The Lesser Rings

[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.

[Inziladun]

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.

Then again, the only other ring in the books I can recall mention of is Finrod Felagund's, which he gave to Beren's father Barahir. There is no indication of when it was made, or why, though we are expressly told it did not confer any special abilities. It was much later given by the last king of Arnor, Arvedui, to the Snowmen of Forochel.

This is a thing of worth beyond your reckoning. For its ancientry alone. It has no power, save the esteem in which those who hold it who love my house.

RoTK Appendix A

That Arvedui felt the need to clarify that that particular ring held no power seems significant. Did he assume the Snowmen knew of the Rings of Power? Or were indeed the 'lesser' rings that did have special properties commonly known to Men?

[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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.

There's that phrase which Gandalf uses though: "to my mind", which suggests to me that this fear of what powers other rings may possess is a fear that Gandalf knows he is either alone or in a minority with. It may be that Gandalf is more than a bit spooked having direct experience of watching what use of the One Ring does to someone, and is therefore more worried than other are. The question here is whether he is justified in his caution. But he knows it's his opinion, and not a universal truth.

Originally Posted by radagastly

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.

I agree, given that expansive time frame, it's possible that some of these 'essays' might have been more powerful than expected. How long would it take to craft a ring (maybe the answer is similar to 'how long is a piece of string...')? Would a smith become suspicious should a ring, once made, possess unpleasant or dangerous properties?

I like the idea that Sauron came to Eregion in part to learn and improve on his own ring lore and ring making skills. Maybe watching how these items were made and thus working out how he might make one which surpassed all others. It fits nicely (in a metaphorical sense certainly, and perhaps more) with the appearance of the One Ring, which is a plain gold which only reveals its secret once plunged into fire.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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.

And building from this, note how the Nine and the One seem to 'break' the bonds set by Eru on the body and spirit (hroa and fea) of Men in particular. With the Nine, the hroa fades away and with the One it temporarily disappears entirely. I'm still convinced, from everything I've read, that the way these rings work is by exposing the fea and thus the minds of Men who wear them to Sauron. The Elven rings work in a similar but more subtle and appropriate way.

On Morgoth, from Osanwe-Kenta:

For he would come by stealth to a mind open and unwary, hoping to learn some part of its thought before it closed, and still more to implant in it his own thought, to deceive it and win it to his friendship.

And a little something on Sauron:

his desire was to set a bond upon the Elves and to bring them under his vigilance

Again, this is a quote from Osanwe-Kenta:

And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow. And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them.

"the lesser rings" - what does Tolkien mean, exactly, here?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There's that phrase which Gandalf uses though: "to my mind", which suggests to me that this fear of what powers other rings may possess is a fear that Gandalf knows he is either alone or in a minority with. It may be that Gandalf is more than a bit spooked having direct experience of watching what use of the One Ring does to someone, and is therefore more worried than other are. The question here is whether he is justified in his caution. But he knows it's his opinion, and not a universal truth.

This would be consistent with Gandalf's opinions about other things--the palantíri come to mind. Tolkien is quite clear in the essay on them in Unfinished Tales that Denethor, as Steward, had full right to use the Anor-stone, and that Aragorn had the same to use the Orthanc-stone; nonetheless, Gandalf sees it as highly dangerous to do so, and even cautions Aragorn (his closest collaborator in many respects, and possibly the Man he trusts most) about doing so.

This is, I would say, Gandalf's normal approach, and it makes him quite different from Saruman. Whereas Gandalf approaches such things with as little pride as possible, Saruman basically says "oooh, something I can use--let me test it to the fullness of its abilities, without regard for the possible consequences."

All of which is to say: I agree with lalwendë that a caution from Gandalf about the dangers of a "trifle" suggest that something like the Lesser Rings weren't so much evil as potentially dangerous--like, for example, a teenager with a motorcycle.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

This is, I would say, Gandalf's normal approach, and it makes him quite different from Saruman. Whereas Gandalf approaches such things with as little pride as possible, Saruman basically says "oooh, something I can use--let me test it to the fullness of its abilities, without regard for the possible consequences."

All of which is to say: I agree with lalwendë that a caution from Gandalf about the dangers of a "trifle" suggest that something like the Lesser Rings weren't so much evil as potentially dangerous--like, for example, a teenager with a motorcycle.

Originally Posted by radagastly

It's possible his own ring gave him some extra insight on the matter, I suppose. We never hear Elrond's or Galadriel's opinions to compare it to, but I suspect you're right. Gandalf seems to do an awful lot of fretting. Maybe that's how he was able to stay true to his mission.

And to be fair on Saruman, he is one of Aule's people, so I'd expect him to find objects and fiddle with them to see what they can do. Maybe if he had not used the Palantir quite so much, he would have come up with some interesting solutions to the problems of Middle-earth. Gandalf is quite the opposite - and much of the story of Lord of the Rings comprises of people doing things that Gandalf would rather they didn't do.

Originally Posted by radagastly

Somewhere later (I'm sorry, I forget where, and I can't seem to find it.) Frodo is told that this shining figure was Glorfindel as he appears on the other side because he came from over the sea, and was filled with the memory of the Undying Lands and I think that this memory never faded from those who ever once beheld it. I wonder if this is why Sauron was said the fear Galadriel. She was the only Elf left of any import to Sauron who had come from across the sea. Just a side-note I guess, perhaps a question for another thread, though it does fit in with your assessment of how the Great Rings worked. Perhaps the lesser rings provided a similar, though more limited, insight.

Good find!

Frodo can see the Riders, obviously, and Glorfindel - who possesses something extra in his 'fea' because he has been across the Sea. What are the 'small shadowy forms waving flames'?

Perhaps this is why Galadriel would be such an incredibly powerful leader if she had taken the One ring - if she also possesses the same intensity of Light that Glorfindel does, then if she was in control of Sauron's ring then she would be truly terrifying. This also brings me back to the discussion about 'proper' stones in the Elven rings as Nenya has the 'white' stone. It seems to possess qualities not just of water but also of Light. So it was not just the 'proper' stone for the ring, but also the correct/proper stone for Galadriel.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Lalwende:

There's that phrase which Gandalf uses though: "to my mind", which suggests to me that this fear of what powers other rings may possess is a fear that Gandalf knows he is either alone or in a minority with. It may be that Gandalf is more than a bit spooked having direct experience of watching what use of the One Ring does to someone, and is therefore more worried than other are. The question here is whether he is justified in his caution. But he knows it's his opinion, and not a universal truth.

It's possible his own ring gave him some extra insight on the matter, I suppose. We never hear Elrond's or Galadriel's opinions to compare it to, but I suspect you're right. Gandalf seems to do an awful lot of fretting. Maybe that's how he was able to stay true to his mission.

Originally posted by Formendacil:

This would be consistent with Gandalf's opinions about other things--the palantíri come to mind. Tolkien is quite clear in the essay on them in Unfinished Tales that Denethor, as Steward, had full right to use the Anor-stone, and that Aragorn had the same to use the Orthanc-stone; nonetheless, Gandalf sees it as highly dangerous to do so, and even cautions Aragorn (his closest collaborator in many respects, and possibly the Man he trusts most) about doing so.

Good note about the Palantiri. He seems constantly worried about the people he cares about putting too much trust in, for lack of a better word, technology. Even the lesser rings could be a danger in the wrong hands, or hands too weak. And how would you know they were too weak, until they were tested. Like Pippin with the Palantir. After the fact, he must settle for "The burned hand teaches best," when he might have preferred "I told you so."


Originally posted by Formendacil:

All of which is to say: I agree with lalwendë that a caution from Gandalf about the dangers of a "trifle" suggest that something like the Lesser Rings weren't so much evil as potentially dangerous--like, for example, a teenager with a motorcycle.

Of course, they could be both, at least in Gandalf's opinion.

Lalwende:

And building from this, note how the Nine and the One seem to 'break' the bonds set by Eru on the body and spirit (hroa and fea) of Men in particular. With the Nine, the hroa fades away and with the One it temporarily disappears entirely.

I'm glad you pointed this out. The Great Rings gave indefinitely long life to their bearers. They delayed the Gift of Iluvatar, but the lesser rings did not, despite many of them being tainted with Sauron's influence.

I'm still convinced, from everything I've read, that the way these rings work is by exposing the fea and thus the minds of Men who wear them to Sauron. The Elven rings work in a similar but more subtle and appropriate way.

In FotR, "Many Meetings,"Gandalf says:

You were in gravest peril while you wore the Ring, for then you were half in the wraith-world yourself, and they might have seized you. You could see them and they could see you.

And earlier, in "Flight to the Ford:"

With his last failing senses Frodo heard cries, and it seemed to him that he saw, beyond the Riders that hesitated on the shore, a shining figure of white light; and behind it ran small shadowy forms waving flames, that flared red in the grey mist that was falling over the world.

Somewhere later (I'm sorry, I forget where, and I can't seem to find it.) Frodo is told that this shining figure was Glorfindel as he appears on the other side because he came from over the sea, and was filled with the memory of the Undying Lands and I think that this memory never faded from those who ever once beheld it. I wonder if this is why Sauron was said the fear Galadriel. She was the only Elf left of any import to Sauron who had come from across the sea. Just a side-note I guess, perhaps a question for another thread, though it does fit in with your assessment of how the Great Rings worked. Perhaps the lesser rings provided a similar, though more limited, insight.

Again, this is a quote from Osanwe-Kenta:

"the lesser rings" - what does Tolkien mean, exactly, here?

Being deliberately vague, do you think?