The Lesser Rings

[littlemanpoet]

I think Mithalwen has one of the keys to this mystery.

I also think it worthwhile to distinguish between the Elvish Arts and Dark Sorcery. The former the Elves did not even name "magic", whereas the latter were not called "magic" either, but sorcery. Is there reference to the Dark Arts in the ouvre?

The "Mouth of Sauron" delved in sorcery, says Tolkien somewhere, thus his long years, I think.

A ring to explain Beorn shape shifting? I doubt it. I think, again, it's too mechanistic an approach to the way Tolkien did his myth making. If you look at his mythic sources, there were shape shifters aplenty and they needed no ring.

As for the lesser rings, is not the template is the Silmarils rather than anything Sauron might contrive? Thus, it requires that the Elves must take from either themselves (their own spirits/fea), or take something from nature/Arda and form it into a ring. So perhaps anything that something from nature could do, they made their "trifle" rings to be able to do?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I have always wondered why "The Voice Of Sauron" was so steenkin' old, without being one of the Nine, and how he wasn't faded, but he wasn't dead either, and how or why that happened. Lesser ring maybe...?

ps. Great point about Beorn, bearskins, and elven experimentation. "But I don't want to be a bear. Who wants this? You do, woodsman? Okay, here, take it."

Ahem... okay, from the reactions I should not have said that Before any more people start about it, no, no and no. It was a joke. Just as elempi says, it was a natural ability for Beorn, it is explicitely stated in The Hobbit (by Gandalf when he is describing Beorn).

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Healing and preservation seem to be the overriding concern of the Elves. I think, too, that the powers of any ring were limited by the abilities of the maker. The Elves were specially gifted as healers; not as shape-shifters or whatnot.

Certainly. But as for healing and preservation, I disagree - it was not the main concern for all Elves, most of all, not for Noldor, who are exactly the ones in question here. Creating, enrichening the world, making beautiful things was the main concern for them, I believe (and that does not mean just jewels, but also cities, or songs... also e.g. if you imagine Teleri, it was ships, so it does not really go only with Noldor. Healing and preserving became prevailing concern only for the late Elves, when Middle-Earth had already reached significant stage of decay, so to say).

Therefore, I am inclined to believe the lesser Rings could be attempts to make one able to e.g. speak with animals like in my previous example (Elves were known for their love in teaching creatures to speak etc, and also understanding was very important for them, at least in their prime); or could enable the bearer to, I don't know, "boost ambient light" or something (along the lines of that you walk into a room lit by a couple of dim candles and then you use your Ring - however one does that - and lo, it seems as if the sunlight had pierced... you get the point), most of all (isn't it even implied somewhere?) to boost one's skills in e.g. singing, or crafting itself (so, one could wear a Ring that would help him make better Rings, or make "magic" weapons akin to the ones of Gondolin, etc.).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I also think it worthwhile to distinguish between the Elvish Arts and Dark Sorcery. The former the Elves did not even name "magic", whereas the latter were not called "magic" either, but sorcery. Is there reference to the Dark Arts in the ouvre?

I believe we can basically distinguish two main types of, for the lack of a better word, "magic" in Middle-Earth: the sorcery (which is the evil thing and usually would operate with controlling something) and then what I would call "Art": because that is what it is, the good thing, the way to e.g. create enchanted weapons (like Glamdring or the Sting), or Silmarils, or even the Elven-cloaks, and similar things. I believe it simply requires one to sort of "enhance" or "imbue" certain thing (in case of the artifacts) with something, like in the case of Silmarils: trivially speaking, you catch some light into a crystal. So this is what I believe would happen with the Rings.

I think what happened with Sauron coming into the process was that he started showing the Elves how to upgrade their works, but also he started slowly introducing his own concepts into them; once you start operating with "control", you are slipping to the sorcery side.

[littlemanpoet]

I like the idea of "trifles too dangerous for Men."

Question is, why too dangerous for men? Because of our penchant for turning things toward power and control? Or is it because being Elvish, they are simply too much for us?

Consider a ring that turns one invisible - if it could do nothing else. In the hands of a Hobbit (closely related to Men), did anything happen that was not as it should have been? (I think the answer to this question is actually pretty easy).

[radagastly]

Originally posted by littlemanpoet:

I think Mithalwen has one of the keys to this mystery.

I suspect this is correct, insofar as Tolkien's motive in mentioning these 'lesser rings' in the first place. It does not explain them in a Middle-Earth context, however. Tolkien is exceptional at devising sources and explanations within his creation (much like Kipling's Just So Stories, "How the Elephant Got its Trunk" and so forth) and I guess that's closer to what I'm interested in, though Tolkien seems to have provided precious little on this particular topic.

littlemanpoet:

I also think it worthwhile to distinguish between the Elvish Arts and Dark Sorcery. The former the Elves did not even name "magic", whereas the latter were not called "magic" either, but sorcery. Is there reference to the Dark Arts in the ouvre?

I must confess to using the term "magic" as shorthand for readers of Tolkien rather than contextually. For Samwise, it was still all "magic," so not completely unprecedented. As for the term "Dark Arts," I don't recall it anywhere in Tolkien. Sounds more like a 'Harry Potter' thing to me.

elempi:

A ring to explain Beorn shape shifting? I doubt it. I think, again, it's too mechanistic an approach to the way Tolkien did his myth making. If you look at his mythic sources, there were shape shifters aplenty and they needed no ring.

Of course, you're right. In fact, I can't think of a world mythology that doesn't include shapeshifters, though I admit my familiarity with mythology is, at best, quite limited. Still, it does provide an amusing recollection of that thread from some years ago that speculated on the source of Beorn's shapeshifting abilities.

elempi again:

As for the lesser rings, is not the template is the Silmarils rather than anything Sauron might contrive? Thus, it requires that the Elves must take from either themselves (their own spirits/fea), or take something from nature/Arda and form it into a ring. So perhaps anything that something from nature could do, they made their "trifle" rings to be able to do?

Certainly the Three Elven Rings reflect the template of the three Silmarils, but I'm not sure how much that applies to the lesser rings, unless you're talking about how they're made. The elves would have put some of themselves, their fea, into the rings they made, but Sauron did the same when he made the One. Does the distinction between Elven Arts and Dark Sorcery lie in the motivation of the artist? At what point does storytelling become propaganda (or, Eru forbid, allegory?)

[Boromir88]

I'm not sure how much help this will be, because it's specifically about the "great" Rings of Power, and not the lesser rings (which there is just such scant info on). But Gandalf says something interesting about the Rings of Power (excluding the One):

"The Nine, the Seven, and the Three, had each their proper gem. Not so the One."~The Council of Elrond

Now we know the gems that adorned the Three. Vilya, had sapphire, diamond for Nenya, and ruby for Narya. The other Rings we don't know the gems, but it seems clear they would have been adorned with a gem.

Furthermore, with the Rings of Power (again excluding the One), Gandalf says "proper gem," which suggests the gem was instrumental, or in some way an important factor in the powers of the rings. For example, Vilya, the Ring of Air, was adorned with a sapphire. Of Manwe:

In Arda his delight is in the winds and the clouds, and in all regions of the air, from the heights to the depths, from the utmost borders of the Veil of Arda to the breezes that blow in the grass.~The Silmarillion: The Valaquenta

More interesting yet, Manwe's sceptre:

His raimant is blue, and blue is the fire of of his eyes, and his sceptre is of sapphire...~Of the Beginning of Days

So, I think there are clear connections between the Rings of Power and gems. The great Rings of Power, specifically having "each their proper gem."

I don't want to tangent too far away from the lesser rings, but is it too much speculation to say whatever purposes the lesser rings were made for, the maker did not set in the "proper gem." Or perhaps no gem at all? Then again, the One has no gem, and it is the most powerful Ring of the bunch; being a simple band of gold. I haven't the faintest clue where this leads the discussion, but I do think at least in ring-crafting (within the context of Middle-earth)...each having a gem is important to the rings' powers.

[Alfirin]

I like some of the theories about the lesser rings. The one peril I see is that, once you start thinking that way, you start seeing rings at the root of all thing. Say the idea of a ring that helps make enchanted weapons. I can imagine such a ring winding up amoung the men of Cardolan; perhaps being the key to their ability to make weapons unusually good at dealing with things like the Nazgul. Or say, a ring that puts you in tune with the plants, handy for conversing with any Ents who might be around in thier native tounge and getting on thier good sides (I suddenly have an image of a young elf wandering through the woods with such a ring, (in Sindarin) "I Talk to the Trees".
Finally we get to the animal talking ring theorized. If such a ring did exist, I can imagine somewhere it might have been, and, regrettably, the damage it might have done. It is based on a theory I have, just follow me. Gandalf describes the rings as perilous. I think it possible that thier peril may run a bit deeper than that proposed by the people above. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think that even the lesser rings may have had a touch of Sauron's taint. I don't think the elves considered making rings of power until Sauron proposed the idea. So while it is true that only the major rings were directly under his control, it is possible that even the first attemps had a little of him in them, and so had a dark side. Therefore I think that it is possible that, while a lesser ring would not put someone in Sauron's thrall, it might corrupt them no matter who they were. Specifically, I am thinking of Radagast, and his fall from his mission. Suppose at some point, Radagast had gotten his hands on a "talk to the animals" ring, for some reason or other (maybe he though being able to talk to the animals would help his mission) The ring does indeed let him talk to and understand the animals. However, the more he uses it, the more he loves the animals, until finally, they are more important to him than his stated mission, and he strays from his intended path. One problem with this idea is of course the fact that Saruman would presumably take such a ring from Radagast, given his interest in ringlore. On the other hand, Saruman, if he was already well learned in the lore, might consider such a ring too weak to trifle with, or of no practical use to himself (Saruman after all, really does not love nature (in fact, he basically hates it) and so the abiklity to get closer to it woul likey not appeal to him much.
The only proposed power I do not really think a ring would be made for is increasing ambient light. Such a ring would likey be considered of little use to the elves. Remember that all of these rings are being made by Noldorians, and the Noldorians already have the Feanorian Lamps, and (from the description) those seem like almost mass produced everyday articles. I'm not all that sure the Noldor would even use candles when they had those (after all, the lamps never go out) Plus, elves have very good night vision (to see in the days before the sunlight, they'd have to) so even the light of one candle is probably enough for thier needs.

[radagastly]

Oringinally posted by Legate of Amon Lanc:

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Certainly. But as for healing and preservation, I disagree - it was not the main concern for all Elves, most of all, not for Noldor, who are exactly the ones in question here. Creating, enrichening the world, making beautiful things was the main concern for them, I believe (and that does not mean just jewels, but also cities, or songs... also e.g. if you imagine Teleri, it was ships, so it does not really go only with Noldor. Healing and preserving became prevailing concern only for the late Elves, when Middle-Earth had already reached significant stage of decay, so to say).

This may accidentally provide some insight into Celebrimbor's motives in creating the Three. Is it possible he was beginning to see the potential for harm represented by the previous sixteen Great Rings as well as at least some of the lesser rings, the ones created with Sauron's direct help? Perhaps he was given to try and heal the problems caused by these rings. After all, we don't know much about the specific intended applications of the Seven or of the Nine, or of any of the lesser rings.
Oringinally posted by Legate of Amon Lanc:

I believe we can basically distinguish two main types of, for the lack of a better word, "magic" in Middle-Earth: the sorcery (which is the evil thing and usually would operate with controlling something) and then what I would call "Art": because that is what it is, the good thing, the way to e.g. create enchanted weapons (like Glamdring or the Sting), or Silmarils, or even the Elven-cloaks, and similar things. I believe it simply requires one to sort of "enhance" or "imbue" certain thing (in case of the artifacts) with something, like in the case of Silmarils: trivially speaking, you catch some light into a crystal. So this is what I believe would happen with the Rings.

I like this distinction between "Control" and "Enhancement." Partly because I didn't think of it, so it's something new to me. Of course, enhancement is, in itself, a kind of control, though more cooperative. A race horse wins more when it allows itself to trust and be controlled by a skilled jockey. Might this actually mark the distinction between the lesser rings and the Great Rings? Consider Sauron teaching the elves greater and greater skills at capturing some kind of "enhancement" within a ring until it reached it's zenith, and then the next inevitable step in improving the craft was for the elves to impose "control" through the rings they made. This would certainly fit in with Sauron devising a "trap" which he finally sprung with the creation of the One. Just a passing thought.

elempi:

Question is, why too dangerous for men? Because of our penchant for turning things toward power and control? Or is it because being Elvish, they are simply too much for us?

I think in a world full of immortal elves, mortal men might be prone to impatience in themselves. An elf might take a hundred years to compose a single song and think nothing of the time. A man could take that long, but would likely be frustrated by it. And he probably wouldn't consider it as good. So, I guess, the answer would be a little of both. This impatience could lead to great deeds, but would also temp men toward 'shortcuts.' So mortality leads to impationce which leads risking power and control, despite the fact that it may be too much for us.

Originally posted by Boromir88:

So, I think there are clear connections between the Rings of Power and gems. The great Rings of Power, specifically having "each their proper gem."

I don't want to tangent too far away from the lesser rings, but is it too much speculation to say whatever purposes the lesser rings were made for, the maker did not set in the "proper gem." Or perhaps no gem at all? Then again, the One has no gem, and it is the most powerful Ring of the bunch; being a simple band of gold. I haven't the faintest clue where this leads the discussion, but I do think at least in ring-crafting (within the context of Middle-earth)...each having a gem is important to the rings' powers.

I wonder if anyone knows if rings (even in our real, modern world) were invented in order to wear and display a gem or for some other purpose. Only simple wedding bands in our world seem to be unadorned. Popes and Kings wear signet rings each with a gem or insignia of some kind. Does anyone know?

I suspect even the lesser rings had gems of some kind. But no two gems are alike. Diamonds have flaws and inclusions, and anyone shopping for an engagement ring learns about the four 'c's' (cut, caret, clarity and color.) Might they have had cheaper stones, or the wrong kind for their specific purpose (If, as seems to be some concensus, they each had a specific purpose?)

Originally posted by Alfirin:

I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think that even the lesser rings may have had a touch of Sauron's taint. I don't think the elves considered making rings of power until Sauron proposed the idea. So while it is true that only the major rings were directly under his control, it is possible that even the first attemps had a little of him in them, and so had a dark side. Therefore I think that it is possible that, while a lesser ring would not put someone in Sauron's thrall, it might corrupt them no matter who they were.

This was my thought as well. Certainly, since the lesser rings did not grant extended life they wouldn't have time to really turn someone into a full-on Nazgul, but it could certainly lead them towards what Gandalf would call "mischief."

[Lalwendë]

I don't think that any lesser rings would have possessed any great power as we know that it wasn't until Sauron in the guise of Annatar came along, that Celebrimbor managed to create the Three rings. And if you consider that the greater Rings all seemed to possess qualities specific to the three main races of Middle-earth, then these lesser/early rings may also have only been designed to work for the Elves who crafted them.

Saruman probably did have one of them at least, he certainly knows enough Ring Lore:

The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is his province. He has long studied it, seeking the lost secrets of their making;

But I don't think that the ring he wore himself was one of these 'essays'. He was probably second only to Sauron in Middle-earth for his ability in crafts in the Third Age and I believe more than capable of creating his own ring. It also fits with his deluded determination to go a 'third way'. He was always one step ahead of Gandalf with regard to the rings, even getting to the libraries of Minas Tirith before him. he may even have had ulterior motives in driving Sauron out of Mirkwood - he insists the One Ring is lost but seems to know it is somewhere.

'"White!" he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
'"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Here I always think of him breaking the Light. But like other passages from Tolkien's work, it can have layers of meaning and Gandalf is likely also referring to Saruman investigating how 'magic' rings work by breaking them. If Saruman broke an Elven ring it could easily be seen as breaking a thing of Light given how many of the great Elven artefacts are linked to the divinity of Light.

Saruman knows that he still needs the One ring though, if he is to achieve his 'third way'. I always wonder if he knows that he could wield it in defiance of Sauron or if he has been deceived by Sauron. Galadriel thinks she could wield it too, and thankfully is self aware enough to reject it, knowing that this would make her own power a terrible thing (and she knows she is already being somewhat defiant by wielding the power she already does possess). I think Saruman by this time has reached the very limit of his own considerable skill, and with this, he would have gone way beyond simply using a cast-off Elven ring.

Where those 'essays' went is interesting. Maybe Sauron also gained some control over them? A ring is a symbol both of eternity and of capture. The Nine very much capture those Men who wear them and while their bodies wither, their spirits endure, held together or trapped within the rings they wear. A little like Sauron with the One. Maybe Gandalf warns against them as he is worried by this prospect? I know I would be. He says "to my mind" which suggests this is his personal worry. I don't think I would be tempted to risk wearing one - the existence of Anglo-Saxon rings of power in the real world such as the Bramham Moor Ring, inscribed with spells, is enough to give me a shiver.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Furthermore, with the Rings of Power (again excluding the One), Gandalf says "proper gem," which suggests the gem was instrumental, or in some way an important factor in the powers of the rings. For example, Vilya, the Ring of Air, was adorned with a sapphire.
(...)

So, I think there are clear connections between the Rings of Power and gems. The great Rings of Power, specifically having "each their proper gem."

I don't want to tangent too far away from the lesser rings, but is it too much speculation to say whatever purposes the lesser rings were made for, the maker did not set in the "proper gem." Or perhaps no gem at all? Then again, the One has no gem, and it is the most powerful Ring of the bunch; being a simple band of gold. I haven't the faintest clue where this leads the discussion, but I do think at least in ring-crafting (within the context of Middle-earth)...each having a gem is important to the rings' powers.

I think what you bring up are interesting thoughts about the Three (or possibly the rest of the Great Rings, or the Rings in general), that there might be something special about the stones chosen as well. However, while I agree with the positive interpretation (the proper stone can make the Ring fulfil its ultimate purpose in the best possible manner), I do not think it works in the negative way (if a Ring does not have its proper stone, something is wrong).

I think you are misinterpreting the word "proper", or at least I never understood it that way. Granted, English is not my native language, but I have always thought that "proper" here means simply "characteristic", i.e. the stone that belongs to it, you can identify it that way. Let's say, Vilya has a sapphire in it. That is its "proper" gem - in latin, "proprius" means something like "characteristic" or "distinctive". Even the English word "propriety" does not denote something "correct", but simply something that belongs to someone. So it was a stone that belonged to that Ring, that is what I believe Gandalf meant, nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I like some of the theories about the lesser rings. The one peril I see is that, once you start thinking that way, you start seeing rings at the root of all thing. Say the idea of a ring that helps make enchanted weapons. I can imagine such a ring winding up amoung the men of Cardolan; perhaps being the key to their ability to make weapons unusually good at dealing with things like the Nazgul. Or say, a ring that puts you in tune with the plants, handy for conversing with any Ents who might be around in thier native tounge and getting on thier good sides (I suddenly have an image of a young elf wandering through the woods with such a ring, (in Sindarin) "I Talk to the Trees".

Why? Middle-Earth was so full of "strange creatures beyond count" - and also things beyond count, I should add at this point - so why should one start seeing Rings behind everything? There are dozens of powerful and wise men mentioned, say, in Gondor's chronicles, I can imagine one or two owning some random lesser Rings they found somewhere randomly, and being renowned for their wisdom because of it... but then the Rings would get lost, forgotten, stolen by pirates, stolen by Orcs, you name it. The story of Gollum's grandmother owning hundreds of magic Rings seemed crazy to Gandalf, but I get the impression that if she had owned just one (but of course not shared it merrily with every passing-by Déagol), it wouldn't have seemed anything that unimaginable for Gandalf. A Ring owned by an Orc chieftain renowned for his suspiciously keen mind. A Ring owned by a guardian of Lórien feared by the Orcs, because it seems one cannot hide in the deepest darkness from him. Thousands of minor characters like that certainly have existed throughout the two Ages of history of Middle-Earth when the Rings were present. We basically only know of one story (Hobbit/LotR), however important one, for something like six thousand years... that covers very little part of Middle-Earth, its inhabitants (even the important ones), and its artifacts, of course.

And just for the record, I do not think Radagast needed any Ring for his communication with the animals (nor for his "fall from duty". He loved animals even without any Ring). On top of everything, I find Radagast such a "natural" person that I would really find it awkward for him to mess around with any Rings...

Originally Posted by Alfirin

The only proposed power I do not really think a ring would be made for is increasing ambient light. Such a ring would likey be considered of little use to the elves. Remember that all of these rings are being made by Noldorians, and the Noldorians already have the Feanorian Lamps, and (from the description) those seem like almost mass produced everyday articles. I'm not all that sure the Noldor would even use candles when they had those (after all, the lamps never go out) Plus, elves have very good night vision (to see in the days before the sunlight, they'd have to) so even the light of one candle is probably enough for thier needs.

Let us please remember that I was giving examples, just like with the bear shapeshifting. From what we know there seem to have been probably at least dozens of "lesser Rings" made by the smiths, each of them very likely with different purpose (or some of them with similar, but still there would be enough distinctive ones). I have named like three possibilites. But this "ambient light", why not? Yes, Elves had Noldo-lamps (though I didn't see any in the Third Age!), but they also had the Star-glass Galadriel gave to Frodo - let's face it, Elves loved to play with light (and especially since the moment the Trees died, so basically... all the time). Such a Ring would make sense.

Originally Posted by radagastly

After all, we don't know much about the specific intended applications of the Seven or of the Nine, or of any of the lesser rings.

It is implied about the Dwarven rings - or, we know about one that it was meant to "breed gold" (even though it "needed gold to breed gold") - not sure what exactly to imagine under it (probably not a "Multiplying Ring", as in: insert a coin, two coins fall out), maybe it was a "Ring of Lucky Precious Ore-Seeking" or "Ring Making One A Skilful Merchant". In any case, the Dwarven Rings seem to be "economic Rings", as is fit for them (though, since they originally were not really intended for Dwarves, maybe it sort of was how they came to be used by their owners - maybe originally they were some sort of "Craft" or "Beauty-creating" Rings). The Nine seem to be more of the "Power and Mind-Enhancing" sort, not sure if it is directly implied, but it is said that the Nazgul became powerful Kings of Men (or already were before they got the Rings, but became more powerful after that), and some became great sorcerers etc. - so maybe the Rings were the cause for this? Rings "boosting" one's knowledge (and whether one decided to use it for studying the "arts of the Enemy" or something else was another matter), perhaps spirit, prowess, ability to see into people's hearts? (And once again, that can be used for good - to facilitate communication - or for bad, to manipulate people more easily, which would probably be the case of the Nazgul.)

Which is basically what I meant by this Control-Enhancement difference, as radagastly pointed out:

Originally Posted by radagastly

I like this distinction between "Control" and "Enhancement." Partly because I didn't think of it, so it's something new to me. Of course, enhancement is, in itself, a kind of control, though more cooperative. A race horse wins more when it allows itself to trust and be controlled by a skilled jockey. Might this actually mark the distinction between the lesser rings and the Great Rings? Consider Sauron teaching the elves greater and greater skills at capturing some kind of "enhancement" within a ring until it reached it's zenith, and then the next inevitable step in improving the craft was for the elves to impose "control" through the rings they made. This would certainly fit in with Sauron devising a "trap" which he finally sprung with the creation of the One. Just a passing thought.

So, exactly - you can create a Ring to see into people's hearts, to better understand them, a very good and useful thing... and then click, Sauron makes this one more step to make the Rings basically an instrument of control of other people.

Originally Posted by radagastly

I suspect even the lesser rings had gems of some kind. But no two gems are alike. Diamonds have flaws and inclusions, and anyone shopping for an engagement ring learns about the four 'c's' (cut, caret, clarity and color.) Might they have had cheaper stones, or the wrong kind for their specific purpose (If, as seems to be some concensus, they each had a specific purpose?)

I also think many of the lesser ones had stones. Although from Gandalf's pondering about the One (though how much Gandalf actually knew about the Rings is another topic), probably some of them also didn't (so that if you found an evidently magic Ring without gem, you couldn't be sure if it's the One or one of the others which had no gem). But that much is obvious, I think.

[Formendacil]

The question of the gems proper to the Great Rings makes me think about the exception to that rule, the One Ring, and that makes me think about a couple of things that are only tenuously related to the discussion of the Lesser Rings--nonetheless, it is fun to speculate.

What crops up in my mind is this: in HoME X, aptly titled Morgoth's Ring, there is an essay where Tolkien compares Melkor's diffusion of his own power into the whole matter of Arda to Sauron's infusion of his power into the Ring, and Tolkien says that Sauron specifically used gold in the creation of the One Ring because it had, as an element or ore, particularly high amounts of Melkor-ness. Silver, on the other hand, is singled out as being one of the purest metals (I would speculate that, in a like manner, water could be assumed to be one of the purest elements of Arda's physical matter, and maybe the air of Manwë).

In addition to this is the idea that has been brought up here that the gemstones of the Great Rings might be significant. The Sapphire connection to Manwë in Vilya seems especially apt, and I wonder if it's not too much of a stretch to hope for a diamond-Elbereth connection for Nenya (after all, Galadriel is very much a Varda-figure in The Lord of the Rings). This leaves Narya, and while I can make no obvious connection between it and one of the Valar, its red stone nonetheless makes a fairly close connection to Gandalf's use of it as "kindling" (i.e. lighting a fire--fires being red).

The connection here that I would put forward--as a theory and as nothing but a theory--is that the gemstones in the Great Rings have something of an analogy to the use of gold in the One Ring. What precisely they *DO* is beyond me to explain, or how they do it, but the "magicks" of the Elves are, as has already been pointed out in this thread, an Art--and I would lean on that word a bit to suggest that an Art suggests that it is a Craft (albeit one that can be done well according to the gift of the craftsman), which is something that can be made with materials--and although there is a lot of emphasis on the craftsmanship of Celebrimbor, nothing is said in the text about the significance of his materials.

What I am propounding, therefore, is a suggestion that what sets apart the Lesser Rings from the Great Rings is, in part, their different materials--or that in the Great Rings the natural potencies of the gems were unlocked by a combination of the Ring-Control/Enhancement (as it has been suggested here) already found in the Lesser Rings, not simply working on the user, but allowing him/her to access further power of Arda itself, as most appropriate to the gem.

The thing about this speculative schema that appeals to me is that it makes a connection between the One Ring and the other Great Rings that allows the lesser Rings to have been a purely Elven Art--indeed, it is easy to see Ring-making as an Eregion reinvention of something the Noldor did in Valinor. The idea that the gems have "innate powers" or what-have-you sits a bit uncomfortably with me, seeming not quite-Middle-earth, but I console myself with the Noldor were always gem-makers, and although the Silmarils are the gems par excellence that they made, it is not impossible that the lesser gems might have had a lesser power just as they had a lesser lustre.

In this conception, the Lesser Rings may well have had gems--it is simply that the gems would not have been of any extra benefit compared to an unadorned Lesser Ring. It is the gems specifically then, in the Great Rings, that allowed the ringbearer great power over nature--but because they were opened up to tap into this "matter of Arda" power, Sauron's One Ring, forged of gold specifically to tap into the Melkor-element in the matter of Arda, was able to get in and control the other ringbearers.

Having said all that, I realise it's all unprovable, but hopefully it will be seen as somewhat plausible--or, at the very least, as highlighting an element or two of the Rings that can bear a touch more scrutiny.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In addition to this is the idea that has been brought up here that the gemstones of the Great Rings might be significant. The Sapphire connection to Manwë in Vilya seems especially apt, and I wonder if it's not too much of a stretch to hope for a diamond-Elbereth connection for Nenya (after all, Galadriel is very much a Varda-figure in The Lord of the Rings). This leaves Narya, and while I can make no obvious connection between it and one of the Valar, its red stone nonetheless makes a fairly close connection to Gandalf's use of it as "kindling" (i.e. lighting a fire--fires being red).

Well there are connections to gemstone symbolism and the powers of the Rings they were set in.

Sapphire = protection, foresight, prophetic wisdom (all quite apt for Elrond, and maybe Manwe)

Diamond = This seems to have a wider range of symbols. But for the most part, the hardness of a diamond symbolizes great strength, but also clarity and beauty (more specifically enhancing relationships since diamonds have been adopted as the rock you put into engagement rings)

Ruby = vitality, courage, confidence, passion. Which all seem fitting with the reasons Cirdan gave Narya to Gandalf:

"Take this ring, Master," he said, "for your labours will be heavy; but it will support you in the weariness that you have taken upon yourself. For this is the Ring of Fire, and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill."~Appendix B: The Third Age

So, I agree with Legate now that the great rings weren't the Rings of Power because they had the "correct" gem, and the lesser rings had incorrect gems. Although, I think "proper gem" in this case is still important, and means more than say a "characteristic." I'm thinking of "appropriate." That is, the Rings of Power were each adorned with the appropriate gem, according to the designs of maker. With the Elven Rings, this would be Celebrimbor, and in crafting them for purposes of preservation/healing, set in each a proper gem that specified their powers.

I think it's important to keep in mind, that the "lesser rings" are only comparitively lesser, because of the Rings of Power. In a world without the great Rings of Power, I think the lesser rings would still be objects of power and "magic." Not that anyone is making the argument the lesser rings were useless scrap metal, but just keeping in mind the only reason they seem to be called "lesser" is to compare and separate them from the 19 Rings.

In the mind of say Sauron (and at a later point Saruman), the lesser rings would be "toys" and "trifles" because they're not important to their ultimate goal of subjugation. These rings are insignificant, but it's interesting to me that Gandalf still appears to find ALL rings of power dangerous. As much as I mentioned above about the positive symbols of the gems in the Elven rings, I think all gemstones carry baggage too. I mean the history of diamonds is full of exploitation, bloodshed, and negative baggage. All the Rings of Power (even the Elven Rings) were dangerous, if used uncarefully. My interpretation has always been, the Elven bearers use their Rings for good, but also only as a necessity (I believe they conceal them when Sauron possesses the One, yes)? So, it's more about the Elves ability to limit how they use their Rings, where the Dwarves and Men greedily hoarded wealth and power, to the point where it consumed Men to slavery and caused a lot of difficulties for the Dwarves. For as Gandalf says:

"A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo."~The Shadow of of the Past

Now this depends on whether Gandalf means "A Ring of Power" as only one of the 19, and the One, or if he's including the lesser rings of power here. Still, at least according to Gandalf, he's not only talking about the One, but anything that is included as a "Ring of Power."

Obviously the lesser rings are not as powerful as the 19 Rings. However, if we think, the reason they're termed "lesser rings" is out of necessity to separate them from the 19 Rings, and therefor these lesser rings are also "Rings of Power," in their own respect, we can probably see why Gandalf thought all these rings were dangerous, depending upon the strength of will in the ring-bearer.

[littlemanpoet]

Sorry, I haven't read every post.

Has anyone mentioned the symbolism of the shape of a ring? A circle, it binds the finger. It holds the ring-bearer prisoner, symbolically. This suggests to me that a ring as a crafted Elvish item holds a different kind of power by virtue of being a ring, as opposed to lembas, elven rope, elven cloaks, silmarilli, phials, or what have you. That Elves made many items other than rings, as exampled above, bespeaks to me the significance and symbolism of the shape itself.

Not only in shape, but think of the ring's prominence in (at least western) human culture. It is the symbol of the promises/vows binding two people together in marriage. Thus, culturally, rings are linked to bondage, whether willing or forced.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Lalwendë:

I don't think that any lesser rings would have possessed any great power as we know that it wasn't until Sauron in the guise of Annatar came along, that Celebrimbor managed to create the Three rings. And if you consider that the greater Rings all seemed to possess qualities specific to the three main races of Middle-earth, then these lesser/early rings may also have only been designed to work for the Elves who crafted them.

In "The Tale of Years" at the end of Return of the King it says:

Second Age:
1200--Sauron endeavors to seduce the Eldar. Gil-galad refuses to treat with him; but the smiths of Eregion are won over.
1500--The Elven-smiths instructed by Sauron reach the height of their skill. They begin the forging of the Rings of Power.
1600--Sauron forges the One Ring in Orodruin. He completes the Barad-dur. Celebrimbor perceives the designs of Sauron.

So three-hundred years of instruction preceded the beginning of the work on the Great Rings which took another hundred years to complete, before Sauron forged the One to trap them. I think that in three-hundred years many lesser rings, or practice rings, were made under Sauron's tutelage and likely had ever improved skill and ever increasing power and scope.

It may also be significant that it specifies "the smiths" of Eregion, rather than "the elves" of Eregion. Perhaps these smiths were already making rings with some kind of power, or "magic" even before Sauron showed up. Maybe they did invent the idea after all, and Sauron merely guided their development in a direction of his choosing.

Legate of Amon Lanc: (just a little side note)

Even the English word "propriety" does not denote something "correct", but simply something that belongs to someone.

This is true in a strict sense, but it does carries a connotation of something "correct," especially when considered against its opposite, "impropriety," as in, "The politician commited an act of impropriety by dating his secretary."


Originally posted by Legate of Amon Lanc:

I think what you bring up are interesting thoughts about the Three (or possibly the rest of the Great Rings, or the Rings in general), that there might be something special about the stones chosen as well. However, while I agree with the positive interpretation (the proper stone can make the Ring fulfil its ultimate purpose in the best possible manner), I do not think it works in the negative way (if a Ring does not have its proper stone, something is wrong).

Originally posted by Formendacil:

What crops up in my mind is this: in HoME X, aptly titled Morgoth's Ring, there is an essay where Tolkien compares Melkor's diffusion of his own power into the whole matter of Arda to Sauron's infusion of his power into the Ring, and Tolkien says that Sauron specifically used gold in the creation of the One Ring because it had, as an element or ore, particularly high amounts of Melkor-ness. Silver, on the other hand, is singled out as being one of the purest metals (I would speculate that, in a like manner, water could be assumed to be one of the purest elements of Arda's physical matter, and maybe the air of Manwë).

Learning to make rings is beginning to sound to me like learning to cook. For example, you can scoop out an avacado and mash the flesh and you have guacamole. But it'll turn brown in just a few minutes so you add some lime juice to stop the reaction. But it still tastes kinda bland, so you throw in some jalepino and onion and garlic and cilantro. But all the extra flavors make the buttery flavor of the avacado taste kinda watery so you stir in some sour cream. But the dairy mutes the heat of the jalapino so you add a spicier chile like cerrano or scotch bonnet. And so on and so on and so on . . .

So when making a ring do you use gold? or silver? or mithril or platinum or iron? Copper or brass or bronze or lead? Pure metal or alloy? Do you set it with diamond or ruby or saphire or emerald or maybe nothing at all? It becomes a whole alchemical world. And then then there is the personality of the ring-smith to consider. Sauron infused a part of himself into the One Ring. Celebrimbor did the same with the three, so we can guess that was part of the process. Two different ring-smiths could each make a ring that performed essentially the same kind of charm or effect, but one might need to use mithril and the other needed gold? And how much more commitment from these Elven-smiths would be required as this craft transitioned from rings of "enhancement" to rings of "control?"

Originally posted by littlemanpoet:

Has anyone mentioned the symbolism of the shape of a ring? A circle, it binds the finger. It holds the ring-bearer prisoner, symbolically. This suggests to me that a ring as a crafted Elvish item holds a different kind of power by virtue of being a ring, as opposed to lembas, elven rope, elven cloaks, silmarilli, phials, or what have you. That Elves made many items other than rings, as exampled above, bespeaks to me the significance and symbolism of the shape itself.

Somewhere (I forget which book at the moment, perhaps someone else remembers) it says that the Elves put some of themselves into all they make. This is true of all art, whether on the page or the painting or the performance. When the artist bares his soul this honesty makes the subsequent art compelling and powerful in a way that cannot be faked or mechanically reproduced. Combining this naked honesty with the perfect circle, a symbol of binding and of eternity, of commitment, and the subsequent art would inevitably become a ring of power (at least some power.) It occurs to me that the simple invention of "magic" rings, considering the escalating commitment and subsequent escalating power involved, may well have been the beginning of the end for the elves in Middle-Earth, regardless of Sauron's influence. Perhaps the path he led them down was, after all, almost pre-ordained. He "enhanced" them to "control" them, but ended up destroying them instead. Only Celebrimbor, by creating the Three Rings of healing and preservation, seems to have provided any hope.