The effect of the Great Rings upon Men

[Mithadan]

A tip of the hat to posts by Belegorn, Faramir Jones and Inziladun at the end of the Longevity of Hobbits thread for inspiring this thread.

The Great Rings, the One and the Nine, greatly extend the lives of their Mannish wearers, perhaps indefinitely (and I am aware that an argument exists that the Nazgul did not wear the Nine any longer by the time of LoTR, but rather they were held by Sauron). I cannot include the effect of the Seven upon the Dwarves as there does not appear to be any discussion of this. The Nazgul "lived" thousands of years. Gollum lived for hundreds of years. Gollum's life was clearly linked to the Ring. Its death was his. If it had survived, might Gollum have lived indefinitely? We do not know.

However, death is the Gift of Eru to Men. Their feär seek beyond the boundaries of Arda. I recall from somewhere that the Gift could not be withheld even by the Valar. Yet the Great Rings seem to do so. Your thoughts?

[Inziladun]

However, death is the Gift of Eru to Men. Their feär seek beyond the boundaries of Arda. I recall from somewhere that the Gift could not be withheld even by the Valar. Yet the Great Rings seem to do so. Your thoughts?

I recall that quote, too. Yet, we see Morgoth exerting power on Húrin when the latter is captured and imprisoned.
Húrin was placed atop Thangorodrim and, according to Unfinished Tales at least, was not allowed to move or die, until Morgoth chose to release him. I guess it might be argued that Morgoth was just bluffing there, but it does seem that Húrin's biological processes were arrested at that time, as he could hardly eat, drink, or, ahem, perform other organic functions while "bound" by Morgoth's power.

I think it could have been in the power of certain divine spirits to affect the longevity of mortals in that way, at least temporarily. I would think though that there would have to be a point that the fea of the victim would be so weakened and stretched as to be forced to depart, apart from the body's condition.

[Firefoot]

It seems significant to me that even if their bodies' natural processes do not wear out and the bearers of Rings do not age, they can still be killed, as demonstrated by Eowyn killing the Witch-King.

This seems pretty comparable with the "immortality" of the Elves.

[Galadriel55]

I think it's also possible that the "withholding of death" is not permanent in these cases, but rather a temporary delay. I think of these ringbearers as not completely immortal, but rather infinitely stretched - part of their fea wanting to seek the gift, and the other part being held in place by some attachment, thereby stretching it (like butter spread too thin, as one of these lovely people described it ;)). One main aspect of this is that while death/biological processes are delayed, they are not stopped. It's almost like one life is stretched over the time of many, so that ageing slows down, but also the "intensity" of life weakens. Like you can only live so much, have only such a concentrated fea, that when life is stretched it can't be saturated across all it's length. Hurin's case is notably different from the others, but I want to point out right away that he went from Thangorodrim as an old man. Morgoth may have forced onto him a supernatural strength to survive without basic needs, but this was a physiological kind of interaction. Morgoth just kept his body in sufficient condition to hold his fea (which was still young enough not to die by itself... you know what I mean!); he did not interfere with the spirit. I don't know what would have happened had he not lifted his curse - and I'm not a great fan of the realm of the would-haves; I'll just stick to what there is. The ringbearers, on the other hand, are described more like their entire lives and fear are stretched, not just some survivalist ability. I think that's part of why tge ringwraiths aren't really alive - because part of their fear are already dead, and only the very remainder that is held by the hook holds on. Once the hook is removed, they would die. So it's like a very long but temporary delay of death.

Another thing is that if a Ring was given to a dying person, I don't think it would prevent their death - like Mithadan says. Once the Gift is given... well, only Beren came back, and even then only death can pay for life, as GOT fans would say. Instead, the Rings seem to stretch the middle part of life, such that the time for the gift does not arrive for a possibly infinite amount of time. And there is all the stretching again, where what should have been a more concentrated 1 year of life becomes a significantly more dilute larger number.

Hopefully I'm making sense with this. I'm trying to keep my thoughts apart, but the points are so intertwined that it's hard to keep them as separate ideas.

[Zigûr]

It might be worth considering the case of the Men of Duharrow also. Evidently the shades of dead men could linger long after their time, although in this case I'm not sure how long the society of the living Men of Dunharrow persisted before they entirely died out and were replaced by the spectres of the dead.

It seems to me that it was beyond the power of the Ainur to force the souls and bodies of mortals to stay united indefinitely, but the effect of the Rings seems to have circumvented this (albeit with obvious and severe side effects) by instead indefinitely extending the period of time in which the body and soul existed.

ie even the Ainur did not have the power to cause a mortal to "grow or obtain more life" beyond their span, but in Eä it was possible to, if you'll pardon the horrible sci-fi-ish-ness of the term, "warp" time in such a way that it produced "counterfeit immortality" at the price of corruption and great suffering on the part of the subject. This seems to be a different thing to directly counteracting the Gift of Men.

This seems to have been the normal state of affairs in places like Valinor where, in a sense, time passed and yet did not pass.

[Andsigil]

This seems to go in line with the overarching concept that no one, but Eru, can create.

Melkor desired the ability to do so, but found that he could only take Eru's creations and warp them: elves & orcs, eagles & fell beasts, ents & trolls. I get the impression that the immortality of the ringbearers is Sauron's (and Melkor's by proxy, I suppose) attempt at warping lifespans.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

This seems to go in line with the overarching concept that no one, but Eru, can create.

Melkor desired the ability to do so, but found that he could only take Eru's creations and warp them: elves & orcs, eagles & fell beasts, ents & trolls. I get the impression that the immortality of the ringbearers is Sauron's (and Melkor's by proxy, I suppose) attempt at warping lifespans.


I would say that the Rings were never intended for mortals. They were originally made to corrupt the Elves, and the life-stretching was probably tied to the Elves’ desire to preserve things. One has to remember that the Rings were not solely designed by Sauron. Elves such as Celebrimbor were also involved.

Once Sauron had taken back as many of the Rings as he could, only then did he consider the possible effect of such Rings on mortals...

[Findegil]

And exactly that idea of preservation was the original sin of the elve-smith. And in my interpretation it is exactly Saurons ability to grand that desire, that was the foundation of his success with the Elves of Eregion. Anyhow we can be sure that the means to do what the Elves wished were provided by Sauron at least in a big part.
All examples so fare discussed have a connection to the rebellion of Melkor (not to use the term ‘the dark side’): What Húrin suffered was done by Melkor himself, the Rings that brought about the Ringwraiths, Gollums and Bilbos prolonged lifespan were made at least with Sauron excessive help and the Man of Dunharrow were most probably cursed by Isildur while he was in possession of the One Ring. This connection does lead me to believe that probably the Valar/Maiar could do such thinks, but that they were forbidden by Ilúvatar. Then Melkor and his agents would do such deeds freely since they did not care about Ilúvatars rules.

Another point is the death of people affected by such means:
- We are told that Húrin could not die. But the curse is never put to the test, neither is Húrin long enough on Thangorrodrim to be in risk of dying of old age nor does anybody come there to harm him and we are explicably told in ‘Hùrins Wanderings’ that Morgoth cared for his physical well being.
- From the Ringwraiths we have one example. The Witch-king and his end on the Field of Pelennor. But in his letters Tolkien does tell us that he was not dead but reduced to impotence.
- Neither Gollum nor Bilbo die before the Ring is destroyed. But we have two earlier examples: Isildur being killed, after he had lost the Ring and Deagol being murdered while he still possessed it. We hear of neither of them coming back or being around as a ghost.
- The Man of Dunharrow are called dead, but for a men to die his féa has to leave Ea. That is clearly not the case with the Men of Dunharrow. In addition Legolas tells as that they were able to fight (that must mean affecting the physical world directly). That would mean they are in similar state as that of the Ringwariths: The flesh is invisible but still there.

It seems that the evidence given is very indifferent. In such a case speculation may go wild. Here is mine: Féa of Men as that of Elves were commanded by Mandos to the houses of the Dead once the body was not longer able to sustain the féa. Men were also able to (at least) postpone the call. See the example of Gorlim who cursed himself and in that way managed to warn Beren or in the case under discussion the Witch-king after the fight with Merry and Eowyn. We are told that Elves denying Mandos command were very vulnerable to the call of Melkor (or his agents, I would add). The same might be true for men. Thus Isildur and Deagol might have gone to Mandos since they were both not entirely corrupted while the Witch-king clearly slipped back to Sauron.

One farther point comes to mind: Did it make difference when the Rings were destroyed? Reading about the very long life of Samwise and his reported last journey one could mean that it did not.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Mithadan]

A number of good points have been raised in this thread, but I would like to return to the question I posed in my first post. Eru's gift to Man, that they may die and their feär (souls) can seek beyond the limits of Arda, is said to be beyond the powers even of the Valar to withhold. So how can Sauron, through the Rings, extend indefinitely the lifespan of Men?

One of the things I enjoy most about Tolkien is that his mythos is internally consistent. There are, even if they are speculative, solutions to resolve any apparent contradictions. My question above highlights an apparent contradiction. When I started this thread, I thought I had a potential solution. But yesterday I finished a re-read of Morgoth's Ring and I now wonder whether my solution is correct.

In one of the first discussions of the Ringwraiths in FoTR, Tolkien says that Sauron gave the Nine to Mortal Men "and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow." After Frodo was stabbed by the Morgul blade, Gandalf explains that if the blade reached his heart, Frodo "would have become like they are... You would have become a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord..." Gandalf also states that when Frodo wore the Ring, he was "half in the wraith-world."

To me, the implication is that the Great Rings eventually turn a Man into a naked spirit. The hroä (body) becomes separated from the feä and the body dies leaving only the spirit which, through the power of the Rings, can still manipulate and be partially present in the physical world. Gollum and Bilbo possessed the Ring for a long time. They were partway through this "conversion". So perhaps it is not a question of their life span being extended, but rather that they had undergone a fundamental change in their nature.

This is in keeping with Sauron's persona of the Necromancer. The feär of those who die or are slain are summoned to Mandos (at least the Elves and possibly Men also until they "move on"). A feä can resist the summons. This is considered an act of rebellion. There is also discussion of a "counter-summons" somewhere, through which Morgoth (and perhaps Sauron) sought to divert the feär for his own purposes.

So I thought I had a potential explanation. Not entirely satisfactory, perhaps, but an explanation.

Then I finished reading Morgoth's Ring. A large part of this volume, for those who have not read it, deals with philosophical discussions regarding the nature of Men and Elves, as well as a section called Myths Transformed" that includes Tolkien's experimental ideas about reforming the Silmarillion to better match up with the "real world". I found a few troubling things. First, Tolkien, later in his life (1950s) wrote that the lives of Men could not be extended and the gift of death could not be taken away even by the Valar. Hmmm. Explain the extended lifespan of the Dunedain? The effect of the Rings? Then he says that while the feär of the Elves can be unhoused and wander even in Middle Earth, the feär of Men cannot. This last causes major problems, not only for my theory above, but also it contradicts LoTR (the Dead of Dunharrow) and the published Silmarillion (the wraith of Gorlim how warns Beren of his betrayal).

This may be another "canon" issue. Inconsistent writings that weren't published can perhaps be disregarded as not part of Tolkien's final intentions. Still it is a bit troubling to me.

Thoughts?

[Inziladun]

To me, the implication is that the Great Rings eventually turn a Man into a naked spirit. The hroä (body) becomes separated from the feä and the body dies leaving only the spirit which, through the power of the Rings, can still manipulate and be partially present in the physical world. Gollum and Bilbo possessed the Ring for a long time. They were partway through this "conversion". So perhaps it is not a question of their life span being extended, but rather that they had undergone a fundamental change in their nature.

The spirits even of the Nazgûl though were apparently still connected with physical bodies, and those bodies did occupy the world of the Seen as well as the Unseen. If that was not so, horses could not support them, nor could the "disguises" in the form of cloaks and hoods they wore in the Shire, have covered them.
As long as the Ringwraiths' spirits were subjugated to Sauron's, they had basically become extensions of his own fea, and thus would endure unless he reached a point he was too weak to maintain his hold.

That seems to make sense to me, anyway. ;)

[Mithadan]

The Ringwraiths did not have bodies. Per Gandalf, their cloaks are real and gave "shape to their nothingness." When the flood of the Bruinen washed them away and several lost their cloaks, Gandalf mentions that they would have to make their way back to Mordor empty and shapeless.

[Inziladun]

The Ringwraiths did not have bodies. Per Gandalf, their cloaks are real and gave "shape to their nothingness." When the flood of the Bruinen washed them away and several lost their cloaks, Gandalf mentions that they would have to make their way back to Mordor empty and shapeless.

Gandalf could simply have been referring to the visible forms, imparted by the clothing. I still don't see how ordinary horses would support an insubstantial being.

[Firefoot]

I think I side with Inziladun on this one... I have no reason to think that the Nazgul were telekinetic, so they must have had some way of interacting with their horses, swords, etc. They can also smell and see (though poorly) which require sensory organs. Additionally,

Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.Incorporeal spirits don't have sinews. However, their bodies also seem to be insubstantial and barely held together, since as soon as Merry stabs him, the "mantle and hauberk were empty." So maybe a little bit of both?

Gandalf also supposes that Frodo might become "like a glass filled with a clear light," which also sounds like a visible and insubstantial but still physically real form.

It seems to me that the use of the Rings is extremely damaging to the hroa but it doesn't seem to me that it becomes wholly separated from the fea.

On the other hand, I'm not familiar with the later volumes of HoME or Tolkien's Letters, so everything Mithadan posted from those sources is new to me.

[jallanite]

On the matter of the effect of a Ring’ of Power on Dwarves, Tolkien himself speaks in “Appendix A”, III DURIN’S FOLK, page 1076 in current printings (emphasis mine):The only power over them [the Dwarves] that the Rings wielded was to inflame them with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them. But they were made from their beginnings of a kind to resist most steadfastly domination. Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will; and for the same reason their lives were not affected by any Ring, to live either longer or shorter because of it.
One of the things I enjoy most about Tolkien is that his mythos is internally consistent. There are, even if they are speculative, solutions to resolve any apparent contradictions.

Only if you are very picky about what you count as “solutions to resolve any apparent contradictions”, which is unfair.

The 50th anniversary edition of The Lord of the Rings, also published in paperback, contains on pages xvi to xvii a “Note on the 50ᵗʰ Anniversary Edition” by Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull on their fixing of various errors in the text. Most of the changes are minor typographical corrections(?). They have been very conservative in their editing and every change has been approved by Christopher Tolkien. They note on page xvii:Most of the demonstrable errors noted by Christopher Tolkien in The History of Middle-earth also have been corrected, such as the distance from the Brandywine Bridge to the Ferry (ten miles rather than twenty) and the number of Merry’s ponies (five rather than six). But those inconsistencies of content, such as Gimli’s famous (and erroneous) statement in Book III, Chapter 7, ‘Till now I have hewn naught but wood since I have left Moria’, which would require rewriting to emend rather than simple correction, remain unchanged.
All the emendations are listed with short explanations in “Changes to the Editions of 2004–5” published on pages 783–912 of Hammond and Scull’s The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion.

There are other contradictions not fixed as requiring too much rewriting.

For example, in the chapter “The Shadow of the Past” Tolkien has Gandalf explain:A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care – and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too.
Yet we later learn that at that time Gandalf has been secretly bearing a Ring of Power for close to two thousand years, a Ring given him freely by Círdan its keeper. Either Tolkien intends Gandalf to be uniquely lying, has accidentally typed “A Ring of Power” instead of something like “One of Sauron’s Rings”, intends the reader to understand that Gandalf has made a slip of the tongue, or perhaps had not yet invented the idea that Gandalf was secretly bearing an Elvish Ring of Power freely given to him by Círdan its keeper.

I can bring up other contradictions within The Lord of the Rings and still more in The Hobbit and between The Lord of the Rings and the published Silmarillion if you wish.

[Morthoron]

There are other contradictions not fixed as requiring too much rewriting.

For example, in the chapter “The Shadow of the Past” Tolkien has Gandalf explain:A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care – and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too.
Yet we later learn that at that time Gandalf has been secretly bearing a Ring of Power for close to two thousand years, a Ring given him freely by Círdan its keeper. Either Tolkien intends Gandalf to be uniquely lying, has accidentally typed “A Ring of Power” instead of something like “One of Sauron’s Rings”, intends the reader to understand that Gandalf has made a slip of the tongue, or perhaps had not yet invented the idea that Gandalf was secretly bearing an Elvish Ring of Power freely given to him by Círdan its keeper.

I can bring up other contradictions within The Lord of the Rings and still more in The Hobbit and between The Lord of the Rings and the published Silmarillion if you wish.

Gandalf does not offer a contradiction; he evidently offers everything Frodo needs to know about a Ring of Power, particularly the One he carries, without revealing where the 3 Elvish rings are.

Frodo will not know that Gandalf or Elrond hold Rings of Power until after the One Ring is destroyed (obviously, it has been predetermined that not even Frodo should have such information). Frodo will not know Galadriel has a Ring of Power until she herself reveals it to him in Lothlorien.

In any case, the three Elvish Rings of Power do not have the same issues as the Sauronic Rings of Power: the Elvish rings can be gifted freely and without resultant psychological/addictive problems, and they are held indefinitely by Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel because, unlike the Sauronic Rings wanting to escape to their master (Sauron) and having the taint of the Dark Lord upon them, the Elvish Rings were created separately and for very different motives.

Obvious enough, to me at least.

[Galin]

"... he [Gandalf] evidently offers everything Frodo needs to know about a Ring of Power, particularly the One he carries, without revealing where the 3 Elvish rings are."

I have argued similarly with respect to invisibility. Gandalf suggests to Frodo that the Great Rings confer invisibility, but in a letter Tolkien says that the Three (very arguably included among the "great" rings) do not confer invisibility. In other words, I have argued that the exception of the Three runs counter to what Gandalf wants Frodo to absorb about the Rings of Power -- since Frodo's ring does confer invisibility.

And I think it is natural enough in speech to leave out digressions that might only confuse, or do not illustrate the intended point at hand (especially if also a warning in some measure), even if what one is saying is technically "false" due to some silent exception.


I would say the same of Aragorn's Sauron comment. Since it is usually true that Sauron does not permit the name "Sauron" to be spoken, and since the point is made that the S-rune cannot be for Sauron, Aragorn need not speak to every possible exception (what about someone essentially speaking for Sauron as messenger, like the Mouth of Someone), unless he is merely spooning out information.

Although inconsistency with something in a letter is not, in my opinion, a true contradiction in any case, your post made me thing of the invisibility factor too, with respect to the Three.

[Inziladun]

In any case, the three Elvish Rings of Power do not have the same issues as the Sauronic Rings of Power: the Elvish rings can be gifted freely and without resultant psychological/addictive problems, and they are held indefinitely by Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel because, unlike the Sauronic Rings wanting to escape to their master (Sauron) and having the taint of the Dark Lord upon them, the Elvish Rings were created separately and for very different motives.

Agreed. Although the Three, being at least partially the product of Sauron's instruction, were subject to the One, they are clearly not in the same mold as the Seven and the Nine. The lack of invisibility of their wearers is a major indication of this.
I wouldn't think a mortal who had run across one of the Three would have been affected in the same way, either. The effect may have been similar to that seen by the Fellowship while in Lórien. They were not immortal, but for them biologically speaking, time slowed.

Back to the subject of the life-lengthening process of the other Rings, the fact that the Seven did not influence the Dwarven lifespan has always interested me. Because of their very nature they could not be turned to wraiths either. Did the Dwarven keepers become invisible while wearing their rings? I would think not, because the invisibility, life-lengthening, and wraith-potential all seem intertwined.

[jallanite]

Obvious enough, to me at least.

Not obvious to me at all.

My point is that if Tolkien had Gandalf used instead of “Ring of Power” some other phrase such as “One of Sauron’s Rings” there would be no contradiction. I never suggested that Gandalf should have revealed the current location of the Elven Rings. The idea is absurd.

Gandalf first uses the term “Rings of Power” to Frodo when he discusses the creation of Elven-rings by their Elven creators in Eregion, who created the lesser rings and then “the Great Rings, the Rings of Power”. Then he describes the Great Rings as perilous to mortals and seems to imagine each of these Great Rings or Rings of Power brings invisibility onto its bearer, which Tolkien denies in the Waldman letter written later.

Tolkien, as far as I recall, never uses “Rings of Power” to distinguish the Sauronic Rings from the three Elvish Rings, except possibly once in this chapter, which I accordingly would see as a contradiction.

And I think it is natural enough in speech to leave out digressions that might only confuse, or do not illustrate the intended point at hand (especially if also a warning in some measure), even if what one is saying is technically "false" due to some silent exception.

I agree that Gandalf’s statement can be described as only technically false, if one wishes. Tolkien however portrays Gandalf as usually pedantic and sometime comically precise in his English.

Did the Dwarven keepers become invisible while wearing their rings? I would think not, because the invisibility, life-lengthening, and wraith-potential all seem intertwined.

Tolkien only writes on this head in his note on the effect of the Rings on Dwarves: “Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will.” This statement permits Dwarves to be reduced to shadows not enslaved to another will but does not require it.

[Morthoron]

Not obvious to me at all.

My point is that if Tolkien had Gandalf used instead of “Ring of Power” some other phrase such as “One of Sauron’s Rings” there would be no contradiction. I never suggested that Gandalf should have revealed the current location of the Elven Rings. The idea is absurd.

Gandalf is making a point. There is no contradiction unless you wish to split pedantic hairs -- which I realize you do in the most prolix and circumlocutious manner possible.

Gandalf wishes to impress something on Frodo without confusing the issue or saying, "Well, Frodo, this set does this, that set does that, but not always, and sometime it may be like this, and other times like that, and...oh, would you look at the time? We best be off on our quest."

He gave Frodo all the information he needed to know. He was specific. He did not cloud the issue. Frodo understood precisely what he was saying.

Everything further is useless gobbledygook.

[jallanite]

Gandalf is making a point. There is no contradiction unless you wish to split pedantic hairs -- which I realize you do in the most prolix and circumlocutious manner possible.

And I realize that you don’t wish to discuss this. The problem is that your lack of argument doesn’t solve the problem. Gandalf first introduces the term “A Ring of Power” in referring to the three Elvish Rings created by the Elven-smiths of Eregion. Then he says that no-one in history, as far as he is aware, before Bilbo, has ever given up a Ring of Power to another voluntarily.

Tolkien writes this. I am not going to accept blame from you for what Tolkien wrote. If this is gobbledygook, it is Tolkien’s gobbledygook. You seem to be angry because you cannot explain it satisfactorily. Insulting the messenger seems to be your only recourse, which tends to show that the messenger is right.

I do not wish to split pedantic hairs. Which pedantic hairs have I split invalidly? If I had done so, you would be able to show politely and clearly where I have misrepresented Tolkien, without insults.

Others have noticed this discrepancy.

Hammond and Scull in the The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion, page 87, note:55 (I:64). its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care – and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing and really done it. – This is true of the One Ring, but not of all Rings of Power, of which Gandalf seems to be speaking generally. Celebrimbor gave away the Three Rings. Círdan gave his Ring to Gandalf, Gil-galad (when dying) gave his to Elrond, and Thrór gave his Ring to Thráin.
Galin notes quite rightly, that we are not expected to take this passage literally. It should be considered only technically inaccurate. But it is therefore at least technically inaccurate.

Tolkien represented The Lord of the Rings as based on Frodo’s writing which might possibly be in error in some cases. We should surely not expect that Frodo is to be considered to have recorded every conversation he records with perfect accuracy. Indeed Tolkien ascribes an error to Frodo as a footnote at the beginning of Appendix F:¹ In Lórien at this period Sindarin was spoken, though with an ‘accent’, since most of its folk were of Silvan origin. This ‘accent’ and his own limited acquaintance with Sindarin misled Frodo (as is pointed out in The Thain’s Book by a commentator of Gondor). All the Elvish words cited in Book Two chs 6, 7, 8 are in fact Sindarin, and so are in fact Sindarin, and so are most of the names of places and persons. But Lórien, Caras Galadhon, Amroth, Nimrodel are probably of Silvan origin, adapted to Sindarin.
If you plan to show that Tolkien’s every word is perfect, there are many more passages besides the one from “The Shadow of the Past” that you need to fix up, most if not all of these errors being well known and frankly, unfixable except by rewriting.

Point out where I have posted anything on this passage that you consider unfair, and be detailed.

[Zigûr]

Does Professor Tolkien ever specifically use the phrase "Rings of Power" to include the Three?

I suppose it's implied but we could just as easily argue that "Rings of Power" simply means "the Great Rings and the One Ring".

In fact a search of The Letters and The Lord of the Rings itself suggests to me that "Rings of Power" is mostly used to refer specifically to the Great Rings (particularly the Nine) and "the Ring of Power" (singular) is mostly used to refer specifically to the One Ring.

In the Tale of Years, Professor Tolkien distinguishes the forging of the "Rings of Power" from the forging of the "Three Rings".

Meanwhile in "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" in The Silmarillion the Three seem to be more included with the "Rings of Power": the Great Rings are described as "all the remaining Rings of Power", which is to say those Sauron found after Celebrimbor hid the Three.

So I would argue that it's simply not a very specific term. Sometimes it seems to encompass the Great Rings, sometimes it's the Great Rings and the One Ring, and sometimes it's the Great Rings, the One Ring and the Three Rings.

As a result, Gandalf isn't being completely accurate, but I'd argue that he isn't entirely wrong either. In any event it was forbidden to speak of the Three and not relevant in any case.

[Galadriel55]

I want to remark that the original question was not about Gandalf's accuracy or otherwise. No matter how well you want to research Gandalf's habits and other "inconsistencies", no matter how "good" your argument, it still doesn't get you closer to answering. You're not helping anyone that way, just aggravating people around you.

[Mithadan]

Agreed. More discussion, less emotion, please.

[Faramir Jones]

Being very interested in this thread, I think it worthwhile to put in what Elrond said to Gloin about the Three Elven Rings at the Council held in Rivendell:

'The Three were not made by Sauron, nor did he ever touch them. But of them it is not permitted to speak. So much only in this hour of doubt I may now say. They are not idle. But they were not made as weapons of war or conquest: that is not their power. Those who made them did not desire strength or dominion or hoarded wealth, but understanding, making and healing, to preserve all things unstained. These things the Elves of Middle-earth have in some measure gained, though with sorrow. But all that has been wrought by those who wield the Three will turn to their undoing, and their minds and hearts will be revealed to Sauron, if he regains the One. It would be better if the Three had never been'. (LotR, Book 2, Chapter II)

This makes clear what has been discussed, by Morthoron, Inziladun and others, that the Three were a different sort of ring to the other Rings of Power.

I don't know what people think, but I've always got irritated with Elrond stating that it was 'not permited' to speak about the Three.:confused: My question has been in response, 'Not permitted by whom?' If Elrond had just said that it was dangerous to talk openly about those rings, it would have been understood by everyone present.

[Belegorn]

I'd think probably Celebrimbor suggested that none speak of it after he had the 3 sent away. Galadriel also told Frodo the same thing, "it is not permitted to speak if it" [The Mirror of Galadriel].

[jallanite]

Does Professor Tolkien ever specifically use the phrase "Rings of Power" to include the Three?

As already mentioned by me, Tolkien first has Gandalf use the term “Rings of Power” when explaining the creation of the Elven-rings by the Elven-smiths of Eregion. He makes Gandalf then say:The lesser rings were but essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles – yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous.
This implies, though does not prove, that Gandalf here uses “the Rings of Power” as a synonym for the Elven-rings. Gandalf could be conceived as jumping ahead to the Sauronic Rings in his explanation.

Thrór giving his Sauronic Ring freely to Thráin is a difficulty. Gandalf must be conceived of not to know that Thrór gave the Ring to Thráin freely. That is a possibility I admit, though it seems to me unlikely. But unlikely possibilities occur in real life. In “The Council of Elrond” Tolkien makes Gandalf say openly:Thrór gave it [the Ring] to Thráin his son, but not Thráin to Thorin. It was taken with torment from Thráin in the dungeons of Dol Guldur.
In short, if Gandalf did not know that Thrór gave his Ring freely to his son Thráin, and if the term “Rings of Power” is used at times specifically for the Sauronic Rings as opposed to the Three Elven Rings, then Gandalf is telling the truth.

I would prefer an explanation with less hair-splitting, but that is the best explanation that I have heard.

You're not helping anyone that way, just aggravating people around you.

My intent was not to open up a discussion on Gandalf’s statement in “The Shadow of the Past” but only to indicate that Tolkien had made far more errors than Mithadan believed and that this is well known and indicated in the prefix material in current editions of The Lord of the Rings and in Hammond and Scull’s The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion.

That one of the examples I chose, one noted by Hammond and Scull, raised such a fury in Morthoron with unsupported accusations of hairsplitting I did not expect. Honestly! I found Zigûr’s possible and admittedly dubious explanation calm and reasonable, as usual with him. Also, very hair-splitting.

I am very sorry you were aggravated by this sub-discussion. But no single individual poster is responsible for where a thread goes.

I don't know what people think, but I've always got irritated with Elrond stating that it was 'not permitted' to speak about the Three.:confused: My question has been in response, 'Not permitted by whom?' If Elrond had just said that it was dangerous to talk openly about those rings, it would have been understood by everyone present.

I have always thought that Elrond was referring to agreements among ruling Elves: Círdan, Elrond, Galadriel and Celeborn, and possibly a few others. Aragorn also at least knows that Galadriel was a ring-bearer, but this may be only from Frodo’s loose-lipped talk, and Frodo only knows, it is implied, because he sees Galadriel’s Ring on her hand. According to Tolkien’s essay “The Istari” Saruman also knows that Gandalf bears Narya. But in Tolkien’s essay “Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age”:But the Red Ring remained hidden until the end, and none save Elrond and Galadriel and Círdan knew to whom it had been committed.
The real question it seems to me is why the identity of the bearers of the Elvish Rings is a secret at all. Originally they were held secretly and unused for fear of Sauron discovering them. But when Sauron was defeated at the end of the Second Age the secrecy remained.

The answer may be in “Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age” where it is written:And Master Elrond foretold that this [the reforging of Narsil] would not be done until the Ruling Ring should be found again and Sauron should return.

[Faramir Jones]

I was interested in what you said here, jallanite:

I have always thought that Elrond was referring to agreements among ruling Elves: Círdan, Elrond, Galadriel and Celeborn, and possibly a few others.

I did think the same, although I think Elrond presented it badly. Well, 'even Homer nods'; and we later see Aragorn refuse to leave his sword before entering Meduseld, despite this being a perfectly reasonable request for the King to ask.

I liked what you said here:

The real question it seems to me is why the identity of the bearers of the Elvish Rings is a secret at all. Originally they were held secretly and unused for fear of Sauron discovering them. But when Sauron was defeated at the end of the Second Age the secrecy remained.

Ever since I first read LotR, I've thought that it would have been very easy for anyone, not just Sauron, to figure out who those bearers might be. They would have to be prominent Elves, with the ability to wield the rings properly; so a simple process of elimination would narrow down the group of possible candidates. Galadriel, when she spoke to Frodo, after the latter wondered how he was not able to use the powers of the One Ring, pointed out that if he tried to do, it would 'destroy' him. After reminding him that Gandalf said the rings 'give power according to the measure of each possessor', she said, 'Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and train your will to the domination of others'.

[Zigûr]

Ever since I first read LotR, I've thought that it would have been very easy for anyone, not just Sauron, to figure out who those bearers might be. They would have to be prominent Elves, with the ability to wield the rings properly; so a simple process of elimination would narrow down the group of possible candidates.
I think so as well. To quote myself from a while back (nearly 2 years ago in fact!),
Logically speaking, there were only three places where the Three could be kept: Rivendell, Lórien and Mithlond - anywhere in which the Noldor still lingered. Sauron didn't know where the Shire was until Saruman told the Lord of the Nazgûl, which suggests to me that he had not necessarily spied out the West sufficiently to know, for instance, that Círdan no longer possessed one of the Three.
My point is that, according to Sauron's wisdom, to whom would the Three have logically been allocated? Lórien was the closest to both Moria and Dol Guldur, and resistant to assault, which implies a Ring being present at that location. If Sauron knew or at least suspected that Gil-Galad held some of the Rings prior to his death, I think it would make sense, by his logic, that he had passed the greatest of them, Vilya, to one of his subordinates - Elrond or Círdan. That leaves Narya and Nenya to be accounted for.
Despite the fact that he himself did not have a hand in creating them we could also imagine that Sauron was aware of the respective properties of the Three. Depending on the circumstances, this may have led him to at least be able to take an educated guess as to Nenya's location.
This implies, though does not prove, that Gandalf here uses “the Rings of Power” as a synonym for the Elven-rings. Gandalf could be conceived as jumping ahead to the Sauronic Rings in his explanation.
Yes I think in this case it could conceivably be argued that when Gandalf says "the Great Rings, the Rings of Power" he is associating the term "Rings of Power" with the term "Great Rings", the Seven and the Nine, specifically.
Thrór giving his Sauronic Ring freely to Thráin is a difficulty. Gandalf must be conceived of not to know that Thrór gave the Ring to Thráin freely. That is a possibility I admit, though it seems to me unlikely. But unlikely possibilities occur in real life. In “The Council of Elrond” Tolkien makes Gandalf say openly:Thrór gave it [the Ring] to Thráin his son, but not Thráin to Thorin. It was taken with torment from Thráin in the dungeons of Dol Guldur.
In short, if Gandalf did not know that Thrór gave his Ring freely to his son Thráin, and if the term “Rings of Power” is used at times specifically for the Sauronic Rings as opposed to the Three Elven Rings, then Gandalf is telling the truth.
Perhaps Gandalf knew or assumed that, as a Dwarf, Thrór would be more resistant to some of the effects of the Ring, and thus more capable of passing it on to his son?
It could be argued that when Gandalf says to Frodo that no one ever gives up a Ring freely, he's specifically talking about Men (and, by extension, Hobbits).
I realise this is narrowing things down a lot but at the same time it does seem to suggest that he's giving Frodo the information which is most relevant to his particular situation.
It might be that Gandalf's situation is that of a teacher trying to introduce a complex point of lore to a student unfamiliar with the topic: not giving them extraneous, but more accurate, information, if he thinks it will confuse or distract the student.
Or, of course, it could just be Professor Tolkien making a mistake or not worrying about the readers themselves needing too much accuracy at that point.

[Inziladun]

Perhaps Gandalf knew or assumed that, as a Dwarf, Thrór would be more resistant to some of the effects of the Ring, and thus more capable of passing it on to his son?
It could be argued that when Gandalf says to Frodo that no one ever gives up a Ring freely, he's specifically talking about Men (and, by extension, Hobbits).
I realise this is narrowing things down a lot but at the same time it does seem to suggest that he's giving Frodo the information which is most relevant to his particular situation.

Since it's clear that the Seven did not have the same effects on Dwarves as the Nine had on Men, I don't see any issue with the idea that the Dwarven Keepers were capable of freely passing on their rings.

That would not have been true of the One though. It was far more potent than any of the 19 others.

[Findegil]

There are many poeple that gave the rings away freely but are not metioned by Gandalf in his talk with Frodo:
The Mirdain hidding the rings might be siad not to give them away but store them in th ehope to regain them later.
Celeberimbor gave his three away but he might have been the source of the tabu to talk about them. The idea behind might have been to suggest to Sauron that they were also hidden away and not given to bearers.
Gil-Galad gave his two freely to Elrond and Cirdan but again that was secret know only to the bearers.
Sauron gave at least the Nine away to manish bears becoming the Nazgul and this at least was open knowledge and told by Gandalf in the same talk to Frodo. (So stricly speaking Gandalf was contradicting himself directly in this single talk with Frodo.)
Cirdan gave his Ring to Gandalf which again was a secret.
The dwarven bearers were also unknown to public, but it was assumed that they passed the rings to their heirs just before death. Balin a companion and close relative of Thrain did not know that Thror had passed the Ring to Thrain before he set out to Moria. Gandalf kept the knowlegde that Thrain had the Ring secret until the Council of Elrond.

I think it can be assumed that Gandalf by propose kept his knowledge about people giving their rings freely away hidden from Frodo. Some instances were especially tabu and other he kept so by his own design.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Faramir Jones]

You were right, Inziladun, when you pointed out that 'It was far more potent than any of the 19 others'. Gandalf made this clear to Frodo at a very early stage in 'The Shadow of the Past', when he said that Sauron 'made that Ring himself, it is his, and he let a great part of his own former power pass into it, so that he could rule all the others'.

[jallanite]

I think it can be assumed that Gandalf by propose kept his knowledge about people giving their rings freely away hidden from Frodo. Some instances were especially tabu and other he kept so by his own design.

Anything can be assumed. If you or anyone wishes to assume Gandalf was lying then no-one can stop you.

That also works.

I think it can also be assumed that Gandalf was a Martian if one wishes.

Similarly it can be assumed that Balrogs had wings or they did not, whatever the person assuming wishes to assume.

I am not trying to be offensive. I point out that Zigûr’s solution also involves assumptions.

Again, your solution and Zigûr’s solution both work, if one accepts your assumptions.

To continue this discussion go to the thread entitled Gandalf’s Possible Inaccuracy in the chapter “The Shadow of the Past”. Hopefully this will allow this current thread to continue without talking about Gandalf’s Possible Inaccuracy in the chapter “The Shadow of the Past”.

Sorry, Mithadan.

[Ivriniel]

Sauron, the perverter, violator, and who swelled with lust and greed, ever greater, with the more power he allured-subverted, held, incorporated, and violated.

My thoughts:

Secretly, as Annatar, quested to develop a violating version of life extension. Use of the Rings for Mortals meant the men enslaved were 'life syphons', incarnate. Their aura grew in Sauraon's image, and to behold them as Nazgul or hear them was a life-threatening event. Stolen life force. The fear felt around them was instinct governed by the predatory dimensions of human form. I see them as great 'energy sinks' drawing in Living Energy to transmit to master - swelling Sauron's filth, greed, lust and power as the Nazgul engorged on life.

They had a spiritually fortified flesh (albeit, by an 'un' flow, perhaps of Ea running in some variation and inverse). I recall reading somewhere the moment of transition as a Ring bearer of being 'naked' before Sauron as mortal sinew was blasted or stripped of natural form, and imbued with whatever metaphysical joo joo Sauron did.

The flesh could be hued - by Hobbit and Woman. Not sure why or what significance this implied about Sauronic violations.

I've imagined that using a Ring, pre transition, was about greed, sexual perversity, (I assume the so called Lords who had the rings attracted 'bad boi sex' and concubines and such :)) And that greed - lust - the primary reinforcers were the reward as the man disowned love and care, by increment. The flesh fortified by increasing flow of metaphysical form of Sauronic Mind (he was a torturer, a sadist, a violator of life, a seducer and a slave lord, above all else).

[Morthoron]

Agreed. Although the Three, being at least partially the product of Sauron's instruction, were subject to the One, they are clearly not in the same mold as the Seven and the Nine. The lack of invisibility of their wearers is a major indication of this.
I wouldn't think a mortal who had run across one of the Three would have been affected in the same way, either. The effect may have been similar to that seen by the Fellowship while in Lórien. They were not immortal, but for them biologically speaking, time slowed.

Back to the subject of the life-lengthening process of the other Rings, the fact that the Seven did not influence the Dwarven lifespan has always interested me. Because of their very nature they could not be turned to wraiths either. Did the Dwarven keepers become invisible while wearing their rings? I would think not, because the invisibility, life-lengthening, and wraith-potential all seem intertwined.

Tolkien in a discussion regarding the Rings of Power in general, states the following regarding the Three:


The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility.

The emphasis above is mine. There are obvious differences in the Rings of Power themselves and how they effect the wearer, and even how they effect what race is wearing them. Dwarves, being the stuff of the earth and indomitable, did not vanish, and, based on genealogical charts, do not seem to have excessive longevity.

Mortal Men (and Hobbits), however, exhibit all the signs Gandalf warned about. Frodo had the One Ring, and the Nazgul were under the power of the Nine and wanted to kill Frodo. No other Rings (the Seven or the Three) mattered. So why would Gandalf confuse Frodo with provisos, quid pro quos, caveat emptors and various other Latin phrases that may or may not have anything to do with what Gandalf was talking about and what he needed to impress upon Frodo so that the Hobbit could achieve his mission?

[Inziladun]

So why would Gandalf confuse Frodo with provisos, quid pro quos, caveat emptors and various other Latin phrases that may or may not have anything to do with what Gandalf was talking about and what he needed to impress upon Frodo so that the Hobbit could achieve his mission?

Precisely. Gandalf avoids lumping in the Three with the others because of their innate differences from the other Great Rings.

Also, in the later discussion at the Council of Elrond, Gandlaf notes of Gollum, that:

'The power of the ring had lengthened his years far beyond their span; but that power only the Great Rings wield.'

Surely there he was not including the Three. Why would rings made by Elves for Elves have the power to extend the wearer's lifespan?

[jallanite]

Gandalf could simply have been referring to the visible forms, imparted by the clothing. I still don't see how ordinary horses would support an insubstantial being.

Because Tolkien indicates they do. Picture enchanted clothing which insubstantial wraiths may wear and which give solidity and weight to their wraith content, but not visibility.

I think I side with Inziladun on this one... I have no reason to think that the Nazgul were telekinetic, so they must have had some way of interacting with their horses, swords, etc. They can also smell and see (though poorly) which require sensory organs.

When their robes are destroyed the Nazgûl naturally, having no support and being intangible, fall helplessly through the ground to the centre of the Earth. Or rather they would if they had no telekinetic ability. Therefore they must have had some telekinetic ability to float above the ground.

How any invisible being sees at all is a puzzle. How does its invisible eyeball lens focus in its invisible retina?

Surely there he was not including the Three. Why would rings made by Elves for Elves have the power to extend the wearer's lifespan?

An answer from the Waldman letter:The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the preservation or slowing of decay (i.e. change viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance – that is more or less an Elvish motive.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not buying it. The RW were invisible, not insubstantial. Or maybe the W-K at the Pelennor had a substantial invisible body wearing armor up to the neck, but no tangible head visible or invisible and he was holding the crown up with telekinesis?

[jallanite]

I'm not buying it. The RW were invisible, not insubstantial. Or maybe the W-K at the Pelennor had a substantial invisible body wearing armor up to the neck, but no tangible head visible or invisible and he was holding the crown up with telekinesis?

Gandalf says, “the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living.”

This to me strongly implies that without those robes the Nazgûl are unformed and shapeless, and insubstantial. The word nothingness indicates their insubstantialbility. See wraith for dictionary meanings, many of which suggest insubstantialbility.

[Ivriniel]

Gandalf says, “the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living.”

This to me strongly implies that without hose robes the Nazgûl are unformed and shapeless, and insubstantial. The word nothingness indicates their insubstantialbility. See wraith for dictionary meanings, many of which suggest insubstantialbility.

Merry's sword cleaved the undead sinew as the blade pierced the flesh. As a Blade of the Westernesse

"Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

"But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee."

and

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

I've always thought their sinew was modified by exposure to Sauron's tools of eye of mind that strips part of life force away. They were neither living nor dead. Horses bore them. I assume they were not massless.

"Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh will be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye".

Devoured and whatever left, replaced with Sauronic presence, power, or replacement form. Still of mass, I would have thought.

The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

The conclusions that appear to follow from the quotes:

1. Their bodies had mass.
2. They were invisible.
3. They were neither living nor dead

[Ivriniel]

....and

...cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

This seems to me a significant moment in the narrative commentary about the 'what' of a Nazgul. Something Sauron 'did' via the Rings --a spell-- that somehow --knit-- that vestige of formerly mortal flesh --to will of might of mind--. I wonder now: Tolkien often spoke of Mind holding the Body of Men to Life. Numenoreans could yield their life at old age--with and act of will, or cling until death ended their body. This 'will' facility was explicitly noted in other races, especially the Elves and Elven Mind fortifying body through 'the other world' (Glorfindel being in 'two worlds' at the confrontation of the Ringwraiths).

This implies Sauronic Mind/Will forged connection or extension of Maia Mind to form the variation on flesh that was a Nazgul. Sauronic Mind also destroyed "feasted" on mortal living flesh as the process of transformation occurred.

On another train of thought, the formidable size of the Witch King was noted by Tolkien. Mass this seemed to imply. The flesh was unseen by eye of sight of mortal mind. It could be seen by Elf and by eye of sight of mortal wearing The One. The reason for the invisibility, I would assume, was the same as implied by what Tolkien wrote of Frodo in Elrond's healing room. Some 'fading' of flesh after the Ringwraith attack. Elrond didn't put Frodo completely together again. Some transformation of his flesh had occurred.

The Rings of Power (the Nine made them Invisible when used) is what seems a reasonable conclusion to draw. And each use removes a little bit more of the mortal fibre as the Mind of the User strengthens in synchronisation with Sauraon's Might of Mind. Then at a critical threshold, Sauron rocks in very closely and blasts away the remaining capacity to reverse the process and enslaves.

[Inziladun]

The conclusions that appear to follow from the quotes:

1. Their bodies had mass.
2. They were invisible.
3. They were neither living nor dead

That pretty well covers it.

You mentioned some good observations about the Witch-king's confrontation with Éowyn and Merry.

Upon the WK's death, it is noted that:

But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up.... ROTK The Battle of the Pelennor Fields

When the Witch-king's spirit was separated from his body, his clothing and armor was "empty", meaning it had before been filled by something physical. And it was only after his "death" that his voice became bodiless. But that begs the question of why the body did not remain on the earth when the spirit passed. I think that can be explained by the special status of the Nazgûl as "undead". Their bodies retained an ability to affect the "real" world, though because their time on earth had been so far extended beyond their natural span, their original bodies were mostly in the Unseen Realm.
If it was only thralldom to Sauron's fea that allowed the Nazgûl a tenuous link to the world of Light, then once that link to him was removed, the body would pass all the way to the other side.
Or, maybe it was a case like Saruman: once the spirit left the body, natural decay set in so quickly that the body became (invisible) dust, which obviously could not support clothing.

Conjecture, certainly, but at least food for thought.

[Ivriniel]

<--snip Upon the WK's death, it is noted that:

ROTK The Battle of the Pelennor Fields

When the Witch-king's spirit was separated from his body, his clothing and armor was "empty", meaning it had before been filled by something physical. And it was only after his "death" that his voice became bodiless. But that begs the question of why the body did not remain on the earth when the spirit passed--->snip

I hear ya about the 'undead' thing and vanishing in a puff of smoke - or sumatt like that :)

..... I think that can be explained by the special status of the Nazgûl as "undead". Their bodies retained an ability to affect the "real" world, though because their time on earth had been so far extended beyond their natural span, their original bodies were mostly in the Unseen Realm.....-->snip

I love his ideas about the 'unseen' realm. Kinda gets the imagination wondering. I'd say invisible dust would make sense, which would be kinda creepy on the grass or air where it all went :)

I wonder if their Spirits go to the Halls of Mandos? And if they had Spirit Palls that would talk to 'em, or is it like a really divided dance hall or party with groups of Spirits in groups :)

[Zigûr]

Or, maybe it was a case like Saruman: once the spirit left the body, natural decay set in so quickly that the body became (invisible) dust, which obviously could not support clothing.
I think this is a serious possibility: the incredibly aged, invisible body simply collapsed into decomposed matter. This is similar to how I think Gollum's belief that he would "die into dust" might be taken literally. It is possible that he expects that his body will virtually disintegrate instantly if the Ring is destroyed.

At the same time, however, I can't help but feel that jallanite has a point regarding the "nothingness" which supposedly constituted a Nazgûl unrobed. Frodo experiences the Eye of Sauron as a "pit, a window into nothing." In a metaphorical sense, this symbolises, I would argue, the idea that Sauron's tyranny and evil are symptomatic of a fundamental "emptiness" and "hollowness" which originated with Melkor and which Professor Tolkien argued had inevitably infected Sauron to a degree. This "nihilism" seems to have constituted a kind of empty, meaningless, pointless wrath and hatred for all life (and of God) which manifested as a "lust for destruction". It represents, to me, the attitude of a mind which has reached the point where it is incapable of interacting with the world except through efforts to dominate it and eventually destroy it. Fire emanates from the rim of the eye, the point of contact between nothingess and "thingness" (if you'll pardon the clumsiness of that expression).

In a metaphysical sense, I would argue that it's possible that the Ringwraiths embody that "nihilism" as a consequence of their artificially prolonged existence. Their physical forms perhaps transmute to a kind of "wraith-matter" for want of a better term: invisible, only partially substantial, and so deeply unnatural at a fundamental level that it inspires depression, terror and loathing in mortals who encounter it. It might be compared to the Unlight of Ungoliant. Perhaps when the Wraith was killed, the "shell" of physical tangibility, like the fire which burned from the Eye, collapses, and all that remains is an invisible emptiness which expires unnoticed, at least to mortal eyes.

I was just looking at a blog which compares Ungoliant's Unlight to a Manichean account of evil as a "thing in itself" as opposed to an Augustinian or Boethian account of evil as the "absence of good". Shippey has argued that The Lord of the Rings blends both concepts. I think the same idea could be extended to things like the Wraiths. One could combine the idea of "evil as absence" and "evil as presence" to form, if this makes sense, "evil as the absence which has presence" or "evil as the thing which is nothing". Perhaps that's redundant, but I feel as if metaphysical explanations can be quite effective in trying to understand some of Professor Tolkien's representations.

EDIT: I might add that, in a very round-about way, the "counterfeit immortality" conveyed by the Rings seems to be part of Sauron's overall arsenal of "counterfeit godhood": essentially nothing more than extremely complex spiritual/metaphysical technology which gave him a kind of makeshift, fake element of "divine power" which would suit the agenda of a would-be God-King. I would argue that having immortal servants (even terrifying, loathsome invisible ones) is not just useful to provide the tyrant with lieutenants, but also, on some level, is an expression of Sauron's underlying God complex.

[Ivriniel]

I think this is a serious possibility: the incredibly aged, invisible body simply collapsed into decomposed matter. This is similar to how I think Gollum's belief that he would "die into dust" might be taken literally. It is possible that he expects that his body will virtually disintegrate instantly if the Ring is destroyed.

At the same time, however, I can't help but feel that jallanite has a point regarding the "nothingness" which supposedly constituted a Nazgûl unrobed. Frodo experiences the Eye of Sauron as a "pit, a window into nothing." In a metaphorical sense, this symbolises, I would argue, the idea that Sauron's tyranny and evil are symptomatic of a fundamental "emptiness" and "hollowness" which originated with Melkor and which Professor Tolkien argued had inevitably infected Sauron to a degree. This "nihilism" seems to have constituted a kind of empty, meaningless, pointless wrath and hatred for all life (and of God) which manifested as a "lust for destruction". It represents, to me, the attitude of a mind which has reached the point where it is incapable of interacting with the world except through efforts to dominate it and eventually destroy it. Fire emanates from the rim of the eye, the point of contact between nothingess and "thingness" (if you'll pardon the clumsiness of that expression).

In a metaphysical sense, I would argue that it's possible that the Ringwraiths embody that "nihilism" as a consequence of their artificially prolonged existence. Their physical forms perhaps transmute to a kind of "wraith-matter" for want of a better term: invisible, only partially substantial, and so deeply unnatural at a fundamental level that it inspires depression, terror and loathing in mortals who encounter it. It might be compared to the Unlight of Ungoliant. Perhaps when the Wraith was killed, the "shell" of physical tangibility, like the fire which burned from the Eye, collapses, and all that remains is an invisible emptiness which expires unnoticed, at least to mortal eyes.

I was just looking at a blog which compares Ungoliant's Unlight to a Manichean account of evil as a "thing in itself" as opposed to an Augustinian or Boethian account of evil as the "absence of good". Shippey has argued that The Lord of the Rings blends both concepts. I think the same idea could be extended to things like the Wraiths. One could combine the idea of "evil as absence" and "evil as presence" to form, if this makes sense, "evil as the absence which has presence" or "evil as the thing which is nothing". Perhaps that's redundant, but I feel as if metaphysical explanations can be quite effective in trying to understand some of Professor Tolkien's representations.

I love discussions about Tolkien's etymology and linguistics, especially about 'un'. Galadriel was 'unfriends' :) :) with Feanor FOR EVER - that one makes me smile to this day.

Unlight. Does that mean one sees that with Unsight? The Unseen of the Wraith. And what is the relationship to Evil - of the ringwraith.

To go for a 'vibe' argument, Tolkien uses Evil by presence--yet--achieves that by metaphysical substances -- and -- by absence. Nazgul, Orc, Wraith - absence of essences of Ea, or Ea's essences running in the inverse (e.g. unlife/undead things). Ungoliant and Unlight. Metaphysical syphon, it seems she was. Unlight implies, to me, the channeling of light -- out of -- Arda into the Void.

Yet the evil of the Wraith - was grounded in the Evil of choice of Men. Greed, lust, vanity. Self-serving motivations. Sexual perversity, no doubt as well. Pleasure - for the self - at the expense of life itself. As men, prior to wraith-dom, their acts were much like those of the sociopath and psychopath of our world. Primary reinforcers of behaviour--thrill, greed, lust, and pleasure. Sadistic pleasure, such as Sauron's torments.

Is the evil of the Nazgul which straddles the metaphysical, beyond the physical really more than just a 'sociopath with a dark spell'? These are all, it seems to me, acts of predation and feeding--Sauronically--meant enslavement and feasting on flesh. Orcs, so it seems did much the same, as Tolkien so said and implied - feasting on manflesh.

A strange duality, in the mythology, don't you think though--when we chuck in Maeglin's creepy dad, Eol, who was (I've said this at these boards before), was chucked off the cliffs by crazy, creepy Elves as well. I mean wt? was that--ha?? Turgon rules that Eol should be tossed of a cliff?

I dunno - sometimes the whole 'good evil' thing gets a little fuzzy in Tolienian mythology.

[Belegorn]

When the Witch-king's spirit was separated from his body, his clothing and armor was "empty", meaning it had before been filled by something physical. And it was only after his "death" that his voice became bodiless. But that begs the question of why the body did not remain on the earth when the spirit passed. I think that can be explained by the special status of the Nazgûl as "undead". Their bodies retained an ability to affect the "real" world, though because their time on earth had been so far extended beyond their natural span, their original bodies were mostly in the Unseen Realm.

This almost sounds like the "fading" that Elves go through where their bodies can't hold their fëar and eventually dissipate and are held like a memory.

"They eventually became housed, if it can be called that, not in actual visible and tangible hröar, but only in the memory of the fëa of its bodily form, and its desire for it; and therefore not dependent for mere existence upon the material of Arda." [Morgoth's Ring]

[Belegorn]

I believe the Elvish fading is a byproduct of Melkor's influence on Arda. That's why I brought it up and because it kind of reminds of of the Nazgûl. Their bodies apparently were not supposed to do that but somehow through some taint perhaps it cannot abide the soul of an Elf for so long. I think in this condition they actually became literally invincible, like unkillable by any means they used to get killed by. Not quite the same with the Nazgûl.

[Galin]

....and

...cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

This seems to me a significant moment in the narrative commentary about the 'what' of a Nazgul. Something Sauron 'did' via the Rings --a spell-- that somehow --knit-- that vestige of formerly mortal flesh --to will of might of mind--. I wonder now: Tolkien often spoke of Mind holding the Body of Men to Life. Numenoreans could yield their life at old age--with and act of will, or cling until death ended their body. This 'will' facility was explicitly noted in other races, especially the Elves and Elven Mind fortifying body through 'the other world' (Glorfindel being in 'two worlds' at the confrontation of the Ringwraiths).

I read the quote differently. My will is knit to my sinews for instance, and I will my sinews or limbs to move about, to do stuff. In me, at least, these things are not knit together with a literal "spell" but perhaps a metaphorical one. This was Merry's strike, and in my opinion the Witch King could no longer will his body to defend against Eowyn's strike. Merry called her name, Eowyn tottered or struggled up (hardly words to describe swift action in my opinion), but the Nazgul-lord did not even try to parry the blow.

I believe the Nine had invisible bodies, and although Tolkien doesn't draw a lot of attention to it, I note that when dealing with the Dead who followed Aragorn, fear was enough. In other words, it was said (through an internal character at least) that it was not known if their weapons would bite -- that, to me, is significant. They are ghosts, so even Tolkien will "acknowledge" the question in the minds of readers: do their weapons even work?

The Nine are not questioned about this however. They are like enough to "wraiths" or ghosts -- being invisible and fear instilling -- like enough to be called wraiths. Their robes give shape to the otherwise unseen...

... "nothingness" in that sense (not excluding other senses however), in my opinion; but they are not actual nothing when disrobed, and their weapons bite.

[Ivriniel]

I read the quote differently. My will is knit to my sinews for instance, and I will my sinews or limbs to move about, to do stuff. In me, at least, these things are not knit together with a literal "spell" but perhaps a metaphorical one.

I wondered a lot about why Tolkien pursued his ideas about human Will and its place to living and life over the years. I've imagined that his wartime experiences and having seen how minds change in wartime situations would have had something to do with that. Having seen his dying fellows and his sense of the passage ofnlife/spirit, and his inferences about the Black Breath seem to speak about 'Will to live' and, possibly depression, when will to live falters.

I had an experience of unstoppable outpouring of grief once where I sensed the Will abandoning my body or of it not being sustaining of my body, for a short while as I wondered if I was just going to simply drop dead as my heart stopped or something. Have you ever heard of those couples where one dies of cancer and then the second, for example, shortly afterwards. Stories about twins and those moments where one feels the illness, or passage of the other. There are some mysteries of will that Tolkien, I think, sought to explore in the mythology, and variations of those with the Nazgul and the Sauronic side of the world of the living.

......cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

In adding in how Eowyn's strike, done by an ordinary blade completed the annihilation, I sensed something important in the quote,

"Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

and

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

Seems that the Men of the Westernesse had a certain realm of magical/lore capacity (e.g. Orthanc stone untouched by Ent). The blade opened a vulnerability, and one seemingly both at the local wound site, and also systemic, affecting will and body --knitting-- or at the global level. A physical blow to body, by a magical blade--a small wound--that severed will to body-undead, globally.

Though struck behind the knee, from the cut, it must have been systemic about 'Will-undead sinew'.

[Ivriniel]

Eowyn struck somewhere else--with a non-magical weapon (significant. Would her blade have done anything, without Merry's first blow. And what of the numbing of their arms after striking him? Some 'energy' or something was removed from their bodies?

And her gender, being a woman, was also somehow significant. I've always thought that. Some artefact of Sauronic influence was implicated by way of lessening or something because of her gender. Perhaps female stature and bearing had some implication for the Nazgul's history that evoked--shame--or --doubt-- or even --fear-- or possibly even 'thank friggin god, am I sick of one eye or what. I'm dunnin--yay--get on with it wench'. I imagine the Nazgul in life perpetrated sexual depravities and violences, such as taking concubines after conquests. This was part of Tolkien's mythology, as we saw with Maeglin who was subverted in the end by Melkor this way in lust for Turgon's daughter. But, on another point, I do not understand the prophesy that Glorfindel spoke of about the Witchking.

So, for Eowyn, and the Nazgul 'wyrd', I wonder then if the severing of Spell binding Will to body together with the doubt of sudden fear and shame exposed a fundamental rift in metaphysical dimensions allowing a normal blade to finish him off. Perhaps enough of 'him' came back for a short moment, and -- pow -- he copped it.

This theme of shame and critical strikes during battle, felling the other--if anyone remembers, I think it was Fingon singing in Tol Sirion in contest with Sauron, and during the Song, the critical vulnerability achieved to weaken Fingon by the verse about the Kinslaying. That was when Fingon buckled--when Sauron weakened Fingon with the naming of the shame of the kinslaying. Fingon's Will (there's that word again) faltered because of shame.

[Findegil]

Surely there he was not including the Three. Why would rings made by Elves for Elves have the power to extend the wearer's lifespan?Why would a ring made by Sauron exclusivly for his own use have the power to extend the wearer's lifespan?
But it had this power for sure, as we see in the case of Gollum.

Originally Posted by Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, 1951:The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the preservation or slowing of decay (i.e. change viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance – that is more or less an Elvish motive.This is porbabaly the key to understand the effects. With this the prolongation of mortal lifespan is a given ability of all 19 Rings. We also see a hint how it functions: the Rings gives the mind the possibility to preserve the desired or loved body it does dwell in. An ability that the elves had by thier nature, but mortals had not and dwraves could not even get with the help of the rings.
In that way the wraithification of the bears seems to be very similar to elvish fading. If that is 'true' than it might be that a Ringwraith could have choosen to abondan his life and with that escape from Sauron. But as all the Rings seem to have a great adictive potential and clinging to life longer than seems reasonable is an repeating motive in Middle-Earth mrotals this becomes near to impossible once the ring has worked long enough on the mind of its bearer.

Originally Posted by Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, 1951:The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility.Here we come to the differnces between the Rings. Sauron did influence the nine and the seven much more than the three. So it seems that the invisibility was an ability that Sauron wished to be included. When the elves worked on their own using only the knowledge that they had learned from Sauron and not his direct help, they could eliminat the invisibility effect.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

About the connection of will to sinew, Ivriniel, I still think the meaning is more mundane than you are proposing. A deer "caught in the headlights" has had its will temporarily disconnected from its sinews (the two are no longer knit together), for example, and this for me explains why the Nazgul-lord does nothing to save himself from Eowyn (when he arguably had time to at least try and defend himself), as well as Tolkien's less poetic explanation in a letter, that if one of the Nine had been struck similarly at Weathertop, the wraith would have fallen down and the blade destroyed.


Eowyn struck somewhere else--with a non-magical weapon (significant. Would her blade have done anything, without Merry's first blow.

I think Eowyn's blade would have killed the Witch-king without Merry's strike. For me, Merry only made the wraith vulnerable to Eowyn in a tactical sense -- he could not will his body to avoid or parry her blow. Otherwise (it seems to me), if the Nazgul-lord could only be stopped by such blades, and was invulnerable to other weapons, he becomes too powerful.

Sauron himself could be bodily slain, so could Morgoth. Limiting the Nazgul to a specific weapon makes him too strong in my opinion (he already has other advantages in battle), an arguable "plot hole" even.

My reading has been "no other blade" as in: no other blade as it was employed here. In other words, even if a mightier hand had struck this particular wound (the reader already knows the particular circumstances described) with another blade, the wound would not have been so bitter. Why? Because this blade didn't need a mightier hand, nor to be struck in a more lerthal spot, to end up being bitter, as the Nazgul-lord was ultimately brought down by it, given the nature of the dagger and what happened next.

Or more clearly perhaps: I believe the message here is, even if Imrahil or Boromir had wounded the wraith in the same way, any other blade however, would have resulted in a dead Eowyn and a wounded Nazgul-lord.

Making the Witch-king invulnerable to regular weapons is problematic in my opinion. Admittedly Tolkien does seem to suggest this earlier when Gandalf tells Legolas that his arrows could not have slain one of the Nine -- but it is also Gandalf who, earlier in the story, explains that the flood cannot kill the wraiths, because they stand or fall with Sauron...

... which I take to mean that they can be what we would call "killed", or hurt, but only ultimately slain if Sauron is undone. The felling of the Witch-king was a great deed within the context of this battle, but I think he might have returned at some future point; a theory made moot by the destruction of the One however.

So I think the wraiths would be "invulnerable" in this sense, but not in the sense that they could ride into a given battle and fear no regular sword, mace or spear. The latter seems too powerful in a practical sense, and to my mind makes the coincidence of Merry having the right kind of sword "too" coincidental.

It's already coincidental enough to have Merry bearing a sword that helped so greatly, but to have been bearing the only weapon that could either kill the wraith or make it vulnerable to regular weapons, is even a step further I think.

[Belegorn]

I've got to check on the Nazgûl, but based on some instances in which the Witch-king is mentioned I doubt he is invulnerable as Galin pointed out. Take for example his fear of certain Dúnedain. Why would he fear them if he were invulnerable to most/all weapons and they were not?

"Boromir was a great captain and even the Witch-king feared him." [Appendix A: The Stewards]

I don't know of any Maiar who incarnated who were invulnerable. Even Morgoth bore wounds, limped on an injured foot, and feared to go out and fight Fingolfin. Sauron was hurt, and lost a finger, Balrogs were hurt such as Gothmog getting impaled by a helmet, dragons were hurt, Saruman was hurt and got his neck slit.

[Ivriniel]

hi there Belegorn, Findegil and Galin

@Galin :)

I like the "deer in headlights" metaphor, and the other one upstream somewhere.

The Deer, tho, I'd argue is 'tightly' knit to sinew in fear. Rigid in fact. I've, of a night time, often watched lights approaching in the pitch, and where there is no sound, they are quite captivating. There's the sense of not knowing what it means and which way to move as there is the sense of both 'nothing' of body and yet 'growing light'.

I wonder if it 'tunes' us into the whole 'light at the end of the tunnel' journey, life, death and all those who died for a short while who speak of light and so on? Just a thought.

@all

......cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

It does seem as tho there is reference to the effect-metaphysical of the ...breaking... the initial influence of the Ring Spell, both in its line of 'sight'/'link' from The One to any/all of The Nine. And the Numenorean Blade fashioned in Arnor "...long..." by some Smith of Lore, who "wove about" or "wound about" (I forget which, see upstream), a ...spell... to allow the blade an effect. I assume a counter-spell of some nature? Could a Man of War, c.f. Hobbit or Woman have dealt the blow-equivalent? Was there something about Hobbit-ish or Woman-ish nature that augmented the Blade's 'purpose'. Tolkien did speak of Blades of Power having purpose. Beleg's blade, for example, forged of Meteorite.

I've never been quite sure about the nature of Numenorean blades. On the one hand, less 'something' than Sting (recall Shelob's web and Sting v Numenor to cut them). Yet, Tolkien states that 'no other blade' (upon the Nazgul) would have dealt a blow so bitter.

As always with Tolkien :) there's always an '...iest' that has a rival. Galadriel 'mightiest' then someone 'fairest' - ha? Luthien v Galadriel. Or s/he who wrought the '--iest' this or that :)

[Galin]

I like the "deer in headlights" metaphor, and the other one upstream somewhere.

The Deer, tho, I'd argue is 'tightly' knit to sinew in fear. Rigid in fact. I've, of a night time, often watched lights approaching in the pitch, and where there is no sound, they are quite captivating. There's the sense of not knowing what it means and which way to move as there is the sense of both 'nothing' of body and yet 'growing light'.


Well it's not a perfect analogy, I realize. But anyway, unknit my will to my sinews (break the connection between will and body) during a battle and, no how matter how strong or how great a warrior I am, I'm now a sitting duck. I want to dodge the deadly blow, or lift my arm to try and parry it, but I can't will my limbs to move or act... even if my opponent is now not exactly moving swiftly to strike me...

Eowyn! Eowyn! cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle,...

It's even arguable that if Imrahil stuck his dagger in the Nazgul-lord's leg he (the Witch-king) might not fall down. Sure it would be painful, but in the heat of battle unless the leg is cut so that it can hardly support weight, one won't necessarily fall down, in my opinion. But this was no ordinary dagger in any case, it had a helpful effect even when not struck in a "lethal" place.

Was there something about Hobbit-ish or Woman-ish nature that augmented the Blade's 'purpose'.

Hmm, I never thought so. The Hobbit and female aspect concerns fulfilling the prophecy in my opinion.

Here I think Tolkien plays with a seeming (measure of) invulnerability. If not by the hand of M(m)an would the Witch-king fall, how would he be defeated? Well these things are often technical and tricky, and technically Merry is not a Man (although he is male), Eowyn not a man (although she belongs to the race of Men).

Not that you said otherwise about that much, in any case.

[Ivriniel]

Well it's not a perfect analogy-->snip :)

Yeah, but it's still a good analogy, and perfectly so. Your post really got me thinking about w(W)ill in a perfectly different way. I also liked what you did with (M)man - and reckon it adds to pondering the works. For a w(W)ill - one gets a different glimpse - if thinking will versus Will of Men. For men and dear is very different to Tolkien-ese Men and Deer (this one moves to Yavanna and, no doubt the Deer with lines to the Maia and First Faun of the First Age - under, perhaps Tilion's moon born, with First Touch of Valinorean knowing.

The deer and the man of the 21st century yet still both have will. And wondering about those as 'will-natural' (not will-socialised) beings yields knowing about the M(man) who was the Witch King at the end of the Third Age. It was what prompted my thoughts about 'hobbit-ish' and 'woman-ish' blows to fulfil Glorfindel's Prophesy at the Battle of Fornost. Eoywn - she claimed she 'was not a man' (or was it spoken Man).....

Then pondering the Will-Undead, there were also the Wights of the Barrow Downs, who were created, I thought, by Angmar and a part of the reason Arnor failed. The occupation of the Burial Mounds of Arnor were violated by Undead presence which somehow caused the realm to fail... Necromantic Undead Will, even in burial mounds had some pervasive influence on Arnor's strength.

snip <--It's even arguable that if Imrahil stuck his dagger in the Nazgul-lord's leg he (the Witch-king) might not fall down. Sure it would be painful, but in the heat of battle unless the leg is cut so that it can hardly support weight, one won't necessarily fall down, in my opinion. But this was no ordinary dagger in any case, it had a helpful effect even when not struck in a "lethal" place.

Well :) as Ivriniel (Imrahil's great great....aunt), I'd say that 'my n(N)ephew may well have had a good shot at downing him - with some Elven blood - another candidate, yes, seems like another candidate, if a Hobbit or W(w)oman were successful.

Here I think Tolkien plays with a seeming (measure of) invulnerability. If not by the hand of M(m)an would the Witch-king fall, how would he be defeated? Well these things are often technical and tricky, and technically Merry is not a Man (although he is male), Eowyn not a man (although she belongs to the race of Men).

makes sense.

[Zigûr]

Then pondering the Will-Undead, there were also the Wights of the Barrow Downs, who were created, I thought, by Angmar and a part of the reason Arnor failed. The occupation of the Burial Mounds of Arnor were violated by Undead presence which somehow caused the realm to fail... Necromantic Undead Will, even in burial mounds had some pervasive influence on Arnor's strength.
This relates back to the idea of Elves and Fading, as it is suggested in Morgoth's Ring that Undead in Middle-earth (like the Barrow-wights) tend to be "Houseless": Elvish fëa which have refused the call to Mandos and haunt Middle-earth.

[Ivriniel]

This relates back to the idea of Elves and Fading, as it is suggested in Morgoth's Ring that Undead in Middle-earth (like the Barrow-wights) tend to be "Houseless": Elvish fëa which have refused the call to Mandos and haunt Middle-earth.

I read that upstream, likening the 'process' (of Undead-ising) to The Fading. It's very interesting, don't you think. It does quite really seem the Sauronic-metaphysical variant-ish, likening 'invisibility'--or--'fading' by continued use of a Ring. I'm transported to Elrond's Houses of Healing and Frodo's 'transparency' after his healing by Elrond. A Houseless Spirit, then, does it follow that the Nine were not gathered by Mandos, and so, does this mean that Middle Earth has wandering spirits, perhaps haunting ones?

[Galin]

I've got to check on the Nazgûl, but based on some instances in which the Witch-king is mentioned I doubt he is invulnerable as Galin pointed out. Take for example his fear of certain Dúnedain. Why would he fear them if he were invulnerable to most/all weapons and they were not?

"Boromir was a great captain and even the Witch-king feared him." [Appendix A: The Stewards]

Good points, and I agree. Some have countered that the Witch-king didn't fear this Boromir personally, but feared him in the sense that he was a great captain and stategist. I don't buy that myself. Tolkien also notes that he was a man strong in body and will...

"Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-king feared him. He was noble and fair of face, a man strong in body and in will, but he received a Morgul-wound in that war which shortened his days, and he became shrunken with pain and died twelve years after his father."

One needs a strong will to first stand against the unreasoning fear a wraith imparts, then you've got a chance in battle against them. This is why I think the Witch-king feared Boromir, that he had a notably strong will, as well as physical strength. Tolkien, of course, sets up the scenario by which Eowyn will also conquer her fear, and Merry as well, enough to help her.

Some also point to:

"Over the hills of slain a hideous shape appeared: a horseman, tall, hooded, cloaked in black. Slowly, trampling the fallen, he rode forth, heeding no longer any dart. He halted and held up a long pale sword. And as he did so a great fear fell upon all, defender and foe alike; and the hands of men dropped to their sides, and no bows sang. For a moment all was still."

But this hardly proves invulnerability in my opinion, considering he heeded "no longer" any dart (which seems to suggest he had heeded them before this point). For me I think this is hubris, mixed with the Wraith's knowledge of his own effect upon Men...

... for we see, here at least, his effect will stop the bowmen from shooting in any case, at least for a time.

[Ivriniel]

thanx for the reputation posts, muchly appreciated....just writing here coz I can't allocate reputation posts, and so didn't want to seem rude. I've written to administrator to see what's happened. cheers :)

Good points, and I agree. Some have countered that the Witch-king didn't fear this Boromir personally, but feared him in the sense that he was a great captain and stategist. I don't buy that myself. Tolkien also notes that he was a man strong in body and will...

Agree with you. I reckon the Witchking had a 'smell sense' or instinct of sorts for the mega-Numenoreans and Boromir wasn't very Numenorean. Faramir might have had a chance.

But this hardly proves invulnerability in my opinion....

I'm still wondering about 'what' weapons could have harmed him and on what terms. I'm still also allowing for a 'psychological' or 'body-material' effect of his combatant/s as influential factors.

[Galin]

Agree with you. I reckon the Witchking had a 'smell sense' or instinct of sorts for the mega-Numenoreans and Boromir wasn't very Numenorean. Faramir might have had a chance.

For clarity I'm arguing/agreeing that the Witch-king did fear this Boromir personally, although this is not the Boromir of the Fellowship. You might be aware of this but your addition of Faramir here made me wonder if we are talking about the same Boromir.

:D

[Belegorn]

I don't know if the Witch-king had a sense for Dúnedain which both Boromirs were. The Boromir I had mentioned was the Steward Boromir who got stabbed by a Nazgûl when he drove them off in Ithilien. On the same issue with Dúnedain and the Witch-king he did fight them for hundreds of years in the North in Arnor and eventually destroyed Arthedain. There was also Eärnur who was clearly a mighty Dúnadan and there is no implication that the Witch-king feared him at all.

"Eärnur was a man like his father in valour [Eärnil II led Gondor's armies against the Wainriders and saved Gondor from destuction. He also had defended Gondor's southern borders], but not in wisdom. He was a man of strong body and hot mood; but he would take no wife, for his only pleasure was in fighting, or in the exercise of arms. His prowess was such that none in Gondor could stand against him in those weapon-sports in which he delighted, seeming rather a champion than a captain or king, and retaining his vigour and skill to a later age than was then usual." [Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion]

Even with all his prowess the Witch-king attacked Eärnur when his army was wiped out.

he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight for him. Eärnur would have withstood him; but his horse could not endure the onset, and it swerved and bore him far away before he could master it.

This is the time when Glorfindel said he wouldn't fall by the hand of man. The Witch-king taunted Eärnur ever since until he finally could not be restrained by any of his men and went to duel him years later to his own end. I do not quite know why Boromir himself put the fear of the Valar into the Witch-king for I do not think he was the greatest Dúnadan he had ever come across. It seems most or all of the Stewards were mighty, even a shrunken Denethor ll, and clearly the kings were great warriors too.

[Mithadan]

May I respectfully make a suggestion? There are now 62 posts in this thread, which is truly admirable. However, at best, 6 posts relate to the original topic. The balance raise a variety of well-reasoned issues, but they do not respond to the topic here. Jallanite opened a new thread to discuss one of his issues. Why don't others? There are perhaps a half dozen different and discrete topics in this thread worthy of discussion.

BE BRAVE!!!!! Start a new thread to raise your issues! I couldn't care less if you copied whatever you wrote in this thread, but PLEASE start a new thread. A newcomer might read the first 3 posts and have no interest. They may never reach post 20 that raises an entirely new issue,

START A NEW THREAD!

[Ivriniel]

I don't know if the Witch-king had a sense for Dúnedain which both Boromirs were. The Boromir I had mentioned was the Steward Boromir who got stabbed by a Nazgûl when he drove them off in Ithilien. On the same issue with Dúnedain and the Witch-king he did fight them for hundreds of years in the North in Arnor and eventually destroyed Arthedain. There was also Eärnur who was clearly a mighty Dúnadan and there is no implication that the Witch-king feared him at all.

It's been a long time since I pondered any Boromirs at all, and vaguely remember there was more than one of them. I don't like the name much and never had much inclination towards any Boromirs :)

but....

"Eärnur was a man like his father in valour [Eärnil II led Gondor's armies against the Wainriders and saved Gondor from destuction. He also had defended Gondor's southern borders], but not in wisdom. He was a man of strong body and hot mood; but he would take no wife, for his only pleasure was in fighting, or in the exercise of arms. His prowess was such that none in Gondor could stand against him in those weapon-sports in which he delighted, seeming rather a champion than a captain or king, and retaining his vigour and skill to a later age than was then usual." [Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion]

Even with all his prowess the Witch-king attacked Eärnur when his army was wiped out.

I think it's quite reasonable to raise the issue of Earnur and all the associated information as we ponder Witchking-isation and Wraithdom. The Eanur/nil combo got me thinking about our Last King of the Southern Realm and why he felt the call to respond to the Witchking's summons.

I wonder--perhaps old Witchy-poo-man-thing :) 'smelled', or unsmelled ;) the same metaphysical 'stench' upon Earnur (hot tempered man of might and brauns, no wife, prolly not very capable of intimacy, sounds like, with a love of fighting, predominantly) as was upon the Witchking, himself. The one and the same that led to his succumbing to the call of one of the Nine. Perhaps Sauron could 'discern' by conversation, or necromantic Spell of some sort how much of a 'man's fibre' could be 'snatched' per use of his (creepy) rings based on temperament and behaviour.

I wonder then - Merry and Eowyn, again.

Merry - not really one with a 'love of battle' yet hardy was he of Spirit Will and Fibre. And Eowyn, not 'called to battle' for vanity or honour, but by cold, steel will and frail heart of lapsed love. Yet a heart that is frail, perhaps, for sensing 'stench' of the kinds of Men who 'snatch' love from her Valorous heart and so, she strove to fell that which was betrayer of her capacity to love.

Only an analysis by metaphor.

[Ivriniel]

For clarity I'm arguing/agreeing that the Witch-king did fear this Boromir personally, although this is not the Boromir of the Fellowship. You might be aware of this but your addition of Faramir here made me wonder if we are talking about the same Boromir.

:D

I wasn't, actually. Thanx for prompting. I now dimly recall from a very long time ago in my readings that there was more than one Boromir. It's been a very long time since I read of the Numenorean Realms in Exile, and I never really engaged with the Stewardship mythology.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"No other blade could have dealt that foe a wound so bitter..."

Which to me says not that no other blade could wound him, just that no other blade could wound him as badly. After all, the W-K's supposed invulnerability isn't ever stated; instead what we have is a prophecy by Glorfindel, "not by the hand of man shall he fall," which is not at all the same thing as PJ's dunderheaded "No man can kill me."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Giving of rings: let's not forget that the Appendices post-dated the writing of Book I by ten years and more; there is no indication that the story of Thror giving Thrain his Ring while still on his two feet and then toddling off to Moria existed before the writing of Durin's Folk, and almost certainly wasn't yet conceived when Tolkien wrote the passage in question (heck, Moria itself didn't exist yet). At the time, to the extent he thought of it it all, he likely assumed the Ring was handed over on Thror's deathbed, or simply found among the dead king's effects, as it had been from father to son for dwarven generations.

Similarly, the passing around of the Elf-Rings seems to have arisen at the Appendices stage, or at the earliest during the writing of the final chapters in one long burst, and wasn't anything he considered while writing Chapter 2 a decade earlier.

[Ivriniel]

Which to me says not that no other blade could wound him, just that no other blade could wound him as badly. After all, the W-K's supposed invulnerability isn't ever stated; instead what we have is a prophecy by Glorfindel, "not by the hand of man shall he fall," which is not at all the same thing as PJ's dunderheaded "No man can kill me."

Yes. However, there's a premise missing.

The 'blade of Arnor' argument is a two-pronged position (pardon pun) not one of '...how bitterly...' "a" blade might hurt him. 1. Spell; 2. To target an invulnerability. Devised for it, in fact, it does seem.

The Arnor blade had a counter spell that attacked something specific in the Witchking. It was about the knitting of will to undead flesh. I don't recall normal metal ever having such an imbued property in the mythology. Do you? There's part of the invulnerability addressed, by a specific reference to Lore. You may argue what a normal blade would do, and if any effect can be imputed of 'any' blade to 'knitting' (I don't think it's easy to knit a scarf with a blade). :)

Prophesy referring to the "hand of man" and not "a man" of course is the exact tension mounted by Tolkien. I suspect he did it on purpose. We think 'of humans with human DNA' when we read "hand of man". Yet, Eowyn played the gender card, which is rather interesting, which refers to what you said.

This must imply, then that Glorfindel's prophesy was circumscribed, in, perhaps a discernment he missed. We found that Holbytlan and female downed him. That leaves us pondering what it is about Holbytlan and women that was different. There's a lot about Halfling 'fibre' and their general resistance to Evil, and about their hardiness of body. I'm not clear what it was that Tolkien was saying about men and women (lower case 'm' and 'w') that was at work that enabled Eowyn to do something no man in the many hundreds of years of wars with Arnor could.

[Nerwen]

Yes. However, there's a premise missing.

The 'blade of Arnor' argument is a two-pronged position (pardon pun) not one of '...how bitterly...' "a" blade might hurt him. 1. Spell; 2. To target an invulnerability. Devised for it, in fact, it does seem.

The Arnor blade had a counter spell that attacked something specific in the Witchking. It was about the knitting of will to undead flesh. I don't recall normal metal ever having such an imbued property in the mythology. Do you? There's part of the invulnerability addressed, by a specific reference to Lore. You may argue what a normal blade would do, and if any effect can be imputed of 'any' blade to 'knitting' (I don't think it's easy to knit a scarf with a blade). :)
The blade didn't knit anything- it un-knit it.

Anyway, is your argument here that, since any effect *less* than "breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will" would be negligible, Merry's blade *may as well* have been the only one that could wound the Witch-king?

This must imply, then that Glorfindel's prophesy was circumscribed, in, perhaps a discernment he missed. We found that Holbytlan and female downed him. That leaves us pondering what it is about Holbytlan and women that was different. There's a lot about Halfling 'fibre' and their general resistance to Evil, and about their hardiness of body. I'm not clear what it was that Tolkien was saying about men and women (lower case 'm' and 'w') that was at work that enabled Eowyn to do something no man in the many hundreds of years of wars with Arnor could.
I have always taken it that Glorfindel meant, simply, that no man *would* kill the Witch-king, not that no man *could* kill him. That is, it's not that women and hobbits as groups possessed any innate Witch-king lethality, it's just that the individuals who killed him *happened* to be a woman and a hobbit. (Similarly, Macduff is not generally assumed to have had special Macbeth-killing powers as a result of being a Caesarian birth.)

[Ivriniel]

Hi Nerwin, about knitting, yes I know. It's in about a hundred places upstream together with the Canon citation which I have not bothered to re-quote, as I assumed it had been read.....that's why I suggested that one shouldn't knit with swords. :) (scarves, as in with wool, etc. Cuts the wool)

Interesting 'would-could' distinction. I have echoes of the same recollection. But a poster, upstream donged that on the head.

There's a canon citation, that points out that Earn(ur/il) (I forget which forgive me, anyhooz, the last King of Gondor) did not quail when Witchy Poo charged. It was the horse that blew a fuse and ran off.

[Nerwen]

Interesting 'would-could' distinction. I have echoes of the same recollection. But a poster, upstream donged that on the head.
Who was that? I can't find the post.
There's a canon citation, that points out that Earn(ur/il) (I forget which forgive me, anyhooz, the last King of Gondor) did not quail when Witchy Poo charged. It was the horse that blew a fuse and ran off.
That's correct. It was Earnur, and that was in fact the occasion of Glorfindel uttering his prophecy about "not by the hand of man will he fall".

[Ivriniel]

Who was that? I can't find the post.

That's correct. It was Earnur, and that was in fact the occasion of Glorfindel uttering his prophecy about "not by the hand of man will he fall".

A beautiful citation from Belegorn

Originally Posted by Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion
he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight for him. Eärnur would have withstood him; but his horse could not endure the onset, and it swerved and bore him far away before he could master it.

This citation 'dongs' on the head any suggestion that it was, somehow, a 'male' incapacity to 'withstand' the Witchking--in a 'Head On Up Front'. This means there was 'a man', Earnur, who could, basically, stand there, in front of witchypoo and stab at the creepy thing in front of him. "Would" a man "yes" is the answer and "could" a man (withstand), a double yes is the implication of this canon.

Soooo that leaves us wondering, again Glorfindel's words that give one a headache, because "not by the hand of man" means not "Eowyn is not of man(kind)" but "a woman I am, not a man".

[Nerwen]

A beautiful citation from Belegorn



This citation 'dongs' on the head any suggestion that it was, somehow, a 'male' incapacity to 'withstand' the Witchking--in a 'Head On Up Front'. This means there was 'a man', Earnur, who could, basically, stand there, in front of witchypoo and stab at the creepy thing in front of him. "Would" a man "yes" is the answer and "could" a man (withstand), a double yes is the implication of this canon.

Soooo that leaves us wondering, again Glorfindel's words that give one a headache, because "not by the hand of man" means not "Eowyn is not of man(kind)" but "a woman I am, not a man".
But are you saying this somehow disproves my point? I never said males were inherently unable to withstand the Witch-king- where did you get that idea?:confused:

[Ivriniel]

But are you saying this somehow disproves my point? I never said males were inherently unable to withstand the Witch-king- where did you get that idea?:confused:

:) believe me, I'm confused as well :)

There's so many materials here. Um, not so much 'disproves' the point, but implies that the rendering of Glorfindel's prophesy as about "..not by the hand of man..." has more than one emphasis.

I re-read your post 'just happened to be' a woman and a hobbit. I get where you went. It converges with part of the point I made. In one sense out of two.

It's the part you've lifted out 'special properties' as meaning that it is 'not' necessary that women and hobbits possess them that leaves this question.

What is Eowyn? (okay now I'm going to laughing hysterically). Is she not of man? As a woman, she 'just happens' to not be a man - soooo - doesn't this mean that people (or things) 'not men' that can slay a Nazgul have 'something'? Some joo joo, or some facet of mind, or some bearing, or some facility, or something?

Otherwise, why couldn't 'men' achieve it?

[Nerwen]

Okay. It seems I haven't actually got my point across to you. It's not about the wordplay on "Man/man", it's about cause and effect.

Here's an example that leaves out the semantical issue:

Let us suppose there's a fellow named Joe who is both aquaphobic and superstitious. Joe consults Madame Zelda, the fortune teller, who shuffles her Tarot deck, reads the leftover tea-leaves in Joe's cup and examines the lines on his palm.

Joe, she says, is not fated to drown.

Ecstatic, Joe trips on his way out, falls down the stairs, breaks his neck and dies.

Thus, the prophecy is fulfilled.

1. Was Joe a special kind of being with immunity to drowning?
2. Was he uniquely vulnerable to stairs?

Do you see what I'm getting at now?



*(3. (Optional) Will Hollywood film this tragic story as "The Fault in Our Stairs?")

[Ivriniel]

Okay. It seems I haven't actually got my point across to you. It's not about the wordplay on "Man/man", it's about cause and effect.

Here's an example that leaves out the semantical issue:

Let us suppose there's a fellow named Joe who is both aquaphobic and superstitious. Joe consults Madame Zelda, the fortune teller, who shuffles her Tarot deck, reads the leftover tea-leaves in Joe's cup and examines the lines on his palm.

Joe, she says, is not fated to drown.

Ecstatic, Joe trips on his way out, falls down the stairs, breaks his neck and dies.

Thus, the prophecy is fulfilled.

1. Was Joe a special kind of being with immunity to drowning?
2. Was he uniquely vulnerable to stairs?

Do you see what I'm getting at now?



*(3. (Optional) Will Hollywood film this tragic story as "The Fault in Our Stairs?")

not logic *screams* And causation, reversal.

If A does not imply B, this does not mean that the presence of B implies an absence of A....

hahahaha omg! I'm back at Uni.

Yes of course! Jo had special powers to avoid drowning which was why he fell down the stairs. hahaha :)

*composes self* (seriously, I just ceased laughing)

Yes, of course, the prophesy's range/domain and its inclusive and exclusive areas are quite precisely the issue.

*rubs temples* *waves finger at Glorifinel*

"now, Mr Elfy - you should have been clearer about context in your words. Were you locking, explicitly, the terms 'by the hand of man' to what - exactly! Or to 'what not!'"

[Ivriniel]

My stomach hurts from laughing! :):)

[Nerwen]

*rubs temples* *waves finger at Glorifinel*

"now, Mr Elfy - you should have been clearer about context in your words. Were you locking, explicitly, the terms 'by the hand of man' to what - exactly! Or to 'what not!'"

Glorfindel: No. And yes.;)

[Ivriniel]

Glorfindel: No. And yes.;)

Hahaha High five sista!!!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"The Arnor blade had a counter spell that attacked something specific in the Witchking. It was about the knitting of will to undead flesh. I don't recall normal metal ever having such an imbued property in the mythology. Do you? There's part of the invulnerability addressed, by a specific reference to Lore. You may argue what a normal blade would do, and if any effect can be imputed of 'any' blade to 'knitting' (I don't think it's easy to knit a scarf with a blade)"

I don't think that any sort of "invulnerability" is implied, though. Suppose Alice were to stab Bob with a poisoned knife: the fact that the poison harms him doesn't imply that he's invulnerable to stab wounds!

[Galin]

I have always taken it that Glorfindel meant, simply, that no man *would* kill the Witch-king, not that no man *could* kill him. That is, it's not that women and hobbits as groups possessed any innate Witch-king lethality, it's just that the individuals who killed him *happened* to be a woman and a hobbit. (Similarly, Macduff is not generally assumed to have had special Macbeth-killing powers as a result of being a Caesarian birth.)

I agree. Good note on Macbeth too. It nicely illustrates the "technicalities" of these kinds of things. Macduff still had a mother of course, he was just not "born" in the usual way.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A thought about "binding his unseen sinews to his will"....

Compare the passage, not many pages before, where Tolkien describes the effect of the mere presence of the Nazgul on men, the ultimate psychological weapon:

...letting their weapons fall from nerveless hands while into their minds a blackness came, and they thought no more of war, but only of hiding and of crawling, and of death.
One of my favorite passages, the voice of the Somme veteran who had witnessed shell-shock personally.

But it strikes me now that in an ironic way, the ancient smith of Arnor had managed to turn the tables, giving the Shriekers a taste of their own Black Breath, as it were.

[Faramir Jones]

Tolkien's second son Michael, who served in WW2, suffered from shell-shock as a result.:(

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, but I don't think we're talking about exactly the same thing. Michael unquestionably suffered from what today we call PTSD- but that is, as it says, post-trauma. What Tolkien briefly described in the Siege of Gondor was something else, the paralysis of will that is the trauma, as it were, where naked fear overcomes all discipline, training or courage, the point where a man is said to "break." It happens and has happened on all battlefields in all ages, but under the shellstorms of the Western Front probably more than most.

[Morthoron]

And I realize that you don’t wish to discuss this. The problem is that your lack of argument doesn’t solve the problem. Gandalf first introduces the term “A Ring of Power” in referring to the three Elvish Rings created by the Elven-smiths of Eregion. Then he says that no-one in history, as far as he is aware, before Bilbo, has ever given up a Ring of Power to another voluntarily.

I will simply add that Cirdan voluntarily and with great foresight surrendered a "Ring of Power" to Gandalf himself. And Gil-Galad entrusted Vilya, the most powerful of the three Elven rings, to Elrond. Those were both prior to Bilbo giving up the One Ring.

Next.

[Inziladun]

I will simply add that Cirdan voluntarily and with great foresight surrendered a "Ring of Power" to Gandalf himself. And Gil-Galad entrusted Vilya, the most powerful of the three Elven rings, to Elrond. Those were both prior to Bilbo giving up the One Ring.

Next.

Heh, Gandalf was being cagey about that, since he had Narya in his pocket. ;)

[Boromir88]

I will simply add that Cirdan voluntarily and with great foresight surrendered a "Ring of Power" to Gandalf himself. And Gil-Galad entrusted Vilya, the most powerful of the three Elven rings, to Elrond. Those were both prior to Bilbo giving up the One Ring.

Next.

I think often statements that sound complete and encompassing aren't meant to be taken as literal fact. You have Gandalf's statement about Bilbo giving up the Ring:

'A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it....But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it.~The Shadow of the Past

its keeper never abandons it...and Bilbo alone in history I don't think are meant to be interpreted as absolute fact. Compare that to a statement about the Grey Company

"He led the Company forth upon the journey of greatest haste and weariness that any among them had known... No other mortal men could have endured it, none but the Dunedain of the North, and with them Gimli the Dwarf and Legolas of the Elves.".~The Passing of the Grey Company

Elladan and Elrohir seem to be forgotten in this statement. They were indeed with the Grey Company and endured the Paths of the Dead. If we interpret this statement literally, than Elladan and Elrohir weren't there at all. I think sometimes with these absolute statements, Tolkien just went with what sounded better, or what flowed better on the page. And he wasn't really thinking about whether speaking in absolutes were literal fact.

"its keeper never abandons it" and "Bilbo alone in history" just flows better than "Bilbo, Cirdan, and Gil-galad, alone in history..." Similar to the Passing of the Grey Company "and with them Gimli the Dwarf and Legolas of the Elves," is more poetic than say..."and with them Gimli the Dwarf, and Legolas of the Elves, and the sons of Elrond, Elladan and Elrohir." It's just my opinion to interpret these types of absolute statements as hyperbole, and what flows better on the page. :)

[Inziladun]

its keeper never abandons it...and Bilbo alone in history I don't think are meant to be interpreted as absolute fact.

What about the Seven, which apparently were passed on from keeper to keeper voluntarily as a matter of course?

I think Gandalf was mainly talking about the One when he told that to Frodo. After all, that was the Ring with which they were mainly concerned at that time.

[Morthoron]

What about the Seven, which apparently were passed on from keeper to keeper voluntarily as a matter of course?

I think Gandalf was mainly talking about the One when he told that to Frodo. After all, that was the Ring with which they were mainly concerned at that time.

Precisely my point when replying to a nitpicker picking nits with nary a nit to pick.

Gandalf expressed to Frodo exactly what he needed to know. He didn't at all refer to the separate powers of preservation evident in the three Elven Rings. He didn't mention them at all, because it was not Frodo's business - he must concentrate on the lures of the One in order to combat its effects. He needed to know that the Nine were drawn to the One like moths (albeit invisible moths) to a dark flame.

The Three were hidden and remained so until Galadriel revealed hers to Frodo. In any case when Gandalf refers to giving up a Ring of Power willingly, he was not talking about the Three, as they were given up quite readily by their previous possessors.

Technically speaking, the Seven Dwarven Rings were bequeathed from father to son as well, although maybe the sons had rip the rings from their fathers' cold, dead clutches. :D

[Findegil]

At least Thror gave his ring to Thrain bevor his death.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Faramir Jones]

Morthoron and Findegil, you made some good contributions about the Seven Rings given to the Dwarf lords.

The only dwarf lord family we know of, who had one of those rings and its disposal being talked about, was the House of Durin. It was made clear that its head, Thror, before he went to Moria and was killed by Azog, gave his ring to his son and heir Thrain II; but Thrain did not in his turn give it to his son Thorin II, it being taken off him by Sauron after he had imprisoned and tortured him.

It is reasonable to assume that such rings were passed on by the head to his heir, usually his son, as a matter of course. Perhaps the heir had to take it from the body of the deceased lord, or perhaps it was passed on by the lord on his deathbed. What evidence we have suggests that, on at least one occasion, this passing on happened earlier, if the head felt that he would be killed and his body plundered by enemies.

The point about the Seven is that, unlike the Nine, Sauron was unable to control the Dwarf lords as he had the nine Men, eventually turning them into wraiths. As those rings, from his point of view, didn't 'work', he appeared to have decided either to destroy them, which happened with four, or to take them, which happened with three, the one he took off Thrain being the last.

[Ivriniel]

I will simply add that Cirdan voluntarily and with great foresight surrendered a "Ring of Power" to Gandalf himself. And Gil-Galad entrusted Vilya, the most powerful of the three Elven rings, to Elrond. Those were both prior to Bilbo giving up the One Ring.

Next.

Hello there Orthoron_M it's great to see your post. I was only yesterday, pondering a question about the differences between the Powers of Preservation and their variation (or divergent powers) in the Nine and the Seven.

You have clarified a point I do not understand, about the relative power of the three. I appreciate that Elrond being 'kinda' the 'next king-ish' of Elves (after Gil Galad's death) should get the most powerful Ring. For Gil Galad was of Turgon's line*. So, in any case it's funny that the Kingship jumped to Ereinion rather that Elrond after Turgon's death. I don't get that, first of all, though it's an aside. Hence the *

But I do not see Imladris as more 'preserved' in the way that the Elves obsessed about a non-fading world and sun (I read somewhere that it's Morgoth's influence over the Sun that is implicated in The Fading of Middle Earth). In fact, 'Unfading was an obsession, and The Elessar II (or whatever was going on with that headache of a 'two Elessar' green stone thing), and Celebrimbor made a Green Stone for that purpose. They (Elves) were after a Power Conduit for a while - a bit like Helium 3 technology atm, and mining it from the moon's surface. :) (it's great to see you :)

Anyways, Laurlindorenan has a great Nett Area 'Preservation' Annexe and we seem to find the Lore of the Ring changing the very flow of time in Caras Caladhon. Recall, Frodo and co spent a month and time seemed "not to have passed at all", and the coincidence of the sickle moon upon leaving and all that. Clearly Tolkien was making us aware of something very significant about Galadriel's Realm that we don't see in Rivendell. In any case, how is it that Galadriel does this. More Elvish mojo in her? Thus, she must also have been pretty annoyed at getting Power Number Two, but showing off her realm to her poor, weaker cousin/relative in his titchy Rivendell.

Both prior points, lacking concision-Ivriniel (CI) do in any case, have some merit to the third point. About The Three.

We are told that the One was made after the Three. We are told that Sauron had to imbue much of his native power/essence into the One in order to get an 'Annexe'-Interdict effect to subsume influence of the Three. All that perversion of that Elvish Telepathy thing implicated in his megalomania in the 'being perceived' remotely by Sauron thing. This is interesting of itself as well, because it was a means to influence a race that shut him out (and Elvish Telepathy - what's that word for it?) was denied to Sauron ordinarily. He had torture or do something really base and barbaric and not very efficient to 'get information' ordinarily.

In any case - what Power went into the Three to allow them to be Great Rings, when we all know darned well that Sauron was 'lessened' (without his Ring) in power. What? Did Celebrimbor 'have that much' native power to imbue Elvish Rings? Sauron never touched them.


*grin warning*

[William Cloud Hicklin]

For Gil Galad was of Turgon's line*. So, in any case it's funny that the Kingship jumped to Ereinion rather that Elrond after Turgon's death. I don't get that, first of all, though it's an aside. Hence the *

Um, no: Turgon had only one child, Idril, and one male heir, Earendil.

Gil-galad's parentage is one of those areas of unfinished Tolkien uncertainy. T's original idea, explicily, was to make him (Inglor >) Finrod Felagund's son. But then he decided Felagund would remain single and childless, and it appears that after a brief flirtation with making him Fingon's son (which CT erroneously included in the 1977 edition) GG wound up Felagund's great-nephew, son of Orodreth son of Aegnor.

The final arrangement actually makes sense if we assume that the Noldor practiced Salic succession: the kingship could pass only in the male line. Fingolfin > Fingon > Turgon > Gil-Galad (Idril and Galadriel being disqualified, GG was the only surviving male-line heir of the House of Finwe). Note that even after GG's death, neither Elrond nor Galadriel ever claimed the crown.

What doesn't make sense is making GG Fingon's son; in that case why would the succession temporarily bypass him and go to his uncle?

[Ivriniel]

grin warning*

Hi William :) the grin was for deliberate misplacement on Gil Galad into the same lineage as Elrond to open up the Salic concept, by placing Gil Galad where (the) King (or) Queen should next originate from, (given) Turgon was High King. Because as I saw it also:

What doesn't make sense is making GG Fingon's son; in that case why would the succession temporarily bypass him and go to his uncle?

You are right it doesn't.

Either way (doing away with Salic ideas in Elvendom, I'd have thought Elves would be less sexist. Tolkien was good with female heroes: Silmarien, Elwing, Melian, Galadriel, Luthien, Eowyn.....Rosie Cotton hahahah) Elrond as High King under Turgon (Turgon-Idril-->Elros-Elrond), or Gil Galad as a son of Turgon - succession without sexism looks like that. The bit you added that I didn't know was about the year = 1977 edition. Thank you

Gil Galad, the 'headache' High King, in much the same way Galadriel and Celeborn are (that history does my head in but I love it). I agree with you. He should be Angrod's* grandson, nephew of Orodreth.

*Grin warning :)

[Gothmog, LoB]

I think we can safely say that neither Círdan nor Gil-galad ever used one of the Three during the Second Age. Therefore them giving away Narya and Vilya doesn't cause a huge problem.

We don't know whether a ring-bearer actually is such a person if he/she just has such a ring in her closet somewhere. Especially the Three should be free of any direct evil influence causing any person keeping them to also use them. Not to mention the knowledge of those keepers that putting them on and using them would soon put them under Sauron's control.

But Galadriel, Elrond, or Gandalf easily parting with Nenya, Vilya, or Narya at the very end of the Third Age - when all of those rings had been in use for 2000-3000 years - is actually very unlikely.

As to the general effectiveness of the Rings of Power on Men:

Well, their clearly weren't designed for Men. Sauron wanted to use them the Elves of Eregion, after all. They were all elven-rings. However, they worked pretty fine on men, too. One assumes that Men mostly used the Nine to enhance their powers - to excel at whatever they were best at or wanted to be best at - but in the end they would have used the inherent preservation power of the rings (which was the main feature of all Rings of Power) on themselves, to be able to remain *alive* even after their time was long over. If pretty much nothing of that butter remains on that bread you most likely look like your average Nazgûl.

In some cases the preservation thing might also have worked inadvertently, with Sauron actually slowly transforming the wearers of the Nine into his Nazgûl-slaves. One assumes none of them actually intended becoming what they eventually became.

The Valar (and at least Sauron via the Rings of Power) clearly had the power/ability to bend the rules in regard to the whole Gift of Men thing. Tolkien's speculations about a Man living in Aman suggests as much, as does Morgoth's ability to keep Húrin alive against his will. I guess one can imagine this as the powers of the Valar being able to block a door or build a dam. Eventually the water is going to break through but if you put a lot of effort into this whole thing it might take a while. A pretty long while, actually.

If somebody like Morgoth focused his entire might on keeping one Man alive forever it most likely could work. It would be living hell for that guy, of course, but it would work.

Whether the Ringwraiths actually still retain 'human flesh' as we would see it isn't clear. Whatever keeps them able to interact with physical reality after their many returns (they go into the shadow after the Ring is taken from Sauron's body) might actually be closer to the fake-flesh the Valar/Maiar used make themselves visible or simply the sort of spiritual power that enables the Valar/Maiar to interact with the physical reality while they don't have any bodies (in the old days they could do that pretty easily).

I'd also assume that none of the Ringwraiths actually ever 'physically died' (and then sort of returned from the dead like a ghost) but that these men were actually physically consumed by the power of their rings - at least on a certain level - because their rings could actually not properly do this life preservation thing their bearers wanted them to do on their bodies. Perhaps Morgoth could have created Rings of Power that could have allowed a man to keep his body and good looks for millennia but that would have been too much for Sauron - especially in light of the fact that the Rings of Power were never designed for Mortals.

To fully become a Ringwraith you most likely have to become the total slave of that Ring. Isildur or Samwise didn't carry the One for a long period of time. It also didn't break down Frodo yet (or rather: not until the very end) but Gollum had a pretty good chance to never die a natural death but becoming more and more consumed simply by his connection to the One Ring and his continued existence.

I'm also not inclined to believe that a Man in possession of Ring of Power who has not become fully enslaved or been transformed into a Ringwraith could ever become if he dies a sudden and unnatural death - especially not the type of death after which his corpse is stripped off the ring which is then used by a new bearer. A violent death should be a sufficient trauma to separate spirit and body and could thus also break whatever mental shackles the ring had already bound his bearer with. Or not. That is really hard to speculate on.

[Inziladun]

The Valar (and at least Sauron via the Rings of Power) clearly had the power/ability to bend the rules in regard to the whole Gift of Men thing. Tolkien's speculations about a Man living in Aman suggests as much, as does Morgoth's ability to keep Húrin alive against his will. I guess one can imagine this as the powers of the Valar being able to block a door or build a dam. Eventually the water is going to break through but if you put a lot of effort into this whole thing it might take a while. A pretty long while, actually.

I've always seen the 'immortality' of the Nazgûl as being the result of their ultimate, total subjugation to Sauron's will. He had utterly 'swallowed' their innate spirits into his own fea; thus they were tied to him as long as he himself retained the power to physically exist in Middle-earth.

Whether the Ringwraiths actually still retain 'human flesh' as we would see it isn't clear. Whatever keeps them able to interact with physical reality after their many returns (they go into the shadow after the Ring is taken from Sauron's body) might actually be closer to the fake-flesh the Valar/Maiar used make themselves visible or simply the sort of spiritual power that enables the Valar/Maiar to interact with the physical reality while they don't have any bodies (in the old days they could do that pretty easily).

I think they retained their original forms. I don't see why passing into the Hidden Realm, not actually dying, would have altered their bodies.

[Gothmog, LoB]

@Inziladun:

I'd say there were absorbed by their own rings/the One Ring who then totally controlled and 'bound them'. In a sense they were thus also bound to Sauron but only through the One Ring. I think we can safely say that a new Dark Lord - say, Gandalf or Galadriel, using the One to topple Sauron - would then also have commanded the allegiance of the Nazgûl. Perhaps even before they had dealt with Sauron directly because they most certainly wouldn't have been able to attack or even oppose a powerful wielder of the One - regardless whether Sauron in Barad-dûr had still a body or was already reduced to a powerless spirit.

The question what the Hidden Realm actually is is actually quite intriguing. Are the Nazgûl truly invisible to anyone? I don't think so. The 'default setting' of the One seems to be to make a wearer invisible/draw him/her into the spirit world, and neither Gollum nor Bilbo or Frodo ever had the power/control to change that. What was the purpose of this?

One assume it had to do with Sauron's great desire to find the One after he had lost it, and on the spirit plane it would have been much easier for him to discover such a wearer, perhaps even more so while Sauron himself still lacked a body. After all, everything that was Sauron's or made/accomplished with the One Ring would have become the property of a usurping Dark Lord had he/she been successful at that.

We certainly do know that Sauron himself didn't get invisible to the eyes of men while wearing the Ring (else Elendil would have fought against an invisible man, and Isildur would have cut the Ring off an invisible corpse). Not to mention that wearing the Ring made Sauron appear much more powerful and terrible than he already looked under normal conditions.

We also know that the Nine could make the wearer invisible or make invisible things visible but in their cases, too, they wouldn't have used the 'invisibility feature' not all that often. They wanted to have power over their fellow men, after all. Sometimes they certainly also wanted to sneak around and uncover secrets like Gollum, but most of the time they certainly wanted to be seen as great and powerful people.

Now, the idea is that this invisibility/spirit world feature is only relevant when Men/Dwarves (and perhaps Sindar) wear those rings. The Noldor exist and see on both planes, so any Noldo smith from Eregion forging and later wearing one of the Nine or Seven wouldn't have been invisible to his peers the way Frodo and Bilbo was for theirs (proven by the way Glorfindel looks in Frodo's eyes when he sees him while wearing the One).

So the rings do just alter or add to or sharpen the perception of wearers who are naturally not able to see *everything*. But that is different, I think, from the status of the Nazgûl. They have been changed permanently, and might actually have become closer to 'lesser spirts' of eälar rank. After all, Tolkien's thoughts about the witch-kinig indicate that he wasn't really destroyed by Merry and Éowyn, suggesting that he could have returned eventually had the One Ring not been destroyed soon after.

The history of the Third Age (and the end of the Second) also suggest that the power of the Nazgûl is greatly intertwined with the power of Sauron himself. After he is defeated they 'go into the shadows'. And while Sauron hides in Dol Guldur for about a millennium or more they also seem to grow in power - at least the witch-king is. But when Sauron retreats into the East after Gandalf pays him a visit the Nazgûl suddenly become inactive again - despite the fact that they just recently conquered Minas Ithil and might have been able to press their advantage then and there and destroy Gondor just as the witch-king had destroyed Arthedain. Presumably Sauron's original plan was to do just that but he wasn't ready yet to face Gandalf and thus he had to postpone the entire plan.

We also know that Sauron took the Nine Rings back from the Nazgûl so his direct control/connection to them in the Third Age (after he had taken the rings back, at least) would have worked on the basis of transferring power and orders via the rings. I guess this was a more difficult process then using the One for the same kind of thing, but still effective enough.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I think it's pretty clear that the Nazgul were permanently invisible, including their "original" clothing/armor etc (which Frodo could perceive on Weathertop and at the Ford); the black cloaks (donned of course after "fading" and Sauron's reclamation of their Rings) gave visibility to their forms which were unseen but not incorporeal.

(In an early, rejected draft for the scene at Maggot's house, T appears to be saying that if one put on the Ring and then picked up an object, that object would remain visible since it wasn't in the ringbearer's possession when he flipped the "engage invisibility" switch.)

[Gothmog, LoB]

I think it's pretty clear that the Nazgul were permanently invisible, including their "original" clothing/armor etc (which Frodo could perceive on Weathertop and at the Ford); the black cloaks (donned of course after "fading" and Sauron's reclamation of their Rings) gave visibility to their forms which were unseen but not incorporeal.


I'm not sure we have to interpret Frodo's perceptions of the Nazgûl as 'the literal truth'. Granted, during the writing of 'The Lord of the Rings' Tolkien might perhaps envisioned the Ringwraiths as 'invisible men' but Frodo's perception could just as well be remnants of the self-images of the Nazgûl how they saw themselves or wanted to be seen by those who could perceive them as they were.

Sort of similar to the images and impression faded Elves whose bodies had been completely consumed would eventually be able to project to those mortals they would want to come into contact with. Such self-images of the Ringwraiths would, of course, also include clothes, crowns, and whatever else they thought had been important to them in life.

But this doesn't necessarily mean all that stuff was actually *there*.

It is quite clear that the Nazgûl could be harmed by conventional human weaponry but how exactly that worked is unclear. One guesses that part of that has to do with them continuing to interact with 'the physical world' but another great part have to to with the magic imbued in Merry's blade as well as the psychological aspect of the whole thing. The witch-king most likely did really think getting hit by a sword in the middle of his 'face' should get him killed. And thus it did. Or rather it greatly weakened him.

[cellurdur]

I'm not sure we have to interpret Frodo's perceptions of the Nazgûl as 'the literal truth'. Granted, during the writing of 'The Lord of the Rings' Tolkien might perhaps envisioned the Ringwraiths as 'invisible men' but Frodo's perception could just as well be remnants of the self-images of the Nazgûl how they saw themselves or wanted to be seen by those who could perceive them as they were.

Sort of similar to the images and impression faded Elves whose bodies had been completely consumed would eventually be able to project to those mortals they would want to come into contact with. Such self-images of the Ringwraiths would, of course, also include clothes, crowns, and whatever else they thought had been important to them in life.

But this doesn't necessarily mean all that stuff was actually *there*.

It is quite clear that the Nazgûl could be harmed by conventional human weaponry but how exactly that worked is unclear. One guesses that part of that has to do with them continuing to interact with 'the physical world' but another great part have to to with the magic imbued in Merry's blade as well as the psychological aspect of the whole thing. The witch-king most likely did really think getting hit by a sword in the middle of his 'face' should get him killed. And thus it did. Or rather it greatly weakened him.
I am not sure the witch-king did think being hit by a normal blade would kill him.

I think we have to look back at weathertop to the reaction of the Nazgul when Frodo draws his blade. Two of the Nazgul actually stop and don't make a move for him. Only the Witch King has the courage to still go forward.

I am far from convinced that normal, weapons would harm the Nazgul anymore than they would harm a Balrog.

[Inziladun]

I am far from convinced that normal, weapons would harm the Nazgul anymore than they would harm a Balrog.

I think it very likely Éowyn had an ordinary sword.

[cellurdur]

I think it very likely Éowyn had an ordinary sword.

Yes, but the damage was done after Merry had already stabbed him with what appears to be a deadly blow.

But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How he had come by it — save in the Barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the B[arrow]-wight; and he called on Elbereth, a name of terror to the Nazgûl. He was then in league with the High Elves of the Havens.

Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and fear both of Aragorn and especially of Frodo. But fear of Sauron, and the forces of Sauron's will was the stronger.

Eowyn's blow may have sped up his death, but I believe it was only because of Merry's initial stab which in time would have proven fatal anyway. Much like had Elrond not healed Frodo the Witch King's stab would have proven fatal.

[Gothmog, LoB]

I am not sure the witch-king did think being hit by a normal blade would kill him.

I think we have to look back at weathertop to the reaction of the Nazgul when Frodo draws his blade. Two of the Nazgul actually stop and don't make a move for him. Only the Witch King has the courage to still go forward.

I am far from convinced that normal, weapons would harm the Nazgul anymore than they would harm a Balrog.

Well, even Balrogs, Sauron, and Morgoth himself could be harmed by 'normal weapons' if we accept that Elvish (or dwarfish) weapons were also, in a sense, 'normal'.

They were, after all, made by the Eruhíni and not the Valar or Maiar.

Nobody would be claiming weapons like Ringil, Narsil, Aeglos, Glamdring, etc. are playing in the same league as Éowyn's steel, but they would, most likely, not be in the same categories as weapons/artifacts created by the Valar/Maiar.

But we don't really know what the strength of those special weapons was when they were used against a Balrog, Sauron, or a Nazgûl. The touch/words of the Nazgûl (and Sauron) could destroy steel but does this in itself prove that these creatures are also impervious to common steel?

We don't know that. I'm pretty sure Merry's Dúnadan blade dealt the Witch-king a terrible wound, but the killing blow came from Éowyn's sword - or rather the blow who destroy his shape/appearance until such time as Sauron would restore him/he would recover.

It is not just the letter footnote which suggests the Witch-king survived it is also the curious phrasing JRRT uses when he describes that the cry of the Witch-king would never be heard again in that age - which was essentially nearly over. If he had been completely destroyed at this point (or the authors of the Red Book had believed he was dead) then one would expect them to say something like 'his cry was never heard on this earth again'.

[cellurdur]

Well, even Balrogs, Sauron, and Morgoth himself could be harmed by 'normal weapons' if we accept that Elvish (or dwarfish) weapons were also, in a sense, 'normal'.

They were, after all, made by the Eruhíni and not the Valar or Maiar.

Nobody would be claiming weapons like Ringil, Narsil, Aeglos, Glamdring, etc. are playing in the same league as Éowyn's steel, but they would, most likely, not be in the same categories as weapons/artifacts created by the Valar/Maiar.

But we don't really know what the strength of those special weapons was when they were used against a Balrog, Sauron, or a Nazgûl. The touch/words of the Nazgûl (and Sauron) could destroy steel but does this in itself prove that these creatures are also impervious to common steel?
I would say so. All those weapons you mentioned were forged in the first age. For comparison look at how Sting is able to slice through Shelob's web, but even the blade from the Barrow Downs can't. Another example is that a strong man like Boromir notches his blade striking a cave troll, but Frodo is able to pierce him with Sting.

I doubt Eowyn was wielding a sword even comparable to Boromir's and we see a big difference between his sword and Anduril or Sting.

We don't know that. I'm pretty sure Merry's Dúnadan blade dealt the Witch-king a terrible wound, but the killing blow came from Éowyn's sword - or rather the blow who destroy his shape/appearance until such time as Sauron would restore him/he would recover.
I would agree with this in the same way, that if second Nazgul stabbed Frodo in the head, after the Witch King had already pierced him, then the second Nazgul would have delivered the killing blow. However, that does not mean Merry's blow would not eventually have left the Witch King impotent.

When we take into consideration his other letter, unfortunately I don't remember which one, where he says if at Weathertop Sam had given a glancing blow to a Nazgul they would have fallen down.

Just the appearance of these blades is enough to stop two Nazgul in their tracks.

Further we can't forget that Aragorn tells us that all blades that pierce the Witch King break. This implies the Witch King has been stabbed a few times before and it has been noted that the blades have vanished and not killed him.


It is not just the letter footnote which suggests the Witch-king survived it is also the curious phrasing JRRT uses when he describes that the cry of the Witch-king would never be heard again in that age - which was essentially nearly over. If he had been completely destroyed at this point (or the authors of the Red Book had believed he was dead) then one would expect them to say something like 'his cry was never heard on this earth again'.
You have a point, but Tolkien could have been using biblical language. Being a devout Catholic he would be aware of the times the Bible used phrases like UNTIL, which implies that the something changes at a certain point, but it is not the case.

However, I agree with you there is an implication the Witch King might come back, but surely the destruction of the One would have ended any possibility of that.