, I don't believe the key difference is about 'good versus evil' Spirits, though this is implicated, somehow.

I'm wondering whether there is some variation on the channelling of Spiritual Energy through the Spirit Realm, in the very metaphysical 'organisation' of the flesh of the two distinct kinds of Spirit beings. Recalling, here, that Morgoth and Sauron were pervertos who got lustful and greedy about messing with Eru's and the Valar's Music of Creation, ergo Orcs from Elves, for example. Blarogs (beings of Shadow and Fire) and what Gandalf said to the Balrog, in a metaphysically significant comment: "I am a wielder of the Secret Fire". Some kind of stepping up to the plate, to match Mr Balrog's 'shadowy' version of 'metaphysical fire'. Presumably, 'Secret Fire' meant something to do with, perhaps, Eru's 'flames in the void' sort of thing.

If I had to think of 'metaphysical dimensions' to collapse to make a ringwraith, I'd be channelling a perversion of the Spirit Flame thing Eru goes on about. One that drains Life from the (mortal) body and replaces the flesh with Shadow Fire/Spirit, or that fortifies the lifespan by being a big 'power sink' syphoning the energy of life into the Undead being. A variation of the Elven Spirit world, but one that is life draining, c.f. life sustaining. I've often imagined that when one of the Nine used the Ring, before transmuting into Undead, some part of their Mortal essence was drained away into Sauron, while, instead, Sauron's mental and material presence grew in the man. I recall reading that the Nine, when they were not yet fully altered, grew unable to tell the difference between a thought that was theirs, and one of Sauron--until their Wills were one and the same, basically. This event is very 'Sauronic' and very much how the literature implied how me operated. For example, when he discorporated when the Ring was Unmade, all his Orc legions were basically free of his will. The Sauronic presence was about how he could permeate through Nature and Beings.

To support the idea of 'life draining' or 'Spirit Fire that syphons life--wraith', I cite their opposite in their 'Elviish' variant: The Three Elven Rings that, inspired by Celebrimbor seeking to manifest a 'minivalinor' in Middle Earth, basically, seemed to extend what happened in the Elven body, over a dominion or place, without violating life force or will of others (Lothlorien. Galadriel's capacity to stop 'fading' and to bear a variation of what occurs in Valinor to Middle Earth). The Silmarils, the Phial of Galadriel, the Two Trees, the Elessar, and so on, were all artefacts that were not just 'bright lights' but were, somehow, living lights radiating with 'life itself'--the eternal flame.

Cheers
Irviniel (Imrahil's older sister. She's not very happy with the 'boy prince' thing and decided to stomp her foot and make a realm for herself :) )

[cellurdur]

Ummmm.... no. Good is good and bad is bad, and they are not always clear but always constant. And then you have a basketball player and a swimmer: who is stronger? Go figure. How do you even judge or compare them? Or even, let's say, two biathletes - one skis in good weather and makes faster timing, the other skis in a storm and completes the same track in more time. Who is stronger? Dunno, they have a different situation. Maybe the second is naturally slower, or maybe the first wouldn't have been able to complete the track in bad conditions. And to add to that, the Canadian news reporter says that the first biathlete is the strongest of the bunch while the American reporter really praises the second for his superior strength. Who do you trust? Is one lying?

Firstly the popular opinion now is not 'good is good' and 'bad is bad,' but one of relativism. This is something that Eomer is questioning. He is asking does the matter of what is good depend on the time period? Or is good relative to everyone's culture.

People compare sportsman all the time. What do you think the Laureus award is? When you know a sport is quite easy to compare, which athlete is stronger when they raced in different conditions.

Especially when he called most of his characters "great", "strong", "fair", etc at some point or another.
'Great' or 'strong' is not the same as 'greatest' or 'strongest'. When there is a contradiction we can then discuss things, but until then I believe it's best to go with what has actually written, rather than adding our own interpretation into the text. How far do you want to go?

So do I, but I read his word differently. He writes a story, not a code of law. When he says that something or someone was greatest/strongest/fairest/, I understand it to be very great/strong/etc. Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel all compete for the title of the "fairest" woman in ME (get the axes ready!), but to me that just means they were all quite beautiful in their own ways. One statement does not have to contradict another, and neither has to mean that literally out of the whole legendarium one lady gets the most points for beauty.
So you want to interpret the words of the text differently than they are written. Maybe when it says Finarfin is blonde it really means brunette? How far do you want to go? Luthien, Arwen and Galadriel do not compete for the title of fairest. There is no competition in Tolkien's writing. There is a unanimous winner: Luthing Thingol. In every several different writings she is called the 'fairest' that ever lived. There are too many instances to even begin to quote them.

I myself admire Hurin for his willpower very very very much, but I have a couple problems with your statement:
Firstly it was not my statement, but Tolkien's who knows the characters and their strengths perfectly.

1) You can't compare him with many others since he's one of the extremely few Eruhini who faced Morgoth. You don't know how others would have reacted, since they were never there. A great will won't show itself until it is tested, and he's the only one to get the test. It's like me saying "you are my favourite sister" when I only have one sister. It means that I like her very much. Perhaps she would be my favourite if I had more.
You can compare him with others, who faced a less evil in Glaurung and proved not as strong. However, this is besides the point, because Tolkien told us that this was the strongest a Man's spirit has ever become.

2) Tolkien says this and then spends over a thousand pages marvelling at the strength of will of the hobbits. Sure, they never defeat a Morgoth, but once again, it's relative. Look were Hurin starts out and where they start out. It is quite expected that Hurin would have the strength to resist to a point, while hobbits don't seem to have any strength at all. It's undeniably a great feat to defy Morgoth, but is it not also a great feat to resist Sauron in a Palantir? How many times to Gandalf and Elrond and the rest wonder at Frodo's strength after Weathertop and in general, throughout the journey? Of Pippin with the Palantir? Or Merry and the Nazgul? Feats that greater men could not do? It's subjective.
So you want to take Tolkien's marveling at the strength of Hobbits literally, but not when he says Hurin's strength of Will was greater? Why is it a given that a man, would have the strength of Will to resist the greatest thing ever created when even Manwe initially was daunted by Melkor's eyes?

Just, because Aragorn resisting Sauron in the Palantir is a great feat, does not make it equal with Hurin's. As Tolkien tells us these mental battles are much, much more difficult in person and Aragorn was helped by distance and the Palantir rightfully belonging to him. Hurin on the other hand was up against a much greater foe than Sauron and in person.

Something being 'subjective' to our eyes does not mean there is no way of judging. Is the strength of Will Frodo needed to go on a diet the same as the strength of Will needed to destroy the ring? Both are subjective, but nobody is going to say the former required more mental strength.

3) Tolkien is very liberal with his superlatives. If you take all of them to be literally true, you find yourself in a paradox. Therefore, you must also be liberal in understanding the value of those superlatives - not to diminish the deed or quality, but to understand that it's not really being ranked, just singled out as extraordinary.
Or maybe Tolkien wished to rank certain deeds and we should take him at his word. Where things contradict then we can argue, but where there is no contradiction why reject his words?

4) If everything becomes important based on its rank of superlative, everything just loses the point. Do I care about Hurin because Tolkien described him as the strongest, physically or in will? Do I care about his strength that way? I really don't. What I do care about is that despite the hoplessness of the situation and the superhuman pressure he has to withstand, he does not crack and defies Morgoth. [I]This makes me understand and admire his strength. A superlative statement just confirms my own feelings in ME people. At the same time, I also admire Aragorn's battle of wills with Sauron and Gandalf's battle of wills with the Balrog. I don't admire them less just because they don't have a Morgoth, or because they are not the greatest deeds ever. If you begin ranking events and characters based on pure superlatives, they will soon be reduced to pokemon cards. This one has 400 magic power, that one has 500 strength power...

Why does something loses importance if it is ranked? Please explain this to me? Ranking things does not reduce them to Pokemon cards. Just, because you personally want to look at things one way does not mean others do.

Not all situations are hopeless and some deeds are greater than others. It does not distract from one 'great deed' to know that another was greater. Rather it gives you Sam hope that if Beren and Luthien could triumph 'in a worse place and black danger' than theirs, then they could make it too.

Well, technically... :Merisu:

;) I had to. Never mind this.
I don't see why you don't take it seriously. When you pick and choose what the author means, despite him repeating an idea then what is next?

'and she (Luthien) was the fairest maiden that has ever been among all the children of this world'-LOTR

'for Luthien was the most beautiful of all the Children of Illuvater'-Silmarillion

Just two of the many, many quotes naming Luthien as the fairest of all the Children of Illuvater in different books. If you can reject something that Tolkien repeatedly writes then what next do you want to reject?

[Ivriniel]

I'm not sure quite how to assemble the various references in the books, both tacit, implied and explicit, about racial and trait differences into anything really simple. However, I would not be so sure a Ringwraith is quite the comparison to make here to the Eldar. Ringwraiths were beings imbued with Sauronic will, sorcery, evil, fortification and purpose. They had a Ring of Power bolstering and warping the underlying essence of their mortal being.

Tolkien often made specific reference in concepts ranking Elves and Men. Certain of the Eldar and Men are ranked against each other, and compared in specific ways. Those went beyond superlatives and implied, often but not always, inborn traits or capacities, though he also noted environmental impacts on the achievement of greatness, such as the Light of Aman and how it changed the Elves. Numenoreans were altered, it was sometimes implied and stated, by the Isle of Numenor's proximity to Valinor.

Amongst specific traits and concepts cited in this ranking, Feanor for example, (notwithstanding his unfortunate personality--narcissism) was described, specifically

"For Fëanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and a bright flame was in him." ― The Silmarillion, Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor.

He was clearly different and distinct in other ways. His mother, Miriel spent herself, somehow during her gestation, and imbued Feanor with this greatness. She passed on and was off to the Halls of Mandos (or was it Gardens of Lorien--Valinor not Middle Earth) after birthing Feanor. His Spirit burned more hotly. His body was consumed by burning fire when he was slain in the first Great Battle (I forget its name) between the Elves and Morgoth in Beleriand during the First Age.

There were references to greatness of heroism (Beren) and those of 'fairest' form (Luthien, whose likeness it was repeatedly said in the third age, lived in Arwen), and then Galadriel, in her blended Noldorin (half-cousin to Feanor through Finarfin), Vanyar (Indis was her grandmother) and Telerin (through Earwen, of Olwe) heritage

"Very tall [Galadriel and Celeborn] were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold… but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory." ― The Lord of the Rings, "The Mirror of Galadriel"

and often referred to, also, as fairest of all the Elves, both in Aman and Middle Earth.

Greatness in Men has particular emphases in certain traits, such as with Aragorn who had the "foresight of his people" (Numenoreans, as stated several times in The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), as did Gilraen his mother. When he was clad in raiment of, I think it was green and silver (Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), in Lothlorien, where he pledged his troth to Arwen at Caras Caladhon after, I think it was 40 years adventuring, travelling, and fighting. He first saw Arwen when he was new to manhood, around 20, in Rivendell. He was seen by Arwen, again, after his honing in the wild, and upon return, seemed as a great lord in the impression he conveyed, mighty amongst even the Eldar. We're also told this many times about particular members of The Followers, such as of Tuor in his approach to Gondolin (I dunno, :) all that flowing golden hair and stuff that he had--sounds a bit liker a surfer dude to me :)) and in his likeness to the Eldar, and successful courtship of even Idril Celebrindil, daughter of the then High King of the Noldor, Turgon, who was only two generations down from Finwe, High King of all the Noldor. We're also told that in the First Age, Elves and Men approached each other in stature, greatness and heroism.

Tolkien, not always, compared races on height/stature. Often he referred to presence or greatness in bearing, but also more, as he often cited light in the eyes of the Eldar (not really so of the Elves who never went to Aman). That 'light' he also attributed to Numenoreans (again whose stature was greater, though their wisdom, potency, and vigour/constitution was also greater). About vigour, an example is the Eldar who did versus did not succumb to cold during the crossing of the Heclaraxe. Resistance to sickness seemed to vary in the races and Elves did not struggle with mortal afflictions. I never heard of the Plague periods affecting Elves, though it decimated the Numenoreans in Exile, particularly in Arnor. Was it King Ondoher and, I think all seven of his children, who perished in the Plague that came out of the Morgul Vale? They were Men of the Westernesse, not your average, ole human of normal lifespan.

Implications were also drawn about capacity to resist evil. Men were more able to be influenced by the Yoke of Morgoth, who, I remember reading, could continue to influence mortals from even beyond the Doors of Night, in the Void, where he had been cast after the War of Wrath that ended the First Age. This relative vulnerability to evil, for example, by perversion through Sauronic influence was often attributed to Men (Boromir, Isildur and the Ring).

Tolkien also noted that there was something in the fibre or sinew of Hobbits more resistant--tougher--somehow in their capacity to tolerate the evil presence of Sauron through the ring. The same is implied about Sméagol and his near 900 year (or was it 400, I always forget) proximity to the Ring and failure to succumb to wraith form. Again, there is reference to this relative capacity to resist Wraith-ick transfiguration in the Dwarves who never became wraiths through possession of a Ring of Power.

There was also Ghan Buri Ghan, which is another oddity in the mythology, where, through reference to an unsullied or untainted laugh, Tolkien notes something different about this strain of human. Although not 'greatness' as Tolkien often cast it (like he never counted Ents amongst the 'great' in that particular way), Ghan Buri Ghan had something 'special' or 'greater' by way of relative ranking, than others of mortal kind.

All this leads me to conclude that there are specific ways to compare the races that have strong basis in the mythology as Tolkien cast it. Exactly how and where is difficult, exactly, to pinpoint, but comparisons and relative rankings can be drawn for different Ages, races of Men and Elves and in numerous ways.

[Galin]

Not when you take things into context.

For example Tolkien might call Galadriel a 'queen' in a letter to a friend outlining the story. He is not being literal here, because in the story we know she is not a 'queen' and in a more detailed letter he goes into it.


With respect to the sources, as far as I recall Gimli refers to Galadriel as a Queen in The Lord of the Rings, as does the narrator of Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age [a Queen of the Woodland Elves]. Of course the latter wasn't published by JRRT himself, but since it does not disagree with the story published by the author I see no reason for Christopher Tolkien to edit this.

And yes, later Tolkien seems to have changed his mind here: in the 'Zimmerman letter' for example, JRRT explained that Artanis was not in fact a Queen, and in a relatively late text in Unfinished Tales he notes that she and Celeborn took no title of Queen and King, despite that they took up rule there.

Anyway, if we are talking about consistency, you characterizing your reference as not literal is, to my mind, you trying to explain a seeming inconsistency. And if we look at only what Tolkien himself chose to publish, in my opinion we have a different perspective concerning this matter.


Since Feanor is mentioned...

In the 1930s Tolkien wrote: 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' Quenta Silmarillion


And then in the early 1950s Tolkien writes (Annals of Aman): 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'

But yet in the early 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage I quoted, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this) -- thus if Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? Or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?

Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion: The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?

Or something else; perhaps Tolkien just writing, in the moment, enjoying superlatives.

In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A): 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'

Of course this might be attributed to brevity, if Feanor was really the great-est in more than arts and lore.

:)

[Galin]

-Galin, I think that physical description of the Eldar in the "Return of the King" appendices may indeed refer to those of Middle-earth only- if you assume the point is to describe the Eldar as Men knew them (in which case the appearance of the Vanyar isn't relevant).

By the way thanks for commenting on this Nerwen. I've planted the idea at other sites but no one ever agreed or disagreed [that I recall], or commented, and I wondered if anyone thought I was reaching here [here's your invite, as if you need one, to any who think I am reaching and care enough to say so].

I would say the footnote alters the natural interpretation of this passage, and it at least seems like a correction anyway, but it's really only there due to an attempt to find consistency with a description Tolkien himself never published in any case. Granted, the idea of the golden Vanyar is well attested in later texts and appears in the constructed Silmarillion...

... but still. I mean the reader of The Lord of the Rings is not aware that this passage is arguably problematic with something Tolkien had written in his private papers -- which are no longer private obviously, but this is not due to the Subcreator himself.

Just to note it, 'but still' is a very compelling argument ;) It's also somewhat versatile.


Sorry. I'll shaddap now. Especially since no one is arguing with me about this [yet]...

... but still :D

[cellurdur]

With respect to the sources, as far as I recall Gimli refers to Galadriel as a Queen in The Lord of the Rings, as does the narrator of Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age [a Queen of the Woodland Elves]. Of course the latter wasn't published by JRRT himself, but since it does not disagree with the story published by the author I see no reason for Christopher Tolkien to edit this.

And yes, later Tolkien seems to have changed his mind here: in the 'Zimmerman letter' for example, JRRT explained that Artanis was not in fact a Queen, and in a relatively late text in Unfinished Tales he notes that she and Celeborn took no title of Queen and King, despite that they took up rule there.

Anyway, if we are talking about consistency, you characterizing your reference as not literal is, to my mind, you trying to explain a seeming inconsistency. And if we look at only what Tolkien himself chose to publish, in my opinion we have a different perspective concerning this matter.


Since Feanor is mentioned...

In the 1930s Tolkien wrote: 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' Quenta Silmarillion


And then in the early 1950s Tolkien writes (Annals of Aman): 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'

But yet in the early 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage I quoted, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this) -- thus if Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? Or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?

Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion: The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?

Or something else; perhaps Tolkien just writing, in the moment, enjoying superlatives.

In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A): 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'

Of course this might be attributed to brevity, if Feanor was really the great-est in more than arts and lore.

:)
The example about the sons of Finwe and of course the famous Treebeard/Tom (about who is the oldest) are examples of where Tolkien has gone overboard with superlatives and they contradict each other. It's at times like these where there is a need we have to resort to other measures.

However, this is not the case with say Earendil being the greatest mariner or Luthien being the fairest. The story is very clear and Tolkien consistently praises them as the best with no contradiction as far as I am aware of.

The same with the stealing of the Silmarillion. Tolkien refers to this as the greatest deed of Elves and Men against Morgoth. There is nothing to contradict this.


Now in the case of Finwe's sons, I think originally there is a case that the translations were not completely accurate. Not only was their author bias in the case of Rumil, but there was also 'mistranslation' by the official translator, which led to more mistakes. These 'mistakes' were deliberately left in.

Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

In the case of Finwe's sons I tend to favour the interpretation as Fingolfin being the strongest, Finarfin the most handsome and wises, with Feanor the best at crafts and lore. I favour this interpretation, because we see this traits somewhat being inherited by their descendants.

Galadriel and Finrod are the most beautiful and wisest out of the younger descendants of Finwe.

Turgon, Fingon and Argon are all very big men. Turgon and Argon being the two tallest after Thingol.

Then we have Feanor's boys inheriting his powers of persuasion and craft like Curufin and Celebrimbor.

[Galin]

For the record I am not saying that there are no cases where we can say X is 'greatest' based on the text, but I was responding to two examples where there was, in my opinion, more comparative text [the Galadriel as Queen matter, for example]


Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

Can you explain what you mean here in more detail, maybe including examples to help mark the external time frame?

If I recall correctly, [I]in general in the old scenario [let's say with the start of the 'Silmarillion', after The Book of Lost Tales and the poetry of the 1920s] Elfwine was to be a studious scribe, trying not to alter the tales as he heard them from Elvish Eresseans. This is more 'direct' than the later scenario.

My example of Annals of Aman and my conjecturing about Rumil's only possible 'bias' actually reflects the later scenario, with the transmission through Numenor and the Mannish Kindoms down to Imladris, allowing for more 'mistakes' and purposed variations.

I do think there was some intentional variation [compared to QS] in the Annals when they were first revised in the 1950s, that is, when they were still imagined as a variant tradition to Quenta Silmarillion.

But in any case we are essentially dealing with draft texts here: what would Tolkien's Silmarillon contain versus his Annals? It seems as if the existing Annals of the 1950s grew and morphed into another Silmarillion, and thus could be 'absorbed' into the Silmarillion, with The Tale of Years taking over for the Annals -- thus Christopher Tolkien took plenty of passages from the Annals, Aman and Grey, for his constructed Silmarillion.

What was to be intentional inconsistency, when there is plenty of natural inconsistency [Tolkien changing his mind, letting new and different stories flow as they came to him, and so on] in the external evolution of a complex tale, is very hard to say.

[cellurdur]

For the record I am not saying that there are no cases where we can say X is 'greatest' based on the text, but I was responding to two examples where there was, in my opinion, missing or comparative text [the Galadriel as Queen matter for example]




Can you explain what you mean here in more detail, maybe including examples to help mark the external time frame?

If I recall correctly, [I]in general the old scenario [let's say with the start of the 'Silmarillion', after The Book of Lost Tales and the poetry of the 1920s] Elfwine was to be a studious scribe, trying not to alter the tales as he heard them from Elvish Eresseans. This is more 'direct' than the later scenario.

My example of Annals of Aman and my conjecturing about Rumil's only possible 'bias' actually reflects the later scenario, with the transmission through Numenor and the Mannish Kindoms down to Imladris, allowing for more 'mistakes' and purposed variations.

But in any case we are essentially dealing with draft texts here: what would Tolkien's Silmarillon contain versus his Annals? It seems as if the existing Annals of the 1950s had grown and morphed into another Silmarillion, and thus could be 'absorbed' into the Silmarillion, with The Tale of Years taking over for the Annals [thus Christopher Tolkien took plenty of passages from the Annals, Aman and Grey, for the constructed Silmarillion].

What was to be 'intentional' inconsistency, when there is plenty of 'natural inconsistency' in the external evolution of a complex tale, is very hard to say.
In one of his earlier letters he mentions the problem with 'translations'. As studious as Elfwine was there was bound to be mistakes.

The change to the myths being Mannish seemed to come from Tolkien's desire to put the myths even more in align with Catholic theology.

An example of this is in the 50's he gets a letter about whether the orcs being irredeemable is heretical. At the time he dismisses the concern and says it is of little importance to his story. Yes later on he definitely changes his mind on the importance of orcs being redeemable. He writes philosophical reasons on what the orcs are and whether they can be redeemed. In the end settling on the notion that the it's possible that Eru could redeem them.

The use of the stories having a Mannish origin is more to clear up things he could not quite translate. The lates 50s when he started making significant edits and the revisions to Quenta Silmarillion is when I noticed a change.

With his desire to write a more 'accurate' cosmology of Arda, seems to have come with it a desire to write a more 'accurate' history. Once you begin to translate the truth about the Two Trees it is inevitable, that you will begin to write about the 'truth' of Feanor.

The use of the Mannish myths seems to be a way of keeping the older stories, which in my opinion were more beautiful.

The essays he writes such as Glorfindel, where he reasons and comes to a conclusion about who Glorfindel was and why he was sent back; look to me like someone trying to find the 'true story.'

[Galin]

In one of his earlier letters he mentions the problem with 'translations'. As studious as Elfwine was there was bound to be mistakes.

Which letter please? I need some context here.


(...) With his desire to write a more 'accurate' cosmology of Arda, seems to have come with it a desire to write a more 'accurate' history. Once you begin to translate the truth about the Two Trees it is inevitable, that you will begin to write about the 'truth' of Feanor.

The use of the Mannish myths seems to be a way of keeping the older stories, which in my opinion were more beautiful.

But that means that the 'truth' of the Two Trees is now questionable as a Mannish myth.

The essays he writes such as Glorfindel, where he reasons and comes to a conclusion about who Glorfindel was and why he was sent back; look to me like someone trying to find the 'true story.'

Well, but I don't see how this, or a few examples, necessarily supports the great shift in thinking that you appear to be referencing.

It seems to me that there are always going to be arguable examples of Tolkien working out what he wants to present as 'true' in the sense of 'it exists in the legendarium', but the general scenario -- from older to later as far as The Silmarillion goes -- appears to be a move away from directness of transmission so that the story of the Two Trees can be preserved...

... not the absolute truth that that's how the Sun and Moon really came to be, however.

Now in the case of Finwe's sons, I think originally there is a case that the translations were not completely accurate. Not only was their author bias in the case of Rumil, but there was also 'mistranslation' by the official translator, which led to more mistakes. These 'mistakes' were deliberately left in.

Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

You see, here you refer to the 'bias' of Rumil, but I brought that up only as a sheer possibility when we had two variant traditions written at the same time [early 1950s], and within the scenario of the later transmission too, since that allows for more error.

What texts are you talking about with 'originally' here? According to this...

The lates 50s when he started making significant edits and the revisions to Quenta Silmarillion is when I noticed a change.

... I assume it is before the late 1950s.

Maybe I'm confused at this point, but you seem to be saying that Tolkien moved away from 'mistranslation' about the time he began to recharacterize the Silmarillion as largely Mannish, which to my mind allows for more mistranslation and variation that within the Elfwine scenario, Elfwine himself receiving the tales direct from Eressean speakers and putting them into Old English...

... to Tolkien's doorstep I guess.

Still generally speaking.

[Galadriel55]

Firstly the popular opinion now is not 'good is good' and 'bad is bad,' but one of relativism. This is something that Eomer is questioning. He is asking does the matter of what is good depend on the time period? Or is good relative to everyone's culture.

Relativism with good and bad comes when there is a choice between two or more goods, or two or more evils. I doubt you'd say that the concept of murder is good, regardless of time and culture.

People compare sportsman all the time. What do you think the Laureus award is? When you know a sport is quite easy to compare, which athlete is stronger when they raced in different conditions.

That's right - people give certain criteria by which to judge. They count up the points, performance, whatever. But that just tells you who scored more points that year, not who is actually stronger.

'Great' or 'strong' is not the same as 'greatest' or 'strongest'. When there is a contradiction we can then discuss things, but until then I believe it's best to go with what has actually written, rather than adding our own interpretation into the text. How far do you want to go?

As far as I want to go. Texts are always interpreted. If you choose to interpret everything you read literally, I don't have to follow your choice.

So you want to interpret the words of the text differently than they are written. Maybe when it says Finarfin is blonde it really means brunette? How far do you want to go? Luthien, Arwen and Galadriel do not compete for the title of fairest. There is no competition in Tolkien's writing. There is a unanimous winner: Luthing Thingol. In every several different writings she is called the 'fairest' that ever lived. There are too many instances to even begin to quote them.

But that's just your opinion. Neither Gimli nor Eomer fought to defend Luthien's beauty.

Firstly it was not my statement, but Tolkien's who knows the characters and their strengths perfectly.

Not the statement about Hurin, but your conclusion.

So you want to take Tolkien's marveling at the strength of Hobbits literally, but not when he says Hurin's strength of Will was greater? Why is it a given that a man, would have the strength of Will to resist the greatest thing ever created when even Manwe initially was daunted by Melkor's eyes?

Did I ever say that I do not take Hurin's greatness literally? I said that I admire his strength of will very very very much. And I don't see why I should not also agree about the hobbits' greatness. What I am liberal in reading are superlatives, because I am hesitant to start ranking people and deeds based on pokemon cards.

Something being 'subjective' to our eyes does not mean there is no way of judging. Is the strength of Will Frodo needed to go on a diet the same as the strength of Will needed to destroy the ring? Both are subjective, but nobody is going to say the former required more mental strength.

Alright then. Whose will was stronger, Merry's when he stabbed the Nazgul or Pippin's when he looked in the Palantir? Go, judge, rank. Good luck to you.

Or maybe Tolkien wished to rank certain deeds and we should take him at his word. Where things contradict then we can argue, but where there is no contradiction why reject his words?

So you're that keen on having everything laid out from most to least. Why? Why do you need to rank things? Why can you not just appreciate each for what they are independent of any other?

Why does something loses importance if it is ranked? Please explain this to me? Ranking things does not reduce them to Pokemon cards.

Then how does this sound to you:

Gandalf - 400 strength -- 550 magic -- 450 mind
Aragorn - 350 strength -- 400 magic -- 400 mind
Boromir - 400 strength -- 300 magic -- 200 mind
Gimli - 450 strength -- 350 magic -- 250 mind

You see what I mean? Do you like LOTR, The Sil, etc when they are laid out like that?

Just, because you personally want to look at things one way does not mean others do.

That applies to both sides, you know.

Not all situations are hopeless and some deeds are greater than others. It does not distract from one 'great deed' to know that another was greater. Rather it gives you Sam hope that if Beren and Luthien could triumph 'in a worse place and black danger' than theirs, then they could make it too.

It takes away from the appreciation of the reader to have it all laid out and ranked like Pokemon cards. Oooh, this one is stronger, it has more points!

I don't see why you don't take it seriously. When you pick and choose what the author means, despite him repeating an idea then what is next?

Actually, I decided Feanor wasn't the son of Finwe at all, but Miriel had a secret affair with Melkor. This explains everything. She doesn't want to come back from the dead because she's ashamed and afraid. Feanor has skill beyond any other elf. He has quite the character but also quite the charisma. He's so concerned with fighting for his place as Finwe's firstborn son. There's clearly something going on between him and Morgoth when you look at their interactions. Isn't it obvious?

...You realize I'm doing this just for fun, right?

There are some things that are facts. Lorien lies to the West of the Misty Mountains. The Misty Mountains are mountains. Galadriel has golden hair.

There are some things which are opinion-like descriptions. Galadriel is the fairest. Lorien is the fairest. Celeborn is the wisest.

There are some things you take as givens. They are husband and wife. There are some things you take as enhancements of the text and of your understanding. Galadriel is the fairest.

Just two of the many, many quotes naming Luthien as the fairest of all the Children of Illuvater in different books. If you can reject something that Tolkien repeatedly writes then what next do you want to reject?

If you claim that Luthien is the fairest, are you then claiming Tolkien lied about Arwen and Galadriel being the fairest? Because that's what you're suggesting. You are picking your winner based on the number of times her beauty is praised, but that doesn't really erase the other two candidates and the statements that clearly say they are the fairest.

I do not reject Luthien's beauty, or Hurin's willpower. I do not deny that they surpass most others'. But I also value the subjective things - the situation, the effort, the sacrifice - and take them into account. The problem I have with your approach is that in ranking people and things it takes things out of context and diminishes the value of things that are not the "---est". Moreover, I want to ask you, how far do you want to go? What's next? giving points for number of ocrs killed? Tricks performed? Better weapons? I do not and cannot agree to this approach. I have stated my thoughts on the matter, I hope with enough clarity. If you want to continue discussing this, perhaps we can take it to PMs instead of filling this thread with tangential debates.


Or something else; perhaps Tolkien just writing, in the moment, enjoying superlatives.

I can completely see this happening. :)

[cellurdur]

Relativism with good and bad comes when there is a choice between two or more goods, or two or more evils. I doubt you'd say that the concept of murder is good, regardless of time and culture.
No it doesn't. Relativism comes when 'good' and 'bad' are reduced to cultural phenomenons. So for one culture child sacrifice is 'good' and for the other culture it is abhorrent.

Nazism in my opinion (controversial as it maybe) is an example of what can happen when you take Nietzscheism down a certain road.

That's right - people give certain criteria by which to judge. They count up the points, performance, whatever. But that just tells you who scored more points that year, not who is actually stronger.
No by using the criteria the experts have we do make a judgement call on who is strong. The problem with judging things like 'strength of will' is that we lack the necessary information to judge other people. We don't know what they are feeling, we don't know how strong their resolve is and this is why in real life it's probably best to not to be quick to pass judgement even when we know many of the circumstances.

When judging characters 'will' in a story it is a different matter. Depending on the story we get an insight into a character we would never get in real life.

As far as I want to go. Texts are always interpreted. If you choose to interpret everything you read literally, I don't have to follow your choice.
No and that is why you are free to decide that Feanor is really the child of Melkor. I of course will disagree with your interpretation.

But that's just your opinion. Neither Gimli nor Eomer fought to defend Luthien's beauty.
This point makes little sense. Gimli and Eomer never saw Luthien, but all who did are in agreement that she was the fairest that ever lived. Not just characters in the story, but the narrator and Tolkien himself are in agreement with this.

Not the statement about Hurin, but your conclusion.
I am just going by what Tolkien said.

Did I ever say that I do not take Hurin's greatness literally? I said that I admire his strength of will very very very much. And I don't see why I should not also agree about the hobbits' greatness. What I am liberal in reading are superlatives, because I am hesitant to start ranking people and deeds based on pokemon cards.
Ranking people in terms of might does not turn things into a Pokemon game. Tolkien does it all the time in LOTR. Melkor was the mightiest of the Ainur. The Valar were mightier than the Maiar. Maiar are mightier than men. The ranking has always been there and is part of life. Some people have greater will power and strength than others the same way some people are taller and stronger.

The way you look on things is up to you. Denethor was the time to look down and scorn people less gifted than he was. Faramir was the type to show understanding and try and help them.

Alright then. Whose will was stronger, Merry's when he stabbed the Nazgul or Pippin's when he looked in the Palantir? Go, judge, rank. Good luck to you.
Well Merry succeeding to the right thing and stab the Witch King is for me the greater strength than Pippin giving in and looking in the Palantir.

Just, because we are not aware of all the details does not stop as from being able to make a decision. This judgement call is precisely what a judge does when he passes sentence.

Tolkien as the writer of the story has a greater insight into the strength of will needed for certain deeds. So I respect his judgment on such matters.

So you're that keen on having everything laid out from most to least. Why? Why do you need to rank things? Why can you not just appreciate each for what they are independent of any other?
Actually I don't feel the need to rank things and do appreciate them for what they are. The bigger question is why are you so against ranking things? Especially when it's the author laying it out for you. The ironic thing is by judging the Hobbit's resilience as something 'great' you are already ranking it. The use of the word great means you have already ranked it above something you would consider mundane or average.

Then how does this sound to you:

Gandalf - 400 strength -- 550 magic -- 450 mind
Aragorn - 350 strength -- 400 magic -- 400 mind
Boromir - 400 strength -- 300 magic -- 200 mind
Gimli - 450 strength -- 350 magic -- 250 mind

You see what I mean? Do you like LOTR, The Sil, etc when they are laid out like that?
No, because metaphysical things are things we don't have a way of measuring accurately. That being said we the LOTR is clear that in strength of spirit Gandalf is greater than Aragorn and Aragorn is greater than Boromir. To reject that is to reject one of the facts in the books and in my opinion equal to rejecting Eowyn as a blonde.

That applies to both sides, you know.
Of course, but I am not the one arguing that we reject the author's words when there is no contradiction.

It takes away from the appreciation of the reader to have it all laid out and ranked like Pokemon cards. Oooh, this one is stronger, it has more points!
You keep taking things back to Pokemon, but that's never been the way things work in LOTR. However, there has always been a ranking from Melkor at the top down to the Valar and Ainur. The wizards themselves were assigned an order and rank.

Arda has it's own order in it and you want to reject all this. You are advocating a chaos where we are ignorant of that different beings are greater or less, but that's not the world we are given.

Actually, I decided Feanor wasn't the son of Finwe at all, but Miriel had a secret affair with Melkor. This explains everything. She doesn't want to come back from the dead because she's ashamed and afraid. Feanor has skill beyond any other elf. He has quite the character but also quite the charisma. He's so concerned with fighting for his place as Finwe's firstborn son. There's clearly something going on between him and Morgoth when you look at their interactions. Isn't it obvious?

...You realize I'm doing this just for fun, right?

There are some things that are facts. Lorien lies to the West of the Misty Mountains. The Misty Mountains are mountains. Galadriel has golden hair.

There are some things which are opinion-like descriptions. Galadriel is the fairest. Lorien is the fairest. Celeborn is the wisest.

There are some things you take as givens. They are husband and wife. There are some things you take as enhancements of the text and of your understanding. Galadriel is the fairest.
Now this is the crux of the debate. For Tolkien at least the question of spiritual power is not one of opinion. Melkor has the most might out of anything ever created.

If Hurin had the mightiest spirit out of any man, this is not an opinion. This is actually a fact.

Just, because we lack the abilities to judge strength of will in real life, does not make it so in a story.

If Tolkien tells us Turin was taller than Hurin, then this is as much a fact as if he told as Hurin had the greater strength of will to me.

If you claim that Luthien is the fairest, are you then claiming Tolkien lied about Arwen and Galadriel being the fairest? Because that's what you're suggesting. You are picking your winner based on the number of times her beauty is praised, but that doesn't really erase the other two candidates and the statements that clearly say they are the fairest.
When did Tolkien ever contradict Luthien as the fairest? A contradiction is not a lie whether it flows from a desire to have different opinions in a story or a genuine mistake. That being said Luthien is consistently mentioned as the fairest. You may wish for Galadriel to be a fellow competitor for the title, but this is just not there in Tolkien's work.

I do not reject Luthien's beauty, or Hurin's willpower. I do not deny that they surpass most others'. But I also value the subjective things - the situation, the effort, the sacrifice - and take them into account. The problem I have with your approach is that in ranking people and things it takes things out of context and diminishes the value of things that are not the "---est". Moreover, I want to ask you, how far do you want to go? What's next? giving points for number of ocrs killed? Tricks performed? Better weapons? I do not and cannot agree to this approach. I have stated my thoughts on the matter, I hope with enough clarity. If you want to continue discussing this, perhaps we can take it to PMs instead of filling this thread with tangential debates.
My approach does not diminish the value of other great deeds, unless you place importance on only being the best. If you only want to be the strongest or your favourite character to be the most beautiful then it diminishes them.

However, if you value beauty or the greatness of the act itself then what does it matter? Do you look down on a gift a friend gives you, because he gave someone else a more expensive gift? Do you stand and look at a beautiful landscape and think less of it, because years back you saw a more beautiful landscape?

There is beauty and value in all great deeds whether some are greater than others. As I said before by calling something a 'great deed' or saying someone has 'strong will' you have already began to place rank it.

It's best we agree to disagree on this matter.

[Belegorn]

Nazism in my opinion (controversial as it maybe) is an example of what can happen when you take Nietzscheism down a certain road.

I'd say it's when his philosophy is misrepresented, but not really put into practice. Nietzsche was used as a figurehead thanks to his sister, but the Nazis had as little to do with Nietzsche's philosophy as whatever you can describe as being like oil and water.

[Ivriniel]

@Celludur

Galadriel is a Queen. High Queen, in fact, not of 'all of the Noldor' (and because she is blended of all three kindreds, Noldor, Vanyar and Teleri, and in fact, of Royal lineage of all three houses). She most certainly is a Queen.

Her grandfather was Finwe, and her father Finarfin. Finarfin's mother is Indis of the Vanyar. Eawen, was daughter of Olwe of Alqualonde (not just Telerin, but a Royal Telerin Elf). Earwen wedded Finarfin.

Although she never inherited the High Kingship of the Eldar in Exile after Gil Galad was slain, that's not for lack of legitimacy in title. It's for the patrilineal emphasis in Elven Royalty, who, unlike the Numenoreans, never allowed females to access the High Kingship.

She was, however, most eligible, and arguably, more so than Elrond (he never saw the Light of Aman).

[cellurdur]

Which letter please? I need some context here.

I am sorry I don't remember. It was something I briefly noticed whilst looking for something else, but I can find it during the weekend.

But that means that the 'truth' of the Two Trees is now questionable as a Mannish myth.

I don't think there is much doubt that Tolkien wanted to remove the 'Two Trees' as a Mannish myth. His problem was how to translate it, into the 'true history.'

Well, but I don't see how this, or a few examples, necessarily supports the great shift in thinking that you appear to be referencing.

It seems to me that there are always going to be arguable examples of Tolkien working out what he wants to present as 'true' in the sense of 'it exists in the legendarium', but the general scenario -- from older to later as far as The Silmarillion goes -- appears to be a move away from directness of transmission so that the story of the Two Trees can be preserved...

... not the absolute truth that that's how the Sun and Moon really came to be, however.
Except he didn't seem particularly keen on preserving the 'Two Trees'. Others urged him to do it, but he described such a cosmology story as absurd and ridiculous for intelligent elves to believe. He sought out ways to write 'true accounts' but in my opinion and others he let read them, they lack the beauty of the 'Two Trees'.

You see, here you refer to the 'bias' of Rumil, but I brought that up only as a sheer possibility when we had two variant traditions written at the same time [early 1950s], and within the scenario of the later transmission too, since that allows for more error.

What texts are you talking about with 'originally' here? According to this...



... I assume it is before the late 1950s.

Maybe I'm confused at this point, but you seem to be saying that Tolkien moved away from 'mistranslation' about the time he began to recharacterize the Silmarillion as largely Mannish, which to my mind allows for more mistranslation and variation that within the Elfwine scenario, Elfwine himself receiving the tales direct from Eressean speakers and putting them into Old English...

... to Tolkien's doorstep I guess.

Still generally speaking.

My point is when he started to disregard previous drafts as Mannish myths, he went about trying to write 'accurate accounts' of the myths.

For example explaining how when the elves were created Morgoth had the world created in a smog, but Manwe blew away the smog during the night and the elves first saw the stars and loved them ever since.

It's around this time he refocuses on things like the Children of Hurin and begins to hammer out things like makeup of orcs.

[Ivriniel]

About moral relativism in the Mythology--meh--I see what is being argued, but the mythology does take either of a moral universalist's or moral absolutist's emphasis a about good and evil. Evil is caste more as something tangible, and as an 'essence', and not as the relativists put it in our world, where, for example, 'one man's terrorist is another's hero'.

In the Tolkien mythology, Evil was something that could be 'incarnate'. It was not merely extreme narcissism, or psychopathy, as we often attribute to evil in our world. It was not merely the lust and power and pleasure of killing, or of enslaving, or sadism. Sauron was, indeed, sadistic, and a power hungry freak, bent on invading everyone's will with his own, and controlling everything. A bit like an overgrown tantruming child really.

The evil of Sauron and Morgoth was more. It was something that had 'fell' attributes. It syphoned life, and more. It perverted the essence of life. It rotted, violated, seduced and corrupted. But by these things, we're meaning, for example, the black breath of the Ringwraiths. The paralysing fear created by staring into a Dragon's eye (though that is more magical fear than evil), and the capacity to use magical powers to mar and unmake beauty.....

Moral relativism is very different. In a moral relativist's universe, Mirkwood would not get all scary and nasty, just by having a tyrant take over to install another regime. Magical power, itself, would not be good or evil, it would merely be magical power, but in Middle Earth, certain magical effects were somehow, innately vile.

[Galin]

My point is when he started to disregard previous drafts as Mannish myths, he went about trying to write 'accurate accounts' of the myths.

For example explaining how when the elves were created Morgoth had the world created in a smog, but Manwe blew away the smog during the night and the elves first saw the stars and loved them ever since.

It's around this time he refocuses on things like the Children of Hurin and begins to hammer out things like makeup of orcs.

So you mean the 'Myths Transformed' phase? This is where my confusion arises, as for me Tolkien abandoned these new attempts at a 'more accurate' cosmology -- more accurate because the Elves of the West should know better...

... but his solution was [as can be illlustrated by various late notes and commentary in my opinion]: retain the Two Trees [at least in Quenta Silmarillion], as JRRT recharacterizes Quenta Silmarillion as a largely Mannish affair. Christopher Tolkien even comments [Myths Transformed] that his father seems to have found his answer, but didn't employ it at once in any case, with the writing of these transformed versions [Manwe blowing away the smoke and so on]...

... but it is the ultimate acceptance that the Silmarillion is mostly a Mannish affair that allows Tolkien to retain the less accurate but more beautiful tales, without transformation. And to employ the idea means no need to rewrite: the Elves of the West are no longer telling their version of Cosmology direct to Elfwine.

In short don't make the myths more accurate, keep them and make certain sources hail from a folk who are less informed than the Elves of the West, some of whom had been in contact with the Powers or Maiar.

But this is all about transmission in any case, and speaks to a general scenario in which [again in my opinion] opens up the door to more variation, and actually I think it is relatively late that Tolkien 'ratifies' The Drowning of Anadune [DA] as a viable text in his legendarium, exactly because he now accepts that there need not be merely one version of the Drowning of Numenor, and that DA nicely contained Mannish confusions.

Anyway I'm not sure the idea you are suggesting can be proven objectively, at least easily. For instance you brought up orcs, but to my mind Tolkien only 'needed' [I'm not sure he really 'needed'] to hammer out the origin of Orcs because of a notable shift in thinking --

-- but that shift was that Evil could not create souls, or true living beings.

And the note published in Unfinished Tales might [I]possibly be Tolkien's latest remark about Orc-origins, yet -- as he had done with the Orcs from Elves theory, putting the idea in the mouths of the Eressean Wise -- JRRT puts the matter [Orcs from Men] as something the Eldar said or believed.


On the possible other hand I have posted before that Tolkien as Subcreator 'should' be, and was, greatly concerned with consistency, and that the purposed inconsistencies should be like pepper in the soup -- some measure will actually help make the Subcreated World more believable, but too much will, or at least might, serve to help 'ruin' the taste. That measure is Tolkien's of course, but I am here speaking of a potential, ultimate legendarium published by the author himself [which is different from various draft texts when Tolkien is trying to work out the version of a given text]...

... but yet seemingly contrary to this [arguably] I also maintain that Tolkien was, in later life, more open to publishing textual variations like The Drowning of Anadune, a text that presents some drastic variations compared to earlier ideas [the shape of the world in origin being round, for example], and a text which was to be as much a part of the Legendarium as was Akallabeth; and again a text [DA] which also contained purposed confusion, like the Mannish authors confusing the Eldar with the Powers for instance.

And with respect to the Silmarillion related writings, Tolkien got more caught up in 'philosophical' issues, or with trying to explain the nature of the Elvish fea for example, or why Men could not live in Aman due to their inherent gift and so on... and maybe that's what you mean by more accurate and less mistranslation, I don't know.

But I'm guessing we might be mostly talking past each other here? Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but I'm still not wholly sure we are going to place the same subjective characterizations upon a given example of Tolkien seemingly doing X at a given phase in in his life.

At least not in every case :)

[cellurdur]

So you mean the 'Myths Transformed' phase? This is where my confusion arises, as for me Tolkien abandoned these new attempts at a 'more accurate' cosmology -- more accurate because the Elves of the West should know better...

... but his solution was [as can be illlustrated by various late notes and commentary in my opinion]: retain the Two Trees [at least in Quenta Silmarillion], as JRRT recharacterizes Quenta Silmarillion as a largely Mannish affair. Christopher Tolkien even comments [Myths Transformed] that his father seems to have found his answer, but didn't employ it at once in any case, with the writing of these transformed versions [Manwe blowing away the smoke and so on]...

... but it is the ultimate acceptance that the Silmarillion is mostly a Mannish affair that allows Tolkien to retain the less accurate but more beautiful tales, without transformation. And to employ the idea means no need to rewrite: the Elves of the West are no longer telling their version of Cosmology direct to Elfwine.

In short don't make the myths more accurate, keep them and make certain sources hail from a folk who are less informed than the Elves of the West, some of whom had been in contact with the Powers or Maiar.

But this is all about transmission in any case, and speaks to a general scenario in which [again in my opinion] opens up the door to more variation, and actually I think it is relatively late that Tolkien 'ratifies' The Drowning of Anadune [DA] as a viable text in his legendarium, exactly because he now accepts that there need not be merely one version of the Drowning of Numenor, and that DA nicely contained Mannish confusions.
I don't think Tolkien ever did 'abandon' trying to translate the myths. He simply found the task very difficult and moved onto stories he did not have to 'translate' like the Children of Hurin.

He used the Mannish myths as an excuse to keep the prior cosmology and stories like the return of Turin. However, in his later works like the Children of Hurin, there is no mention of Turin returning. If he was still writing the as from a Mannish Numenorean perspective then he would have kept the Turin prophecies in. The fact that he now disregards them in his new story, supports the idea he is trying to write a more 'accurate' version of events.

Anyway I'm not sure the idea you are suggesting can be proven objectively, at least easily. For instance you brought up orcs, but to my mind Tolkien only 'needed' [I'm not sure he really 'needed'] to hammer out the origin of Orcs because of a notable shift in thinking --

-- but that shift was that Evil could not create souls, or true living beings.

And the note published in Unfinished Tales might [I]possibly be Tolkien's latest remark about Orc-origins, yet -- as he had done with the Orcs from Elves theory, putting the idea in the mouths of the Eressean Wise -- JRRT puts the matter [Orcs from Men] as something the Eldar said or believed.
His last word on the topic seems t be orcs from corrupted spirits and men, bred by Sauron during Morgoth's captivity. It seems for this reason that orcs are not to be treated like mere beast and are under the 'Law' which beast are not.

On the possible other hand I have posted before that Tolkien as Subcreator 'should' be, and was, greatly concerned with consistency, and that the purposed inconsistencies should be like pepper in the soup -- some measure will actually help make the Subcreated World more believable, but too much will, or at least might, serve to help 'ruin' the taste. That measure is Tolkien's of course, but I am here speaking of a potential, ultimate legendarium published by the author himself [which is different from various draft texts when Tolkien is trying to work out the version of a given text]...

... but yet seemingly contrary to this [arguably] I also maintain that Tolkien was, in later life, more open to publishing textual variations like The Drowning of Anadune, a text that presents some drastic variations compared to earlier ideas [the shape of the world in origin being round, for example], and a text which was to be as much a part of the Legendarium as was Akallabeth; and again a text [DA] which also contained purposed confusion, like the Mannish authors confusing the Eldar with the Powers for instance.

And with respect to the Silmarillion related writings, Tolkien got more caught up in 'philosophical' issues, or with trying to explain the nature of the Elvish fea for example, or why Men could not live in Aman due to their inherent gift and so on... and maybe that's what you mean by more accurate and less mistranslation, I don't know.

But I'm guessing we might be mostly talking past each other here? Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but I'm still not wholly sure we are going to place the same subjective characterizations upon a given example of Tolkien seemingly doing X at a given phase in in his life.

At least not in every case :)
I think the chief difference is that I believe Tolkien still wanted to keep the discarded stories, but only as Mannish myths. Not for everything of course, but for things like the Arda existing before the Sun we should take the story with a pinch of salt and realise they are mistakes.

However, for things he tried to edit later like Glorfindel's identity or Turin's story he wants to hand down a more accurate version.

As you said I don't think we will have to discuss this point on every topic, because you don't believe he left contrary stories deliberately on every story and I don't believe he left only one clear version on every story.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

-Galin, I think that physical description of the Eldar in the "Return of the King" appendices may indeed refer to those of Middle-earth only- if you assume the point is to describe the Eldar as Men knew them (in which case the appearance of the Vanyar isn't relevant).

That's a valid point, which I hadn't considered; but it is reinforced by the end of the passage that says "they are all now gone"- cert. a reference to Middle-earth and not the Elves in Aman!

[Nerwen]

cellurdur, let me explain something, re: ranking. No-one would doubt that some characters are meant to be more powerful than others, or better-looking, or taller, or whatever. What I, G55 and others take issue with is your belief that all the major characters can be precisely, objectively and definitively graded on this basis.

You have, as requested- thank you!- demonstrated your own system for doing this, which seems to involve taking various statements and descriptions written by Tolkien over the years, and making them add up by means of what I'd have to call "selective literalism". If that satisfies you, well and good. However, in my opinion your conclusions are by no means the only possible ones, even on your own terms, nor does disagreeing with them, or even disputing the validity of what you are doing, mean "advocating a chaos".

That is all.

[Nerwen]

That's a valid point, which I hadn't considered; but it is reinforced by the end of the passage that says "they are all now gone"- cert. a reference to Middle-earth and not the Elves in Aman!

Well, I'd never thought of it before myself until I re-read the passage a couple of days ago.

The difficulty is that at the start Tolkien is clearly referring to the Elves of Aman (and, by implication, the Vanyar) as well: "...Eldar, the name of the *Three* Kindreds that sought for the Undying Ream..."

So at some point the subject changes from all the Eldar to those of Middle-earth only. My guess is that the key is in the next sentence where he starts talking about "...such memories of this people as Men preserved...".

[cellurdur]

cellurdur, let me explain something, re: ranking. No-one would doubt that some characters are meant to be more powerful than others, or better-looking, or taller, or whatever. What I, G55 and others take issue with is your belief that all the major characters can be precisely, objectively and definitively graded on this basis.
Where do I say that all major characters can be precisely and objectively graded on any particular basis? You are pulling a strawman argument. I said certain things can be ranked and Tolkien is often very clear with no contradiction when he wants this to be the case. Arguing against Luthien being the fairest, Feanor the greatest craftsman or Earendil the greatest mariner. I don't feel the need or argue that we can rate say whether Faramir was fairer than Boromir, or Denethor had more Numenorean qualities than Faramir.

You have, as requested- thank you!- demonstrated your own system for doing this, which seems to involve taking various statements and descriptions written by Tolkien over the years, and making them add up by means of what I'd have to call "selective literalism". If that satisfies you, well and good. However, in my opinion your conclusions are by no means the only possible ones, even on your own terms, nor does disagreeing with them, or even disputing the validity of what you are doing, mean "advocating a chaos".

That is all.
Once again you are misrepresenting my argument. I don't just go around with a pen marking every time Fingon is called strong and then declare him to be the strongest. I don't particular care of think we have anyway of knowing if Fingon had a stronger will than Finrod.

What I do look at is when a character is called the best at something repeatedly with no contradictions. In such a case I accept what Tolkien is telling me and don't try reject it, because I want my favourite character to have more prominence.

Luthien is called the fairest, with no competition, no contradiction throughout different stories, different drafts etc. Earendil is called the mightiest mariner throughout the story once more with no contradictions. These statements are important to the story and are points Tolkien stresses. I wonder if the resistance to such statements is to elevate personal favourites to a higher role than Tolkien wrote.

[Galin]

I don't think Tolkien ever did 'abandon' trying to translate the myths. He simply found the task very difficult and moved onto stories he did not have to 'translate' like the Children of Hurin.

I don't know what you mean by 'translate' here. All the tales have been translated in theory. Do you mean into Old English? If so I'm not sure how that fits into your argument.

He used the Mannish myths as an excuse to keep the prior cosmology and stories like the return of Turin. However, in his later works like the Children of Hurin, there is no mention of Turin returning. If he was still writing the as from a Mannish Numenorean perspective then he would have kept the Turin prophecies in. The fact that he now disregards them in his new story, supports the idea he is trying to write a more 'accurate' version of events.

Rather in a later text concerning the Second Prophecy, Andreth foretells of Turin's return at the War of Wrath. And in Morgoth's Ring Tolkien clearly recharacterizes the Second Prophecy as a Mannish myth.

His last word on the topic seems t be orcs from corrupted spirits and men, bred by Sauron during Morgoth's captivity. It seems for this reason that orcs are not to be treated like mere beast and are under the 'Law' which beast are not.


My point was that Tolkien, in my opinion was originally being 'accurate' in that Morgoth made Orcs [granted, merely in the sense that this is the version of the tale he wants imparted to readers]. This was the tale given to Elfwine. Later this could not be so, so JRRT looks for another idea. Not because of accuracy in general in my opinion, but because of a shift in thinking that Evil could not create in this way. I'm not sure how this examples illustrates Tolkien trying to be more accurate, in some sense, in his later life.

And in the late text I mentioned JRRT isn't giving us an objective fact, but an Elvish belief. That's not necessarily accurate in another sense, at least it's not necessarily objectively true -- while on the other hand it would still [arguably] be the version if no other variant opinions are given, in the sense of what is presented to the reader about the matter].

I think the chief difference is that I believe Tolkien still wanted to keep the discarded stories, but only as Mannish myths. Not for everything of course, but for things like the Arda existing before the Sun we should take the story with a pinch of salt and realise they are mistakes.

Why is this a difference? It's what I've been saying too

However, for things he tried to edit later like Glorfindel's identity or Turin's story he wants to hand down a more accurate version.

Again I don't get why you use these as examples of accurate. In my opinion Tolkien merely decided to answer the question of 'two Glorfindels'. I'm guessing you mean Tolkien wants to clear up this mystery, but from his perspective this was not a mystery to his readers in any case, as there was only ever one Glorfindel as far as many fans knew.

In any case there are different ways to be accurate and maybe that's part of why we are talking past each other at times.



As you said I don't think we will have to discuss this point on every topic, because you don't believe he left contrary stories deliberately on every story and I don't believe he left only one clear version on every story.

Very well but who does believe that Tolkien meant to have variations for every tale, and who does believe that he only left one clear version of every story.

I would guess no one :)

[Galin]

WCH wrote: That's a valid point, which I hadn't considered; but it is reinforced by the end of the passage that says "they are all now gone"- cert. a reference to Middle-earth and not the Elves in Aman!

Nerwen responded: Well, I'd never thought of it before myself until I re-read the passage a couple of days ago.

The difficulty is that at the start Tolkien is clearly referring to the Elves of Aman (and, by implication, the Vanyar) as well: "...Eldar, the name of the *Three* Kindreds that sought for the Undying Ream..."

So at some point the subject changes from all the Eldar to those of Middle-earth only. My guess is that the key is in the next sentence where he starts talking about "...such memories of this people as Men preserved...".

Yikes, both good points that I never thought about before..

... and [ahem] here I thought it was me who 'invented' this interpretation too :rolleyes:


Reading the fuller passage again with both things in mind, I do agree [admittedly with some reason to, no doubt, in attempt to sustain the interpretation] that there is enough intervening text between the two statements, and perhaps notably, as I think is being noted by Nerwen, about how Men perceive what an 'Elf' is, and about them not possessing wings and so on, as some 'mortals' might think in Tolkien's day for instance.


So if this interpretation holds up, can I ask WCH to pass it on to CJRT and let me know what he thinks about taking this new footnote back out of publication?

Well of course I can ask... even if I already know the answer ;);)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, I'll try; but I expect CT will place far more weight on the opinions of Hammond, Scull and Anderson than on mine! I am after all a mere 'pen-friend', not a 'scholar.'

Besides, there is the explicit passage in PME where Tolkien tells us that the Third Kindred, like the Second, was generally dark-haired ("generally" is mine).

[Galin]

Well far better from you than from me in any case. The only letter I ever sent to Christopher Tolkien was trampled by his magic wild boars...

... which is what the letter asked for however, desiring proof that they existed ;)

Anyway, especially considering the phrase you raised, I thought that maybe you had 'cracked the case' on this point [meaning, come up with a good explanation outside of a seeming error] with something even H&S and Anderson maybe hadn't thought of yet. But now is the idea undermined somewhat [opening with besides seems to suggest this] by a description in PME?

[Ivriniel]

On the possible other hand I have posted before that Tolkien as Subcreator 'should' be, and was, greatly concerned with consistency, and that the purposed inconsistencies should be like pepper in the soup -- some measure will actually help make the Subcreated World more believable, but too much will, or at least might, serve to help 'ruin' the taste.

Materials imputing inferential significance to Tolkien's intentions are steeped in the tradition of analysis that compares and contrasts the various excerpts in a deeply inconsistent set of materials that evidenced, not just one evolutionary trajectory, but various evolutionary trajectories. Moreover, the vast masses of materials sometimes do, and sometimes do not restore an original idea. How long did Aragorn live? Twice or thrice the lifespan of men--he actually says 'twice' somewhere in one of his letters! But decided upon 190 years in the Appendices.

Methodologies for interpretation vary. My preferred mode--only because of personal preference and certainly not because it's the most efficient (whatever that means) way of approaching the Tolienien cosmology, is to explore what is revealed, in narrative text, between characters.

LotR, as we know, post dates the mythological foundation (not publication) of the Silmarilien. He wrote (no scrawled) many of his ideas down, on paper, well ahead of the eventual first publication of the Hobbit.

Consistency, was also sometimes deliberately avoided. His positioning of the anomalous responses of Bombadil to the Ring and Bombadil's obscure misalignment of existential themes surrounding Tom, was done on purpose. I read in that in Letters (and for the life of me I can't find it right now).

So, with all that in mind, and, methodological analyses aside, and how to adapt ideas about Tolkien's intention aside--what do we know about the topic at hand from in-text citations in the published story narratives?

[Ivriniel]

Elves and Ringwraiths.

In terms of the existential transformation that Men succumbed to after bearing a Ring of Power--a key feature, unclearly noted in the narrative--whether or not Sauronic influence extended the power of Men, or whether some other fundament was being implied about the relative potency of Elves and Men.....

Not quite as easy as it seems on the surface. Tuor versus Legolas? Hurin versus Feanor? Gil Galad versus Boromir? The juxtapositions imply instance variance.

We don't know much about the head ringwraith. Probably Numenorean. The Witchking. We actually know a little more about Khamil, the second most powerful Ringwraith......

[Ivriniel]

Khamul -- now he is very interesting for a number of particular reasons. I will provide textual analysis at the end of the post.

Khamul was the only Ringwraith Tolkien spoke about. Khamul was known as The Black Easterling and Shadow of the East--before he became a Ringwraith. He is implicated in the alliance between the land of Rhun and Mordor. He was second in power, but one of the six Ringwraiths not of Numenorean descent. Interesting, that, isn't it. He was the Ringwraith who pursued the Hobbits to the Buckleberry Ferry. He spoke to Maggot asking about "Baggins", was present killing Gondor-ian soldiers on the Pelenor and present at the Battle of Moranon.

Analysis

1. non-numenoreans can achieve a greatness that rivals them. Implying.
2. A capacity for potency in Men of normal lifespan, not of the Elder Days, not exposed to the Noldorin influence in Beleriand--not connected, in any way, to the Light of Aman. With intrinsically evil/dark personality attributes.
3. Why did Tolkien *only* speak about this particular Ringwraith. Interesting isn't it. This is one of those times that we need to make inferences by, not only presence (the one he spoke about), but what that means by way of inferences by absence (why did he choose to note Easterling Ringwraiths, but not the Numenorean ones?)

This is particularly noteworthy because of the prominence of the Witchking in the mythology, don't you think. How is it that the Witchking--responsible for the destruction of Arnor, the inadvertent loss of Arnor-ean artefacts (Palantiri in the Ice Bay of Forochel, when Arvedui was lost), and who also slew Earnil, last King of Gondor. Who sacked Minas Ithil. Who occupied Dol Guldur after Sauron reoccupied Mordor.

We don't know who the *bleep* The Witchking was, but we do the Easterling of Rhun.

The Easterling's potency is materials *deeply* discordant with the mythology as it much more typically caste ideas about the 'lesser' and 'fading' races. *And* the particular Easterling noted for his history.

I, truly, do not know what this means about what the capacities for power and potency are in the Mortal Races.

On an interesting addendum, the Pukel Men, had a particular resilience to Evil (this cuts the opposite way to Khamul) and who also had particular magical powers of their own. This legacy of magic is well noted in supplementary materials Christopher Tolkien wrote (I can quote citations if people seek those. But I read a story about a stone that a Pukel men charged with magic that protected, I think it was a Numenorean home, from an Orc assault).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

was present killing Gondor-ian soldiers on the Pele[n]nor

Really?

[Ivriniel]

was present killing Gondor-ian soldiers on the Pele[n]nor

Really?

Hi there WCH,

Materials can only be as reliable as the citations drawn from. You can never be really sure. See here
(http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Kham%C3%BBl)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The Ringwraiths certainly played a decisive role in the assault on Gondor as Weapons of Mass Terror- but did they actually kill anyone, save those who eventually died of despair? I don't think so.

[Ivriniel]

The Ringwraiths certainly played a decisive role in the assault on Gondor as Weapons of Mass Terror- but did they actually kill anyone, save those who eventually died of despair? I don't think so.

I diden write the citation. Did they 'directly' slay? We knew they wielded actual weapons. The mace of the Witchking struck Eowyn, and all that. The morgal blade and Frodo at Amon Sul (that must have been a favourite ole haunt of the Witchking - pardon pun :) ). Though, as you say, you tend to see them screachin' like troubled children and making creepy sounds more than anything else.

On the point of the 'how' a Ringwraith gets such powers, I have been pondering, much about what kinds of 'energies' or processes are at work. Ea and all of that - perhaps some inverse variant of it? Perhaps, there's this 'sink hole' or dimension where Ea flows back [into] and perhaps Sauron runs the flow in reverse?

What is 'unlight' (Ungoliante's shadow web) and 'unlife' anyway, and Tolkien's particular use of antonyms for expressing something very specific....

[Nerwen]

Ivriniel, I don't think that wiki you link to is all that reliable. At least, I can't find a source for Khamul being present at the Battle of the Pelennor fields. There were five Ringwraiths there, but if Tolkien ever specified Khamul was one of them, I don't believe he did it in either "Lord of the Rings" or "Unfinished Tales", which are the references given.

I could be wrong, of course- maybe I've missed something.

[Ivriniel]

Ivriniel, I don't think that wiki you link to is all that reliable. At least, I can't find a source for Khamul being present at the Battle of the Pelennor fields. There were five Ringwraiths there, but if Tolkien ever specified Khamul was one of them, I don't believe he did it in either "Lord of the Rings" or "Unfinished Tales", which are the references given.

I could be wrong, of course- maybe I've missed something.

Hi there Nerwen, nice to meet u. I must say, I'd never heard it quite told like the reference put it, either, but it's been a while since I've gone to UT or LotR.

I'm gathering my tomes atm :). There are the other five (terribly dense books, you'd have seen them or have them, 'The Straight Road, and four others. All that stuff about the Gnomes *screams in horror at the imagery* of Kor *second scream* and their original placement as Noldor *breaths sigh of relieve*. I have honestly had to put those books down for the sense of *gasp* violation *winks* that the contrary language adapts. And the multitude of variations to other materials.

Some of the posters here have an incredibly diverse array of other materials, well beyond Letters....I'm looking forwards to learning more, again, by being here.

Kind Regards to you
Ivriniel

[Zigûr]

Ivriniel, I don't think that wiki you link to is all that reliable.
Indeed, you must never trust the "Lord of the Rings Wiki." It's a mess of book-lore, film material, "fanon", backstory from RPGs and amateur textual interpretation all muddled together. Note that it's too amateurish to even remember the "The" at the beginning of "The Lord of the Rings!" It's kind of like the post-Peter Jackson equivalent of one of David Day's reference books.

I generally go to the Tolkien Gateway when I need a quick hint for a reference: tolkiengateway.net I then confirm this with a primary source.

Khamul was the only Ringwraith Tolkien spoke about. Khamul was known as The Black Easterling and Shadow of the East--before he became a Ringwraith. He is implicated in the alliance between the land of Rhun and Mordor. He was second in power, but one of the six Ringwraiths not of Numenorean descent.
We may observe that Professor Tolkien ultimately omitted the naming of Khamûl in any text published in his lifetime, presumably, I would argue, to maintain the sense of anonymous terror associated with the Ringwraiths. Perhaps he originally intended to identify the Lieutenant of their dark order just as he had, to an extent, their Captain, but ultimately changed his mind.
The East of Middle-earth had lain under the shadow since time immemorial: first as the slaves and worshippers of Morgoth, and later in the same function for Sauron. I would not be surprised if several of the Ringwraiths were Easterlings (I would speculate that some, also, were probably Haradrim). Rhûn was a wide land, and the gift of Rings of Power to Easterling Kings might have secured its realms under his control amid the turmoils of the Second Age after Morgoth's empire collapsed.

[Galin]

... but it is reinforced by the end of the passage that says "they are all now gone"- cert. a reference to Middle-earth and not the Elves in Aman!

Looking at the other side of the coin here, while I think this does reinforce that the Eldar 'of Middle-earth' is meant, one could claim that the Vanyar are yet 'gone' as well, from Middle-earth that is, compared to other Quendi; and so the reference could still be to 'all' the Eldar from the perspective of the fictive translator writing Appendix F [Tolkien]...

... again arguably 'odd' in that the Vanyar were hardly 'of Middle-earth' in a historical sense, having all passed Over Sea so very early on -- compared to the Eldarin Noldor and Sindar leaving Middle-earth so very much later, and interacting with Men far, far more. And again I think the perspective does, or can at least, arguably switch to a Mannish perspective [thus who the heck are the Vanyar? And what they look like is hardly in mind when we speak of the 'Eldar' in Middle-earth].

In any case, Tolkien himself would maybe not find this kind of thinking odd, that 'Eldar' might be used without a true inclusive sense...

4. Elda and Eldo. The original distinction between these forms as meaning 'one of the Star-folk, or Elves in general', and one of the 'Marchers', became obscured by the close approach of the forms. The form Eldo went out of use, and Elda remained the chief word for 'Elf' in Quenya. But it was not in accurate use held to include the Avari (when they were remembered or considered); i.e. it took on the sense of Eldo. It may, however, have been partly due to its older sense that in popular use it was the word ordinarily employed for any Elf, that is, as an equivalent of the Quende of the Loremasters. When one of the Elves of Aman spoke of the Eldalie, 'the Elven-folk', he meant vaguely all the race of Elves, though he was probably not thinking of the Avari.

JRRT, Quendi And Eldar

And so it seems to me that from the perspective of Middle-earthers, one might use Eldar even if probably not thinking of the Vanyar.

Erm. If that makes sense.

Anyway sorry to the 'Elves and Ringwraiths' readers.

[Alfirin]

We may observe that Professor Tolkien ultimately omitted the naming of Khamûl in any text published in his lifetime, presumably, I would argue, to maintain the sense of anonymous terror associated with the Ringwraiths. Perhaps he originally intended to identify the Lieutenant of their dark order just as he had, to an extent, their Captain, but ultimately changed his mind.
The East of Middle-earth had lain under the shadow since time immemorial: first as the slaves and worshippers of Morgoth, and later in the same function for Sauron. I would not be surprised if several of the Ringwraiths were Easterlings (I would speculate that some, also, were probably Haradrim). Rhûn was a wide land, and the gift of Rings of Power to Easterling Kings might have secured its realms under his control amid the turmoils of the Second Age after Morgoth's empire collapsed.

In that case, it's actually little weird Sauron was willing to have three Nazgul who were Numenorian, or four (depending on whether the earlier guess of the WK's heritage is accurate or not). One would think he would want a max of ONE Numenorian Nazgul; to spread his rings and influence in as wide a net as possible. Yes, by the time he doles out the last rings, Sauron is nominally a prisoner there. But it seems to me that at no point was Sauron so desperate that he gave our rings out of neccecity, especially since he seemed well capable of bestowing "special" gifts on loyal servants that did NOT require a ring (such as The Mouth, or those two rulers (Fram and someone else, I think) Sauron seemed to always have the luxury of biding his time, and picking and choosing which nine men would make his "best" private force.
A part of me likes the idea of at least one or two Haradrian Nazgul to cement those regions securely (one or two depending on whether Near and Far Harad are similar enough to allow one indiviual to be ultimately in charge of both, or whether each would need it's own supreme ruler. It is even tempting to think that, should there be such a pair in the Wraith Ranks, they were numbered amoung the five at Pellenor, as supreme commanders of thier respective nations.
Gothmog II was probably a Numenorian. Given corrupted Numernorian tendencies to revel in the past, it would well fit a turned one to select as his new name that of the Chief of the Balrogs as a sort of "I am Gothmog re-incranted, I am a supreme Badass." (This assumes 1. Some or all of the Nazgul chose new names for themselves when they turned (likely I think, since I doubt that a normal man in most of the societies (especially the Numenorian, could get away with calling himself "Gothmog" and not arouse a lot of suspicion). and 2. They chose those names themselves, rather than having them bestowed on them by Sauron (in a sort of Emperor Palpatine situation))
Gothmog probably ranks third in the Hierarchy, since coordinating authority over the whole Pellenor force was given to him. Though this sort of contradicts my theory that rank in the Nazgul was determined by sieniority (i.e. The WK was the first man Sauron gave a ring to, Khamul was the second, etc.) If there are only three Numenorians, they would be the LAST three wraiths, and therfore, by that theory, the lowest ranked.)
Beyond that, it's anyone's guess. Could one be a Wainrider? Could another be a former ruler of Nurn? (actually the last might make a lot of sense, to have a wraith as ultimate authority over the Mordorian breadbasket to keep the slaves in line might be sensible.)

[Morthoron]

In that case, it's actually little weird Sauron was willing to have three Nazgul who were Numenorian, or four (depending on whether the earlier guess of the WK's heritage is accurate or not). One would think he would want a max of ONE Numenorian Nazgul; to spread his rings and influence in as wide a net as possible. Yes, by the time he doles out the last rings, Sauron is nominally a prisoner there. But it seems to me that at no point was Sauron so desperate that he gave our rings out of neccecity, especially since he seemed well capable of bestowing "special" gifts on loyal servants that did NOT require a ring (such as The Mouth, or those two rulers (Fram and someone else, I think) Sauron seemed to always have the luxury of biding his time, and picking and choosing which nine men would make his "best" private force.
A part of me likes the idea of at least one or two Haradrian Nazgul to cement those regions securely (one or two depending on whether Near and Far Harad are similar enough to allow one indiviual to be ultimately in charge of both, or whether each would need it's own supreme ruler. It is even tempting to think that, should there be such a pair in the Wraith Ranks, they were numbered amoung the five at Pellenor, as supreme commanders of thier respective nations.
Gothmog II was probably a Numenorian. Given corrupted Numernorian tendencies to revel in the past, it would well fit a turned one to select as his new name that of the Chief of the Balrogs as a sort of "I am Gothmog re-incranted, I am a supreme Badass." (This assumes 1. Some or all of the Nazgul chose new names for themselves when they turned (likely I think, since I doubt that a normal man in most of the societies (especially the Numenorian, could get away with calling himself "Gothmog" and not arouse a lot of suspicion). and 2. They chose those names themselves, rather than having them bestowed on them by Sauron (in a sort of Emperor Palpatine situation))
Gothmog probably ranks third in the Hierarchy, since coordinating authority over the whole Pellenor force was given to him. Though this sort of contradicts my theory that rank in the Nazgul was determined by sieniority (i.e. The WK was the first man Sauron gave a ring to, Khamul was the second, etc.) If there are only three Numenorians, they would be the LAST three wraiths, and therfore, by that theory, the lowest ranked.)
Beyond that, it's anyone's guess. Could one be a Wainrider? Could another be a former ruler of Nurn? (actually the last might make a lot of sense, to have a wraith as ultimate authority over the Mordorian breadbasket to keep the slaves in line might be sensible.)

There is no concrete evidence that the 3rd Age Gothmog at the Battle of Pelennor Field was a Nazgul. All we know is that he was a lieutenant to the WiKi in Minas Morgul, but that post did not necessarily require a Nazgul, as we know the lieutenant of Barad-dur was the Mouth of Sauron, who was a mortal without a Ring.

I believe Tolkien stated that at least three of the Nazgul were Numenorean (including the WiKi); in this case, it would be understandable if one of these great Numenorean Lords was a King of Umbar or in Harad, where the Black Numenoreans held sway for many years.

[Alfirin]

Yes, that is true, the Mouth became second in Command of Barad Dur while still being a man (though in his case, given he is so old he has forgotten his name, the term "mortal" may be stretching things a bit.)
Actually, ALL the Nazgul are probably Kings of some region, or whatever term is used locally for the ultimate leader. As his most trusted servants, Sauron would naturally want to put them in supreme charge of those areas under his Dominion. That's why I suggested one might rule Nurn; who else could he trust so much to make sure the supply of food for his troops continued safely.
Umbar does also seem a likey spot of rule for one, since, as you said, it is a Black Numenorian stronghold. My one problem with this is that, if one of the Nazgul IS the king of Umbar, where was he when Umbar was sacked. Granted, each ruling Nazgul must fairly regularly have to leave his realm in the hands of a trusted steward when they are off on other Sauronian business (if Gothmog is not a Nazgul, he probably is such and Individual in most cases the ruler of Minas Morgul in the Wiki's absence.) , but given that the Battle of Pellenor is a pretty major undertaking; you expect the Lord of Umbar to come with his fleet behind him (the same way the WiKi arrived at Pellenor with an army from Minas Morgul) At bare minimum you expect him to be popping back from time to time to check. Umbar is only a moderate distance (as compared to say Minas Morgul) from Gondor even by boat, by Fell Beast it's even less. Even if the Lord deicided it was more important to go on ahead to the battle and let his fleet follow him, he would have let whoever was left in charge know where he was in case messages needed to be sent. And messages WOULD be sent. No matter how abrupt the Dead Mens attack was and how through, one would assume some Umbarian would have been able to send a messager bird to his Commander (after Aragorn and Co. LEFT, if not before) if his Commander in Chief was already there ("Fleet destroyed. Enemy on way to you. Please advise.") And the Forces of Sauron should Know Aragorn is coming AGES before he gets there, and have a trap waiting for him. I'm not actually saying the Lord of Umbar CAN'T be one of the Nazgul, but if he is, he seems to be doing a lousy job of leading his people (and if he ISN'T one of the Five at Pellenor, then why not, seeing as how the likelyhood of his people being part of the fight is so high?

[Ivriniel]

Indeed, you must never trust the "Lord of the Rings Wiki." It's a mess of book-lore, film material, "fanon", backstory from RPGs and amateur textual interpretation all muddled together. Note that it's too amateurish to even remember the "The" at the beginning of "The Lord of the Rings!" It's kind of like the post-Peter Jackson equivalent of one of David Day's reference books.

I generally go to the Tolkien Gateway when I need a quick hint for a reference: tolkiengateway.net I then confirm this with a primary source.

Actually, please have a look at some other citations. He was knows as the Black Easterling, Shadow in the East second in charge, occupant of Dol Guldur, Ringwraith in the Shire who spoke, the Ringwraith most able to sense the Ring, but most susceptible to sunlight.

The only materials I can't (yet) support is that he was one of three non-Numenorean Ringwraiths.

The supplementary analysis in my post holds with the information re-cited, from other locations (plural).

I have UT, in my hand, and I quote from The Hunt for the Ring, p. 338, Hardback, Allen & Unwin Ed.

"Now at that time the Chieftain of the ringwraiths dwelt in Minal Morgal with six companions, while the second to the Chief, Khamul the Shadow of the East, abode in Dol Guldur as Saruon's lieuteneant, with one other as his messenger"

There's his name (Tolkien did not leave them all anonymous. Presumably he just never developed their identities in narratives due to literary emphasis in the 'story he was telling'), his rank, association with Dol Guldur for a period, implications for his origin (Mortal of non-Numenorean lineage--*second* in charge).

All these materials are enough to support the textual analysis I provided, reposted, here:

[Ivriniel]

Indeed, you must never trust the "Lord of the Rings Wiki." It's a mess of book-lore, film material, "fanon", backstory from RPGs and amateur textual interpretation all muddled together. Note that it's too amateurish to even remember the "The" at the beginning of "The Lord of the Rings!" It's kind of like the post-Peter Jackson equivalent of one of David Day's reference books.

I generally go to the Tolkien Gateway when I need a quick hint for a reference: tolkiengateway.net I then confirm this with a primary source.


We may observe that Professor Tolkien ultimately omitted the naming of Khamûl in any text published in his lifetime.....

I've traced the citation to support my claims. UT, p. 338.

Khamul -- now he is very interesting for a number of particular reasons. I will provide textual analysis at the end of the post.

Khamul was the only Ringwraith Tolkien spoke about. Khamul was known as The Black Easterling and Shadow of the East--before he became a Ringwraith. He is implicated in the alliance between the land of Rhun and Mordor. He was second in power, but one of the six Ringwraiths not of Numenorean descent. Interesting, that, isn't it. He was the Ringwraith who pursued the Hobbits to the Buckleberry Ferry. He spoke to Maggot asking about "Baggins", was present killing Gondor-ian soldiers on the Pelenor and present at the Battle of Moranon.

Analysis

1. non-numenoreans can achieve a greatness that rivals them. Implying.
2. A capacity for potency in Men of normal lifespan, not of the Elder Days, not exposed to the Noldorin influence in Beleriand--not connected, in any way, to the Light of Aman. With intrinsically evil/dark personality attributes.
3. Why did Tolkien *only* speak about this particular Ringwraith. Interesting isn't it. This is one of those times that we need to make inferences by, not only presence (the one he spoke about), but what that means by way of inferences by absence (why did he choose to note Easterling Ringwraiths, but not the Numenorean ones?)

This is particularly noteworthy because of the prominence of the Witchking in the mythology, don't you think. How is it that the Witchking--responsible for the destruction of Arnor, the inadvertent loss of Arnor-ean artefacts (Palantiri in the Ice Bay of Forochel, when Arvedui was lost), and who also slew Earnil, last King of Gondor. Who sacked Minas Ithil. Who occupied Dol Guldur after Sauron reoccupied Mordor.

We don't know who the *bleep* The Witchking was, but we do the Easterling of Rhun.

The Easterling's potency is materials *deeply* discordant with the mythology as it much more typically caste ideas about the 'lesser' and 'fading' races. *And* the particular Easterling noted for his history.

I, truly, do not know what this means about what the capacities for power and potency are in the Mortal Races.

On an interesting addendum, the Pukel Men, had a particular resilience to Evil (this cuts the opposite way to Khamul) and who also had particular magical powers of their own. This legacy of magic is well noted in supplementary materials Christopher Tolkien wrote (I can quote citations if people seek those. But I read a story about a stone that a Pukel men charged with magic that protected, I think it was a Numenorean home, from an Orc assault).

[Zigûr]

Yes, that is true, the Mouth became second in Command of Barad Dur while still being a man (though in his case, given he is so old he has forgotten his name, the term "mortal" may be stretching things a bit.)
"His name is remembered in no tale, for he himself had forgotten it."
I do not believe that the Mouth of Sauron was particularly ancient. We are only told that he had forgotten his own name, not that he had forgotten it due to age. In the same way I believe that Gothmog was a Man and not a Wraith. I associate him with the Morgul-riders who emerged from the Dead City with the Black Captain as witnessed by Frodo and Sam.

Khamûl was the Lieutenant of Dol Guldur. He seemingly no longer had any affiliation with the Easterlings by the end of the Third Age. In the same way I think we needn't find confusion in the idea of other Wraiths no longer leading their former realms to battle. The Lord of the Nazgûl was King of Angmar and Lord of Morgul in his time: he did not persist in a specifically Black Númenórean connection.

Actually, please have a look at some other citations. He was knows as the Black Easterling, Shadow in the East second in charge, occupant of Dol Guldur, Ringwraith in the Shire who spoke, the Ringwraith most able to sense the Ring, but most susceptible to sunlight.
I don't dispute that. I am entirely familiar with the material in Unfinished Tales which relates to Khamûl. I was simply giving a general warning about the reliability of information on the "Lord of the Rings Wiki."

[Inziladun]

This public computer for some reason will not allow me to quote, but I'm with Zigûr that the Mouth was not necessarily old, just that he had so submerged himself into Sauron's will that he had lost any sense of independant identity. It need not be assumed that Gothmog was in any similar state. He was probably just an Easterling, or maybe even an especially large, strong, and commanding Orc given that particular name in honor of Morgoth's fearsome field captain.

I also agree that the Nazgûl would have been unlikely to have kept any connection with the peoples of their origin. There would have been little need for it, given that Sauron already had a hold on those folk anyway.

[Ivriniel]

I don't dispute that. I am entirely familiar with the material in Unfinished Tales which relates to Khamûl. I was simply giving a general warning about the reliability of information on the "Lord of the Rings Wiki."

Nice touch with the 'Û'. I would have loved to have seen your ideas about Khamul. There was an interesting view about Tolkien's intention offered, possibly anonymising the Nazgul to add to their terror (for the reader), and so, querying whether or not Khamul, as a name, ever existed.

I'm still thinking about the implications for having a non-Numenorean ace the Numenorean Ringwraiths (except the Witchking) in power. And what this means about Elves and Ringwraiths in a relative ranking of power.

[Morthoron]

This public computer for some reason will not allow me to quote, but I'm with Zigûr that the Mouth was not necessarily old, just that he had so submerged himself into Sauron's will that he had lost any sense of independant identity. It need not be assumed that Gothmog was in any similar state. He was probably just an Easterling, or maybe even an especially large, strong, and commanding Orc given that particular name in honor of Morgoth's fearsome field captain.

I also agree that the Nazgûl would have been unlikely to have kept any connection with the peoples of their origin. There would have been little need for it, given that Sauron already had a hold on those folk anyway.

I think the advanced age theory of MoS is plausible, due to the odd way Tolkien refers to him: he is a Black Numenorean. How is that odd, you say? Considering that the Black Numenoreans as a race had disappeared quite a long time before the War of the Ring (Gondorions of Numenorean descent didn't refer to themselves as Numenoreans either). Could he have prolonged his life due to the necromantic arts Sauron himself taught him?

There really is no definitive answer, but the conjecture is ominously fun.

[Nerwen]

Ivriniel, the part I was querying is the claim that Khamul was at the Pellenor fields- not all the Ringwraiths were, as I recall, and I can't find any individual account of his later movements. Doesn't seem to be in UT, anyway.

I'm aware this is just a side issue, but I'd like to track down the source (if there is one).

Nice touch with the 'Û'. I would have loved to have seen your ideas about Khamul. There was an interesting view about Tolkien's intention offered, possibly anonymising the Nazgul to add to their terror (for the reader), and so, querying whether or not Khamul, as a name, ever existed.
I don't understand what you mean by that last bit; of course it existed- you've read the relevant text yourself. Are you asking whether it can be considered "canonical"?

[Ivriniel]

Ivriniel, the part I was querying is the claim that Khamul was at the Pellenor fields- not all the Ringwraiths were, as I recall, and I can't find any individual account of his later movements. Doesn't seem to be in UT, anyway.

Hey there Nerwen

:) I'm not sure off hand how many of the nine were at the Pelennor, cause I'm rusty about LotR, having not read it for about five years (though another read's on the brew). The only stuff I can find about Khamul (I haven't scanned, widely yet) was in The Hunt for the Ring.

I don't understand what you mean by that last bit; of course it existed- you've read the relevant text yourself. Are you asking whether it can be considered "canonical"?

...someone posted somewhere, upstream, an interesting idea about why Tolkien may [not] have deliberately [not] provided names (sorry about the double negative, but they're needed at times) for the Nazgul, before they were Nazgul. The idea being petitioned was that the anonymising of the Nine made them more frightening to the reader (ie stops one getting all warm and fuzzy about The Witch King, before he was a Witch King, and so sad for his fate, coz he woz once-a nice guy who just got led all astray, coz all those Elendil supporters thought his inverted cross was mean :) i.e. by identifying with his human -- or once human -- side).

About canonical tomes, I'm sure there's some interesting views about 'which' materials to weight, when pressed, in topical items that have more than one position. Personally, I always retreat to LotR as much as I can, and the Appendices, and love the Silmarillion, but understand its Christopher-ising has caused problems. UT is often helpful. Letters, as supplementary materials for getting at Tolkien's intentions sometimes helps, though there's times I've found that problematic too.

Then, there's a whole bunch of more obscure materials, papers, even journals and Books, I've seen quoted. And high-brow inferential statements about author intention from those. I am enjoying getting into these citations, and have found myself prompted to go delving.....

[Inziladun]

I think the advanced age theory of MoS is plausible, due to the odd way Tolkien refers to him: he is a Black Numenorean. How is that odd, you say? Considering that the Black Numenoreans as a race had disappeared quite a long time before the War of the Ring (Gondorions of Numenorean descent didn't refer to themselves as Numenoreans either). Could he have prolonged his life due to the necromantic arts Sauron himself taught him?

The story narrative doesn't suggest any advanced age for the Mouth, and to be old by the reckoning of Men and not show it, wouldn't he need to possess something of the Númenórean longevity? I get the idea though that the King's Men/Black Númenóreans lost that advantage more quickly than those of the Faithful, in which case he wouldn't necessarily be that old.

As for using Sauron's sorcery to prolong his life, that could be possible, I guess. In order to acquire "sorcery" from Sauron he needed, I think, to lose enough of his own identity to basically become (like the Ringwraiths) a mere extension of Sauron's will, which could allow him to share in the life of his Master. I wonder if that's the case though, what happened to him after the Ring was destroyed and Sauron fell. Did he die on the spot, or just quietly pine away? What good is a Mouth without a brain behind it? Maybe Tauriel could tell us. ;)

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Inziladun:
As for using Sauron's sorcery to prolong his life, that could be possible, I guess. In order to acquire "sorcery" from Sauron he needed, I think, to lose enough of his own identity to basically become (like the Ringwraiths) a mere extension of Sauron's will, which could allow him to share in the life of his Master.
I've recently come to believe (with no textual proof whatsoever) that the Mouth of Sauron was given one of Rings that Sauron recovered from the dwarves. He simply hasn't had it long enough for it to have completely taken over his entire being. He's "part-way" to becoming a Nazgul. This would account for both a longer life, (long enough to have forgotten his own name.) and his ability to speak for Sauron autonomously. I can't prove it, though, obviously.

[Morthoron]

The story narrative doesn't suggest any advanced age for the Mouth, and to be old by the reckoning of Men and not show it, wouldn't he need to possess something of the Númenórean longevity? I get the idea though that the King's Men/Black Númenóreans lost that advantage more quickly than those of the Faithful, in which case he wouldn't necessarily be that old.

As for using Sauron's sorcery to prolong his life, that could be possible, I guess. In order to acquire "sorcery" from Sauron he needed, I think, to lose enough of his own identity to basically become (like the Ringwraiths) a mere extension of Sauron's will, which could allow him to share in the life of his Master. I wonder if that's the case though, what happened to him after the Ring was destroyed and Sauron fell. Did he die on the spot, or just quietly pine away? What good is a Mouth without a brain behind it? Maybe Tauriel could tell us. ;)

Ah, but the mystery of the Mouth goes deeper, doesn't it? Tolkien, in yet another example of his classic ambiguity, writes that "he [MoS] entered the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again." Now, is Tolkien referring to when Sauron returned to the Tower after the destruction of Numenor nearly 3000 years previously, or when Sauron reinhabited Barad-dur after his feigned flight from Dol Guldur?

Even if we discount the former and consider the latter (Sauron's retreat from Dol Guldur), MoS went into the service of Sauron about 68 years prior to the events at the Black Gate. Now, I am not sure Sauron took in child prodigies, but even if we allow for the laxity of Mordorion child labor laws, MoS could not be much younger than 20 years old at the time, but most likely older, as Sauron seemed to gravitate to greater men, warriors, sorcerers and kings in their prime. So, MoS had to be at least in his late 80s or more likely 90s when he rode out from the Morannon to confront Aragorn and Gandalf.

He did not appear to be a dotard or wizened as a man of that old age would be; on the contrary, he was described as "A tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse… The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man." Tall and proud: a man in his prime. How can this be? If, as you mention, Inzil, that he was a product of Numenorean blood, how could he be a peer agewise to his adversary Aragorn, whose bloodline ran truer than any man of the time? Denethor, certainly a great man of Gondor whose bloodline was better than most, was unbent but still gray-bearded and mature-looking when he died at 89.

This brings me back to Tolkien referring to MoS as a "Black Numenorean". Again, I find this very intriguing. Tolkien did not say he "was of Black Numenorean descent" or that "his forefathers were Black Numenorean"; no, he says Mos "is" Black Numenorean, as if that were still a viable race. Given Gondor's utter victory against the Haradrim in T.A. 1050, and Tolkien's comment that "some were given over wholly to idleness and ease, and some fought amongst themselves, until they became conquered in their weakness by the wild men," that the Black Numenoreans as a race were diluted far more so than the Dunedain of Gondor. So, nearly 2000 years afterwards, there is still someone who can be identified as Black Numenorean? Isn't that strange? That's like someone in Italy claiming to be an Imperial Roman.

Anyway, ambiguity is the spice of Tolkien.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"(ie stops one getting all warm and fuzzy about The Witch King, before he was a Witch King, and so sad for his fate, coz he woz once-a nice guy who just got led all astray)."

Which would have inevitably led to an awful prequel trilogy focusing on how young Anaquen was seduced to the Dark Side.....

[Ivriniel]

Ah, but the mystery of the Mouth goes deeper, doesn't it? Tolkien, in yet another example of his classic ambiguity, writes that "he [MoS] entered the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again." Now, is Tolkien referring to when Sauron returned to the Tower after the destruction of Numenor nearly 3000 years previously, or when Sauron reinhabited Barad-dur after his feigned flight from Dol Guldur?

Even if we discount the former and consider the latter (Sauron's retreat from Dol Guldur), MoS went into the service of Sauron about 68 years prior to the events at the Black Gate. Now, I am not sure Sauron took in child prodigies, but even if we allow for the laxity of Mordorion child labor laws, MoS could not be much younger than 20 years old at the time, but most likely older, as Sauron seemed to gravitate to greater men, warriors, sorcerers and kings in their prime. So, MoS had to be at least in his late 80s or more likely 90s when he rode out from the Morannon to confront Aragorn and Gandalf.

He did not appear to be a dotard or wizened as a man of that old age would be; on the contrary, he was described as "A tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse… The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man." Tall and proud: a man in his prime. How can this be? If, as you mention, Inzil, that he was a product of Numenorean blood, how could he be a peer agewise to his adversary Aragorn, whose bloodline ran truer than any man of the time? Denethor, certainly a great man of Gondor whose bloodline was better than most, was unbent but still gray-bearded and mature-looking when he died at 89.

This brings me back to Tolkien referring to MoS as a "Black Numenorean". Again, I find this very intriguing. Tolkien did not say he "was of Black Numenorean descent" or that "his forefathers were Black Numenorean"; no, he says Mos "is" Black Numenorean, as if that were still a viable race. Given Gondor's utter victory against the Haradrim in T.A. 1050, and Tolkien's comment that "some were given over wholly to idleness and ease, and some fought amongst themselves, until they became conquered in their weakness by the wild men," that the Black Numenoreans as a race were diluted far more so than the Dunedain of Gondor. So, nearly 2000 years afterwards, there is still someone who can be identified as Black Numenorean? Isn't that strange? That's like someone in Italy claiming to be an Imperial Roman.

Anyway, ambiguity is the spice of Tolkien.

Hey there Morthoron,

I take your point in the flow of logic, inference, even of intrigue in the discussion about the Mouth of Sauron. I haven't traced and researched my materials about Black Numenoereans--ever--as a detailed, particular delve, but have read what materials there are on them in UT, and--to the extend I can bear reading some of the other stuff (I just can't get my head around readings where the Noldor are 'gnomes' and Valinor 'Kor')--I have some materials probably in those books.

I'll go and have a look and see what's there. But, off the cuff, as a 'habit' or tendency, Tolkien tended to interweave in LotR, the ideas about the 'fading' years of Middle Earth, but where some small aspect, feature, person or artefact for another time could make an appearance. As, for example, the last of the Elves of Valinor were packing house and catching the Last Bus on the Straight Road line to Elfy places :) we also had Shadowfax, a re-appearance of the 'nobler' former high horsy things, and 'one or two' Palantiri, the vestiges of the empire of a Numenorean-o-rama. We had an elfy blade or two from the First Age, a Blade or two from Arnor (Barrow Wight treasure), Shelob (a fairly big spider, getting a bit towards Ungoliante), and so on.

The 'Last Black Numenorean'? I dunno. As you say, 2000 years is a long time, and it's not like you ever see a Roman Legion marching down the street.

But, now and then, you do see a throw back to a former time, either culturally or genetically. I suppose, in the spirit of Shadowfax, The Mouth of Sauron could have come from that part of Umbar where there still dwelled an enclave of the equivalent of the Rangers of the North, or a scion of a Noble House, or even the product of a child of a captured Gondorian female Dunedain.....that is, the slave traders would probably have taken people from Gondor for that kind of thing. Perhaps they caught someone from Gondor who had a lot of Numenorean blood?

Ivriniel

[Ivriniel]

"(ie stops one getting all warm and fuzzy about The Witch King, before he was a Witch King, and so sad for his fate, coz he woz once-a nice guy who just got led all astray)."

Which would have inevitably led to an awful prequel trilogy focusing on how young Anaquen was seduced to the Dark Side.....

:) I'm sure you're right. I suspect that Tolkien, had he been alive and bombarded by fans asking a ka-gillion questions about a mythology with several billion offshoot items mentioned and left tacit, that he may have answered the questions about the fates of the Nazgul.

I want to know what kinds of dreams they started having, what they did when they put their Rings on, how their habits and personalities started changing and also, what happened to their Spirits, bodies and flesh. Did Mandos accept them? Where do Wraiths go in the cosmology when they 'die' or end?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Do remember that the Nine were given their rings in the Second Age, and the political geography of Middle-earth was not at all that of the Third (indeed we know little about it). The Ringwraiths first appeared about SA 2250 thirty years before Umbar was built (and they 'appeared', one supposes, quite some time after they had been given their rings).

It is interesting that the appearance of the Ringwraiths comes in the same entry as "Tar-Ancalimon takes the sceptre. Rebellion and division of the Numenoreans begins." Could one or more of the RW, when still visible "mortal" men, have been Sauronian agents in Numenor itself?

[Puddleglum]

Ivriniel, ... being present at the Battle of the Pelennor fields. There were five Ringwraiths there...Are you sure? I know of a reference (Siege of Gondor) where there were five ringwraiths flying against Faramir when he returned from Henneth Annun - but that was a few days before the battle.

Later, I only see references to "the nazgul", without being specific how many (five, eight, or whatever).

The WK rode to (and in) the battle on a horse - but had his winged beast available (as he used it when Theoden arrived) ... so he was "probably" not flying around buzzing the city during the battle like other ring wraiths (leaving eight or fewer in the air) - but even that is only conjecture (even if rational).

I've missed references before which is why I ask. If I've missed something here please point me to it.

[Nerwen]

Are you sure? I know of a reference (Siege of Gondor) where there were five ringwraiths flying against Faramir when he returned from Henneth Annun - but that was a few days before the battle.

Later, I only see references to "the nazgul", without being specific how many (five, eight, or whatever).

The WK rode to (and in) the battle on a horse - but had his winged beast available (as he used it when Theoden arrived) ... so he was "probably" not flying around buzzing the city during the battle like other ring wraiths (leaving eight or fewer in the air) - but even that is only conjecture (even if rational).

I've missed references before which is why I ask. If I've missed something here please point me to it.
No, I'm not sure. But I assumed that was the part the wiki was referencing, rather than the chapter "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields"- I believe it's the only thing that would fit the description. Compare "mounted on his fell beast and killing Gondor's soldiers" to "out of the dim sky fell the winged shadows, the Nazgul stooping to the kill". That is, I think there's been some conflation- I could have been clearer about that, I guess.

Anyway, the main point is I don't believe there's any way of telling whether Khamul was there or not. Later- well, since *all* the Nazgul were at the Morannon, and *all* perished with the Ring, and since, by inference, Khamul would have been in charge at this point, I can't say the wiki is factually incorrect here... yet, it seems to me to give a false impression. You would think, just from this, that Tolkien had left a fairly detailed account of what this particular Nazgul did right up to the end. If there is one, it's not in the references given.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Tolkien left no account of the doings of particular Nazgul, other than the notes associated with the Hunt for the Ring

After the Bruinen, all we know is that
* A Nazgul was shot down by Legolas at Sarn Gebir
* A few days later, another Nazgul met with Grishnakh on the west bank of Anduin, ordering him to rejoin Ugluk
* A Nazgul swept over Frodo, Sam and Gollum in the Dead Marshes
* Two passed overhead while F, S & G hid in the Slag-mounds
* A Nazgul passed over Dol Baran the night of the Palantir en route to Isengard just before midnight; a second overflew Edoras at dawn (these were originally intended to be the same as the previous pair)
* Five attempted to destroy Faramir's company retreating from Cair Andros
* Eight (prob) provided CAP during the Siege of Gondor; the WK (prob) stayed on the ground
* Pelennor: WK breaks Gate, kills Theoden, dies. One flies back to Barad-dur with news; one (prob the same one) flies to Cirith Ungol, too late to catch F & S escaping
* Eight, prob in shifts, shadow the Captains of the West.
* All eight survivors at Morannon; destroyed.

[Nerwen]

Thanks, WCH.. That's about what I thought.

What do you make of this, though?:confused:

==Rumors==
*According to another version of the stories Khamûl was stationed at Dol Guldur on March 6th, when Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron and began marching on the wood elf kingdoms on March 10th. On March 11th, his forces began assailing the nearby Lórien. After this failed, much of his force passed around the border of the woods and entered the The Wold. On March 12th, they were met with Ents sent east from Fangorn and Isengard, and were routed. Lórien was then attacked twice more on March 15th and March 22nd, but was never entered. The forces of Dol Guldur also went north into Mirkwood, battling the forces of King Thranduil under Mirkwood's trees, the climax of these battles being on March 15, 3019 which after a "long battle... and great ruin and fire" was won by Thranduil's forces.

[Ivriniel]

Do remember that the Nine were given their rings in the Second Age, and the political geography of Middle-earth was not at all that of the Third (indeed we know little about it). The Ringwraiths first appeared about SA 2250 thirty years before Umbar was built (and they 'appeared', one supposes, quite some time after they had been given their rings).

It is interesting that the appearance of the Ringwraiths comes in the same entry as "Tar-Ancalimon takes the sceptre. Rebellion and division of the Numenoreans begins." Could one or more of the RW, when still visible "mortal" men, have been Sauronian agents in Numenor itself?

You know, there's no reason to presuppose that this is impossible. Whoever the Witchking was, he certainly had a particular hatred, it does appear, of Arnor, and also of Gondor, and was pivotal in the loss of Elendil's line in Arvedui and Earnil.

We know that there was shipping traffic between Numenor and Middle Earth. There's no necessity, I think, to presuppose that the Nazgul of Numenorean background were all Black Numenoreans from the same region. Sauron/Annatar may well have, or could have 'seduced' (that seems to be Tolkien's favourite word for this), basically, some hapless soul, disaffected by Numenorean propriety, from anywhere! Annatar was able to befuddle the Noldor, though not in Cirdan's region, where there was some suspicion about him.

The Ost-In-Edhil was around quite a few hundred years. Sauron was at it, basically, from nigh the start of SA. He also must have spent times abroad, sometimes for years, because he was able to vanish long enough from Elven circles to build the Sammath Naur, the road to the summit of Orodruin, and the Barad Dur. Those are no small feats. The Bard Dur, I'd have thought, was kinda like building a skyscraper, but with vast dungeons, in a labyrinthine complex.

I.e. plenty of time to go find a Numenorean, in Middle Earth or on a boat from Numenor, that he gifted with a Ring.

So--:)

[modern reality language mode]...who hated Numenorean Faithful and who were of Numenorean descent? And enough to be so fixated on taking them down? Some disaffected prince, a jacked off distant cousin to the King/Queen of Numenor, or someone who had been publicly shamed in Numenor, or Middle Earth, either on false or real grounds. Presumably, Numenor had its criminal element, swag of thieves, property damage rebellious adolescents, substance users and those bent on sexual improprieties (Eol the Dark Elf was, for example, basically, a sex offender. He imprisoned Idril Celebrindil in his creepy tree house, and of that union Maeglin was born). I assume Sauron would have appealed to grandiosity and entitlement, whilst feeding vengeful thinking (narcissism) as he manipulated the situation. As was the case with Maeglin, I also suspect Sauron seduced by promising wealth, power, social status--and as with Maeglin--sexual entitlement, as well as enhanced sorcery. He sometimes used the word 'sorcery' to hint or suggest at a magical process that was a corrupting influence. He did so for the two Blue Wizards in that little commentary that left indications of their fates and fall into evil ways, for example, and talked about a 'sorcerer' who occupied Dol Guldur before the White Council knew it was Sauron...[/modern reality language mode]

[Zigûr]

(Eol the Dark Elf was, for example, basically, a sex offender. He imprisoned Idril Celebrindil in his creepy tree house, and of that union Maeglin was born)
I think you mean Aredhel Ar-Feiniel, sister of Turgon, as the spouse of Eöl. Idril was the daughter of Turgon, and Maeglin's cousin.

It is interesting that the appearance of the Ringwraiths comes in the same entry as "Tar-Ancalimon takes the sceptre. Rebellion and division of the Numenoreans begins." Could one or more of the RW, when still visible "mortal" men, have been Sauronian agents in Numenor itself?
My general assumption was that the three Númenórean Nazgûl would have been Lords in Middle-earth, perhaps colonial governors of the local Haradrim and so on, but I suppose there's no reason to think that they might not have been primarily based in Númenor itself given how much transit evidently existed between Middle-earth and the Land of Gift at the time. The reason I mention transit is because I would argue that Sauron probably didn't go to Númenor to dispense Rings.
As you point out WCH, the Ringwraiths appeared in 2251, thirty years into the reign of Tar-Ancalimon (2221-2386). The shadow first fell on Númenor apparently during the reign of his grandfather Tar-Ciryatan (1869-2029). The One Ring was forged c. 1600, and Sauron acquired the Nine during the War of the Elves and Sauron (1693-1701). If Sauron seized and dispensed the Nine prior to or during the reign of Tar-Ciryatan then between the War and Ciryatan's death there is a healthy time frame of 168-328 years. Perhaps the Númenórean Ringbearers might have had some influence in the descent of the shadow upon Westernesse.
If I think about it, Númenóreans would in some respects be ideal people to provide with Rings: they already had abundant resources and power to turn to their advantage, and being an already longeval people, any Ring-granted longevity would be unremarkable and no cause for suspicion. That being said, Tar-Ciryatan's corruption might also have been observed by Sauron as an opportunity to put the Rings to work, rather than the Rings sowing the seeds of corruption. Indeed personally I am more inclined to support the notion that the corruption came before the Rings, as in my opinion it is more thematically effective if Sauron is the exacerbator, rather than the originator, of the darkening of Númenor.

If I might touch upon the Mouth of Sauron, incidentally, I don't think it's necessarily implausible for us to imagine enclaves of Black Númenóreans surviving in certain places, deep in Harad and elsewhere. This is pure speculation. I simply don't think the Mouth of Sauron could have been both a) extremely ancient, and b) not a wraith.

[Ivriniel]

I think you mean Aredhel Ar-Feiniel, sister of Turgon, as the spouse of Eöl. Idril was the daughter of Turgon, and Maeglin's cousin.

apologies, yes. In fact, I've repeated that error many times, over the years. crossed wire memory.

Point though, was not about genealogy. It was about Eol's sex offending and creepy tree house. Developmental delay :) What's a full grown elf doing playing in tree houses?

[Zigûr]

It was about Eol's sex offending and creepy tree house. Developmental delay :) What's a full grown elf doing playing in tree houses?
I think Professor Tolkien was concerned by extremes and extremist philosophies. Fëanor held sway over many of the Noldor and a great deal of destruction ensued from his belief that Morgoth could be defeated militarily by his own means. One might as well have tried to hunt down and destroy the very concept of evil. By contrast, Eöl was a loner, self-isolated and reclusive. His covetousness of his family was another extreme attitude, the opposite one might say of kingly Fëanor, which also brought about a great deal of suffering in the long term.

Characters in Professor Tolkien's work always fail when they are unwilling to compromise, when they operate only in extremes and absolutes. Arda was a fallen world; having one's cake and eating it too was not just unlikely, it was a metaphysical impossibility. Relating to the topic of this thread, the Elves and the Ringwraiths are exactly the same case. The Elven-smiths believed they could build Aman in Middle-earth. This failed. Sauron believed that, with the forging of One Ring, he could in a single master-stroke instantly and irrevocably dominate forever the population of Middle-earth. Such an extremist plan could never hope to succeed. Nothing is ever 'consequence free' in Middle-earth. Nothing succeeds one hundred per cent.

[Alfirin]

If I think about it, Númenóreans would in some respects be ideal people to provide with Rings: they already had abundant resources and power to turn to their advantage, and being an already longeval people, any Ring-granted longevity would be unremarkable and no cause for suspicion.


At the same time, the fact that the rings DO grant immortality (of a sort) might very well appeal to a corrupted Numenorean already obsessed with the "Elves live forever, why shouldn't we?" mindset that was decending in Numenor.

[arathorn]

Men are no where near as strong as an average elf and they lack the 'magic' the elves have. The exceptions being the men with divine ancestry or the ones practicing black magic.

The exceptions to this are the Numenoreans who experienced a new enlightening and restoration in the Numenor. The Numenoreans are not distinguishable from the Eldar. When Tolkien compares the average heights the Numenoreans are equal with the Noldor.


However, if we are talking about individual houses then the House of Hador and Beren are physically the stronger than elves. Tolkien may have decided to drop the story of even Fingon being unable to wear the Dragon's helm, but there is lot's of other evidence.

Turin and Beren are probably the two strongest physically out of any elf or man. After that comes the House of Hador and House of Fingolfin. The early Numenorean Kings being descendants of Hador and Fingolfin would be there as well.

Beren wasn't stronger than Finrod don't you remember the passage:
Felagund put forth all his power and burst his bonds; and he wrestled with the werewolf, and slew it with his hands and teeth. –Here Finrod was strong enough to burst his bonds to save Beren (one of the strongest men the tales tell and wasn’t capable of escaping).

[arathorn]

I'm not sure quite how to assemble the various references in the books, both tacit, implied and explicit, about racial and trait differences into anything really simple. However, I would not be so sure a Ringwraith is quite the comparison to make here to the Eldar. Ringwraiths were beings imbued with Sauronic will, sorcery, evil, fortification and purpose. They had a Ring of Power bolstering and warping the underlying essence of their mortal being.

Tolkien often made specific reference in concepts ranking Elves and Men. Certain of the Eldar and Men are ranked against each other, and compared in specific ways. Those went beyond superlatives and implied, often but not always, inborn traits or capacities, though he also noted environmental impacts on the achievement of greatness, such as the Light of Aman and how it changed the Elves. Numenoreans were altered, it was sometimes implied and stated, by the Isle of Numenor's proximity to Valinor.

Amongst specific traits and concepts cited in this ranking, Feanor for example, (notwithstanding his unfortunate personality--narcissism) was described, specifically

"For Fëanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and a bright flame was in him." ― The Silmarillion, Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor.

He was clearly different and distinct in other ways. His mother, Miriel spent herself, somehow during her gestation, and imbued Feanor with this greatness. She passed on and was off to the Halls of Mandos (or was it Gardens of Lorien--Valinor not Middle Earth) after birthing Feanor. His Spirit burned more hotly. His body was consumed by burning fire when he was slain in the first Great Battle (I forget its name) between the Elves and Morgoth in Beleriand during the First Age.

There were references to greatness of heroism (Beren) and those of 'fairest' form (Luthien, whose likeness it was repeatedly said in the third age, lived in Arwen), and then Galadriel, in her blended Noldorin (half-cousin to Feanor through Finarfin), Vanyar (Indis was her grandmother) and Telerin (through Earwen, of Olwe) heritage

"Very tall [Galadriel and Celeborn] were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold… but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory." ― The Lord of the Rings, "The Mirror of Galadriel"

and often referred to, also, as fairest of all the Elves, both in Aman and Middle Earth.

Greatness in Men has particular emphases in certain traits, such as with Aragorn who had the "foresight of his people" (Numenoreans, as stated several times in The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), as did Gilraen his mother. When he was clad in raiment of, I think it was green and silver (Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), in Lothlorien, where he pledged his troth to Arwen at Caras Caladhon after, I think it was 40 years adventuring, travelling, and fighting. He first saw Arwen when he was new to manhood, around 20, in Rivendell. He was seen by Arwen, again, after his honing in the wild, and upon return, seemed as a great lord in the impression he conveyed, mighty amongst even the Eldar. We're also told this many times about particular members of The Followers, such as of Tuor in his approach to Gondolin (I dunno, :) all that flowing golden hair and stuff that he had--sounds a bit liker a surfer dude to me :)) and in his likeness to the Eldar, and successful courtship of even Idril Celebrindil, daughter of the then High King of the Noldor, Turgon, who was only two generations down from Finwe, High King of all the Noldor. We're also told that in the First Age, Elves and Men approached each other in stature, greatness and heroism.

Tolkien, not always, compared races on height/stature. Often he referred to presence or greatness in bearing, but also more, as he often cited light in the eyes of the Eldar (not really so of the Elves who never went to Aman). That 'light' he also attributed to Numenoreans (again whose stature was greater, though their wisdom, potency, and vigour/constitution was also greater). About vigour, an example is the Eldar who did versus did not succumb to cold during the crossing of the Heclaraxe. Resistance to sickness seemed to vary in the races and Elves did not struggle with mortal afflictions. I never heard of the Plague periods affecting Elves, though it decimated the Numenoreans in Exile, particularly in Arnor. Was it King Ondoher and, I think all seven of his children, who perished in the Plague that came out of the Morgul Vale? They were Men of the Westernesse, not your average, ole human of normal lifespan.

Implications were also drawn about capacity to resist evil. Men were more able to be influenced by the Yoke of Morgoth, who, I remember reading, could continue to influence mortals from even beyond the Doors of Night, in the Void, where he had been cast after the War of Wrath that ended the First Age. This relative vulnerability to evil, for example, by perversion through Sauronic influence was often attributed to Men (Boromir, Isildur and the Ring).

Tolkien also noted that there was something in the fibre or sinew of Hobbits more resistant--tougher--somehow in their capacity to tolerate the evil presence of Sauron through the ring. The same is implied about Sméagol and his near 900 year (or was it 400, I always forget) proximity to the Ring and failure to succumb to wraith form. Again, there is reference to this relative capacity to resist Wraith-ick transfiguration in the Dwarves who never became wraiths through possession of a Ring of Power.

There was also Ghan Buri Ghan, which is another oddity in the mythology, where, through reference to an unsullied or untainted laugh, Tolkien notes something different about this strain of human. Although not 'greatness' as Tolkien often cast it (like he never counted Ents amongst the 'great' in that particular way), Ghan Buri Ghan had something 'special' or 'greater' by way of relative ranking, than others of mortal kind.

All this leads me to conclude that there are specific ways to compare the races that have strong basis in the mythology as Tolkien cast it. Exactly how and where is difficult, exactly, to pinpoint, but comparisons and relative rankings can be drawn for different Ages, races of Men and Elves and in numerous ways.

Very good post and like I said the strongest and tallest of men are those who are more similar to the Eldar Noldor.