The effect of the Great Rings upon Men

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

Originally Posted by Galin

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.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

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. 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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by 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.