Would he have done it?
 

I think we are all aware of Letter 246 where Tolkien says if anyone would be expected to beat Sauron, it would be Gandalf. So, there's an established possibility that Gandalf could beat Sauron with the Ring and usurp his place. We also know that the Istari were forbidden to match their power with Sauron. So my simple question is...

If absolutely necessary (and I mean no other possible way of defeating Sauron for good...i.e. destroying the ring) would Gandalf, for the good of Middle-earth, broken the rule set on him and overthrow Sauron? This basically comes down to whether you think Gandalf cared enough about Middle-earth to save it by using the Ring and defeating Sauron, if there was no other way (while risking a lot of horrible consequences). Or whether Gandalf (who was aware of the consequences) believed that eventhough this was Middle-earth's only chance, there would be no victory in the long run.

I don't know, Boro - but no offence to you, I think it's almost a pointless question. Well, not quite pointless, but we have to take different things into account. IF there was NO other way to defeat Sauron beyond Gandalf taking the Ring himself (that is what you said, isn't it?) and fighting him, then I don't think that would really count as saving Middle-Earth because we've been told time and again that should any other powerful person take the Ring, they'd become just as bad as Sauron himself. But, okay, saying that it could save Middle-Earth. . .

I think in that case, rules might be changed, or bent, or simply made null. If Gandalf had to do it, he would've. But I don't think he would have done it without permission.

What's more, Eru or Manwë (whoever made the rule) wouldn't put Gandalf or any other Istari into that possition - break the rule or be the cause of Middle-Earth's ruin. It's simply not fair.

Just a few thoughts. . .

--Folwren

Being the idealist that I am, I have to say that Gandalf would not have taken the Ring. He had the chance to several times, and it would have been so simple. "Here Frodo, I'll take care of that for you." But he didn't. He knew that it would corrupt him. He also knew, I think, that there are some things worse than death. On a similar point to acting for the sake of the survival of Middle Earth, Gandalf did what he could to ensure the survival of everybody that he was close to, the Fellowship not in the least. But he did not interfere. Frodo's path was ridiculously dangerous. His chances of success were not high, but Gandalf stepped in with his talk about how Frodo could take comfort that perhaps he was meant to have the Ring. Gandalf's role was as the advice-giver. He provided what he could, gave the best advice that he could, but when it came down to the last, it was in the hands of mortals in which fate rested. He knew this, and I don't think that he would have decided any differently. Not even if he alone could take out Sauron. It was not his place. He wasn't meant to.

Who says that a Hobbit or a Man or Gandalf (or even Manwe) has the same sense of 'fair' that Eru does. What Iluvatar does cannot be judged wrong or right by lesser beings, it is right by the nature that Eru is the Creator and therefore always right. But I digress...

As to Boromir's question, I'd like to think no, he wouldn't have ever taken the Ring. In the Fellowship, he does not take the Ring, because he knows he will be tempted to use it. This shows, to me at least, that he would not have used it.

well said!

well, i don't know how much of a situation we can conjure up about gandalf needing to take the ring. he never met up with frodo and sam (ie. had the opertunity to take the ring) after he fell at kazad-dum. and he certainly didn't need to use the ring to destroy sauron up till that time...

but, supposing we make a hypothetical situation where he must take the ring to save middle-earth, then no i don't think he would have. that would be a hard choise for anyone. in the end though, i don't see what he would gain. evil gandlaf is as bad as evil sauron, so you might as well keep you honor, if middle-earth is going to the pits either way. that is the pragmatist's answer. like feanor said, the idealists answer is emphatically "no of course not!" :D

He most definately would have done it...i mean were talking no possible chance of victory other than this... and quite frankly should it come down to this self sacrifice i think(now heres where i get attacked)Eru would have given Gandalf the needed strength to overcome corruption for doing what needed to be done

No one says. But if Eru's anything like God (and I've seen lots of parallels in Tolkien's work) then he wouldn't do something like that. It's not his way or his nature. Think about it.

-- Folwren

To answer the original question...

...so I think this clears up any question of any other alternative than the destruction of the Ring being Good. It wouldn't have been. There was no other saving of Middle-earth.

However, I'm afraid Gandalf himself would disagree with those of you who think he would not have taken the Ring in extremities.

There is here a (I think a very healthy) self-skepticism. I think this illustrates that Gandalf was not immune from the call of the Ring and feared he might succumb. In fact, the whole quest could probably be viewed as Gandalf's desperate attempt to avoid taking the Ring himself.

No. He would not have, not because he lacked compassion, but because he did not lack it. According to the cosmic order Tolkien set up, Middle Earth is a wonderful place that will come to an end. The destiny of the free peoples does not end there. Tolkien's Eru would bring all wrongs to justice in the end, beyond the walls of Arda.

In such an instance it would seem there was a precedent
for Gandalf. As a maia he could have echoed the action of
the Valar when confronted withTar-Minastir and appealed
directly to Iluvatar for his intervention. The central
roblem would seem to be interfering with free will, but
in exceptional cases such as Earendil's appeal and
Numenor such a direct intervention into beings in Middle-earth
would seem an alternative.

Yes, I definitely agree with that. Whatever Eru (and God) chooses to do is right. He can't do anything wrong. And that means he wouldn't make anyone do wrong.

But my point was that people far less than equal to Eru can't choose what is right(fair). They may choose to do what is right(fair), or discover what is right(fair), but they aren't the ones who say this is right(fair) or this is wrong(unfair). It is up to Eru to pronounce what is right(fair). But what is right(fair) might not be the same as what Gandalf thinks is right(fair).

Basically, I'm saying that 'fair' is extremely relative to perspective, and that in situations like this, the only true perspective is Eru's, who knows the whole scheme and works it to his plan.

No he wouldn't have, because that's a test he already passed. By saying no to Saruman -- heck, by taking Saruman's place and becoming the White Wizard "as he was meant to be" -- Gandalf demonstrates that he has, like Galadriel, "passed the test." He too would "pass into the West and remain Gandalf".

I think the text anticipates this sort of question with Denethor, who claims that he would have taken the Ring and used it only in the last resort. Denethor is throughout a foil to Gandalf and we see how in their comparison the strengths of Gandalf (fidelity, wisdom, hope) are subverted in Denethor (pride, madness, despair). That Denethor would have used the Ring in the last resort means that his mirror-image (identical, yet reversed) Gandalf would not.

And there's no need to get into this whole "Eru would not have allowed it to go that far" for three very important reasons:

1) Eru already had let things get much worse at least twice before (Feanor's oath and the thousands of years of warring over the Silmarils; the drowning of Numenor).

2) Eru is not God -- there was no guarantee that things were going to turn out well, only a hope. If there were a guarantee that things were going to turn out well, then Gandalf would have known that (having actually met Eru) and Saruman would have never lost hope, because you can't lose what you can't have, and he wouldn't have had hope he'd have had certainty.

3) Eru doesn't really appear in LotR -- he was a creation of the "later" Tolkien; in the tale of LotR the best you've got is hope that in the long run evil will be defeated, but that might not be within the time of this world. The threat of Sauron's total victory over Middle-Earth is real, that much is made completely clear by the Wise.

Gobtwiddle, my dear sir. Do mean to imply that the first pages of the published Silmarillion (Valaquenta/Ainulindalë) came after Tolkien completed LotR? Gobtwiddle, I say. Or are you saying all the reader can know because all that other stuff wasn't published yet? Or are you saying in the context of LotR alone? Even then, we're talking about Gandalf in the context of Tolkien's entire cosmic structure. And one more point. Eru is not God, but Eru is the the prime deity of Arda, and there are enough similarities such that it is not mere convenience to "confound" the two. Gauntlet thrown, oh deadcomrade of polls and canonicitiness. ;)

Gandalf would break the rules
 

but not by taking the ring. in a desperate situation where Sauron had the ring, gondor, Erebor, Lorien, and just about everywhere else had fallen he would either use his full power or encourage eyeryone (not just elves) to cross the sea to Valinor and explain why when he got there, and prepare for Sauron to attack Valinor (Frodo wondered if Sauron might try this. I think he would), but this is all conjuncture.

I expect that the removal of the knowledge of the "guarantee" would be a necessary part of subjecting the Istari to all the travails of the flesh.

There is no issue here.

"Gobtwiddle"! "Gobtwiddle"!?!?!? The gauntlet is thrown indeed your metrically-organised smallness!

"Do mean to imply that the first pages of the published Silmarillion (Valaquenta/Ainulindalë) came after Tolkien completed LotR?" -- I thought that I was doing far more than imply this. Tolkien revised and revised the Sil until his dying day, and the final published version is also very much the result of Christopher's editing. Both the older Tolkien and his son were far more interested in bringing the cosmos of M-E into a Catholic shape than the Tolkien who wrote LotR, who was interested only -- or at least primarilly -- in telling a ripping good yarn.

"Or are you saying all the reader can know because all that other stuff wasn't published yet?" -- Also a yes.

"Or are you saying in the context of LotR alone?" -- what other context is relevant here? The question as posed is whether or not Gandalf would have taken the Ring; such a situation exists only in the context of LotR.

But the point here is not to address the Eru/God debate (but perhaps the time has come to do so in another, more effective fashion..hmmm.....) but the question of Gandalf's fate. And I still say that the question as asked was answered in the text. He did not take the Ring when it was offered to him, and he made it perfectly clear that it was madness for anyone to try. Further to that, with his reincarnation as Gandalf the White, we see Gandalf having recieved the highest benediction of those in the West: their especial faith that he would never succumb to the Ring.

(*Fordim waits for someone to catch him out in his complete flip-flop here*)

I quite like Bergil's point that Gandalf had other options -- desperate options indeed, but certainly better than taking the One.

Erm.... I don't have a copy of the Letters, and to get one involves going to the library, hoping it's in, and then taking it out... It would be a bit more simpler if the passage and/or the whole letter could be quoted here...

I have a theory here, but I really don't want to air it without reading the passage in case I'm entirely off-base.

Fordim wrote:
This simply isn't true. Eru/Iluvatar existed as early as about 1920, when Tolkien wrote the first version of "The Music of the Ainur". It's true that the final version of the Ainulindale was not written until the 1950s, but the story was not much changed in its essentials (certainly far less than many other parts of the Legendarium).

The other context that may be relevant is that of LotR + the rest of the Legendarium.

Simpler for you, not us.

What you are supposed to do is proceed out from your place of residence or wage slavery (whichever the case may be at the moment) and go forth to the nearest outlet of some multi-tentacled corporate monstrosity of a book purveyor, or (better and better) a locally owned version of the same, and purchase yourself a copy of said Letters for your enlightened reading pleasure. No Tolkien library can be complete without it.

Such silly purchases as food and drink pale in comparison with the need to own Letters.

(Unless you are like me and blow the vast majority of your lucre on video games...that is perfectly legitimate. ;) )

Further to Aiwendil's point re: Eru, in Tolkien & the Great War John Garth sets out the state of the mythology at the time Tolkien went to war (June 1916)

I quite agree, and were I able to do so, I most certainly would. However, Alberta is most definitely a literary wasteland in that I have not once, not ONCE seen the Letters available for sale. Had I done so, I would immediately buy it, having read it (borrowed) enough times to appreciate its value and to thoroughly enjoy myself.

However, I know of nowhere within a reasonable (or even an unreasonable) distance where I can acquire it.

In the meantime, this is not the topic at hand, and there is no point in getting sent to the spice mines of Kessel by the Skwerls.

And don't say I've never done anything nice for you.

AAAAGG! Skwerls!