Lúthien Tinúviel & the Istari
 

So we all know that the Istari were Maia from Valinor who were trapped/imprisoned by the Valar in incarnate forms of old men, so as to prohibit direct displays of power and splendour. And in these forms, they were subject to the frailties of the flesh (weariness, temptations, etc..). But they also had great powers of mind and hand (?). But in terms of available power (since the Istari were powered-down maia), how would we rank the Istari to someone like Lúthien Tinúviel, who seemingly had a larger grasp of Magic/Power (obviously derived from her mother and her elvishness)?
And what of Melian? Did she not also become incarnate so she could birth Luthien? Is she bound by the same consequence of Elven women diminishing in spirit after giving birth? And because she became incarnate, she had a power over the substance of Arda. Now would this not apply to the Istari, as well, that spiritual beings gain more power when incarnate?

So would y'all say Luthien was more powerful than the Istari? And if so, in their diluted states, would they also be lower in power than the remaining big shot elves left in Middle-Earth by the 3rd age (Cirdan, Galadriel, Elrond, Glorfindel, Celeborn, Gildor, etc..)?

Supposing that Melian became incarnate in the same sense/degree as the Istari (which I'm not quite sure of, but maybe), I'd say she did it out of her love for Thingol; giving birth to Lúthien was a natural consequence of that, but hardly the sole end (unless she was a conservative Catholic, which of course is a possibility to be considered;)).
I know the Silmarillion says so about Melian, but I actually find this statement quite puzzling - considering that the Valar and Maiar shaped the surface of Arda to prepare the habitation for the Children of Ilúvatar, and I can hardly imagine them going about that in humanoid form, I'd suppose they had plenty of power over its substance without becoming incarnate. In the Istari, anyway, we see that incarnation rather diminished (or restricted) their power. So what are we to make of this apparent contradiction?
It could be interesting in this respect to compare Melian to Morgoth. In Morgoth's Ring we're told that he diffused much of his power into the substance of Arda in order to imbue it with his evil will, and into his servants and 'creatures' (such as Glaurung and the other dragons). So at the end of the First Age we have Morgoth the tyrant on his throne in Angband (who was incarnate to such a degree that he could be actually executed, in other words killed, by the Valar) + his armies and servants + the part of him that had gone into the very matter of Arda, but only the sum of all three equalled Melkor in his full power as he had been in the beginning.
Maybe Melian did something similar (though with greatly different intent) - i.e. diffuse part of her Maiarin power into the land of Doriath so as to ward it against evil intrusion (and possibly pass another part of it on to her daughter), so that we get another equation: Melian the incarnate Queen of Doriath and spouse of Thingol (+ the part of her power that went into Lúthien) + the power of the Girdle = Melian the Maia as she was before she married Thingol?
So maybe yes, spiritual beings in some cases do gain power of a certain kind by becoming incarnate, but they pay a price for it and diminish themselves on another level.
As for the Istari, I feel they're another matter altogether, as incarnation wasn't the only restriction placed upon them - meaning that even in humanoid form, I guess they still could have danced circles around any elf except for the simple fact that they had been explicitly forbidden to do so.
Nope. Glorfindel may have been the only one who came close (due to having passed through death and reincarnation) - remember he was one of very few at Rivendell who could ride openly against the Nazgûl, whereas Gandalf battled a whole bunch of the N. on Weathertop single-handedly, and with quite spectacular fireworks too. At best they may have been equals. (Generally, though, I must admit I don't find comparing the magical hit-points of characters that fascinating - but don't let that keep you, or anyone else, from doing it to your heart's content!:))

I second this thought, and yet I agree rather with the rest of your post, which treated seriously with the question offered, and I would take it a step deeper--far beyond the realm of magical hit-points to a consideration of Arda's metaphysics.

Couched in Gorthaur's comparative question is the nature of Ainur made incarnate, and the tangled relationship this has with the incarnational reality, for Melian, of producing offspring. It's pretty clear, when one looks at Morgoth and Sauron, that being permanently-incarnated has its pros and cons. In Morgoth's case, this gave him an immense advantage, because it allowed him to disseminate himself throughout matter, the stuff of Arda, making all Arda "Morgoth's Ring"--but at the cost of diminishing the amount of power he was able to wield in himself--Tolkien goes so far to say, if my memory is right, from Morgoth's Ring that Sauron in the Second Age was, in his person, effectively greater than Morgoth had been at the end of the first.

Permanently incarnation is also a trade-off for Sauron. He lost his body and the ability to assume a pleasing form in the Akallabêth, and it took him, it seems at least a thousand years to rebuild his body after that one was slain.

As for Melian... there's no certain indication, I think, that she became permanently incarnate at all. After all, when Thingol died, she was able quite easily to change form and return to the West. However... that being the case, I have to wonder if, in fact, she was bound to her incarnate form as the Istari later were, and that this gave her a Ring-like effect in being able to create the Girdle of Melian. As for bearing Lúthien, while I agree that a body was necessary to achieve this, I don't see that this necessarily bound her to the body after birth, nor that any of her "power" would thereby be lost to her. But it's a sticky question... Fëanor, the only Elf to father seven sons, seems to have specifically managed this because of the greatness of his spirit--but I don't read into this necessarily that Fëanor's spirit was thereby lessened in strength. As I said... it's sticky.

However, if one compares Melian further with the Istari, one has to wonder if her drifting away and returning to the west wasn't a corporeal suicide analogous to Saruman's death--save that Melian was not blown back from the West. This would strengthen immensely, I think, the case that Melian was permanently incarnate, and one can certainly understand suicide when Thingol's spirit is now in Mandos, where reincarnation can only lead to Valinor, and Lúthien will die and pass beyond the world entirely. If Melian were permanently incarnate, it stands to reason that, like the Elves, she'd have been unable to return to Valinor by normal physical means, for this is still some time pre-Eärendil.

The Istari, however... I think are a somewhat different case. Pitchwife said:

I'm not altogether sure I like you saying "simple fact that they were forbidden," because this makes it sound like Saruman only didn't use a whole lot more Maiarin force because Manwë said "no." While I certainly don't want to totally downplay the idea that Saruman still thought himself loyal to the mission, after a fashion, I also don't think it's simply a matter of being forbidden, I think it's a matter of being incapable, which is something different, terminologically, though Pitchwife may have meant the same--and this is, I think, what's at the heart of Gorthaur's question: does this incapability limit the Istari's power, and to what extent?

Where are y'all getting all this info about the nature of the Istari and Melian? Outside of the "canon" (LotR & Silmarillion)?

About the Istari, the chief source, outside LotR and Of the Rings of Power in the 1977 Silmarillion, is The Istari in Unfinished Tales (which also deals with the remaining two Wizards beside Gandalf, Saruman and Radagast), plus some references, mostly to Gandalf, in the Prof's Letters.
About Melian, I think Gorthaur refers to the passage in the Silmarillion (Of the Ruin of Doriath) which says (more or less - I'm translating back from my German edition, so this is not a precise quote):
'For Melian was of the divine kin of the Valar, and she was a Maia of high power and wisdom; but out of love for Elwe Singollo she had taken the form of the Elder Children of Ilúvatar, and in this marriage she was bound to the flesh of Arda. In this form she bore Lúthien Tinúviel to him and in this form she gained power over the substance of Arda.'
I have a notion Tolkien himself may have compared Melian's incarnation to Morgoth's in Morgoth's Ring (History of Middle-earth X), but I don't have the book with me to check it. Maybe someone else could look it up for us?

Form, thanks for improving on my post (and do I sense a mild correction of my flippancy there?:))! Of course this thread has potential for interesting speculation, I didn't mean to deny that.
In the case of the Istari, it's difficult to tell where 'forbidden' ends and 'incapable' begins, or whether both were actually two sides of the same coin. We never see Saruman neglecting the conditions of his contract so far as to display his full Maiarin power - does that mean he still felt bound to the letter of it, if not the spirit, or does it mean he couldn't if he'd tried? On the other hand, did Gandalf use his full power in his unwitnessed battle with the Balrog? I'm afraid we'll never know.

So... I had this post all written three hours ago... but then my Internet failed utterly and so Pitchwife totally beat me to it. I copy it anyway, since I give a different--canon-obsessed?--perspective with much the same answers.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Canonicity!

(A word of caution: Formy has been spoiling for people to get into a canonicity debate since high summer.)

I don't believe Tolkien ever wrote anywhere specifically about Melian's incarnation--hence the extrapolation and speculation by way of analogy to Sauron and the Istari. But Tolkien definitely wrote, extra-LotR about the Istari, and most of these essays are included as a chapter in section 4 of Unfinished Tales--which, I daresay, is at least as canonical as the published Silmarillion, which has the disadvantage, canonically, of being a synthesis (albeit an excellent and readable one) by Christopher Tolkien. The few bits and pieces on the Istari that didn't make it into the Unfinished Tales corpus were published in the final volume of the History of Middle-earth series, Vol. XII The Peoples of Middle-earth.

Now... as for how much of it is canonical... well, there are those who would say only The Lord of the Rings itself is. There are those who would extend it to cover as much of the HoME as they can.:D


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

And I didn't mean to imply it--it just got me thinking. Always dangerous, that.

Hmm... my inclination, right at this moment, is to say that the Istari weren't restricted, even juridicially, in how much power they could use in Middle-earth (hence when Gandalf fights the Nazgûl or the Balrog, he's letting loose), but that the rule was more that they had to maintain the charade of being Old Men, which would, of course, cause a certain amount of caution. I mean, it's only from the extra-LotR texts that we know the Istari are Maiar, and even when Gandalf's returning to West, it's still not clear what he was when he left there.

However, while it does seem to me that while a case can be made from Gandalf's actions--more so, even, as the Grey than as the White--that he's not really inhibiting his Maiarin powers, just his Maiarin form, by being a wizard, I'm not entirely sure....

I think the fact that Gandalf the Grey's greatest displays of power (when he fights the Nazgûl and the Balrog) occur when there is no one else to witness is significant. The Istari, is is said :

ROTK The Tale of years

There was nothing wrong with their bringing the full range of their powers to bear in an emergency situation, but doing that in view of the Free Peoples of ME could lead too easily to the will of the Istari being done due to awe and fear, and not out of wisdom.
That said, Gandalf was possibly close to crossing the line when he threatened to 'uncloak' before Bilbo, in order to loosen the Ring's hold over him. Luckily, Bilbo took the hint. ;)
Melian was under no such restictions. In order to remain true to the Music she was obligated to use discipline and her own sense of 'rightness' when utilising her diving powers, and she seems to have done a masterful job.

Hmmm... now I'm wondering...

This "sense of 'rightness"--how far can you go with it?

I mean, I agree--at least in principle--that Melian's actions must have corresponded with her part in the Music. That seems to be, a priori, a fact about the Ainur--though maybe some here will argue that, as they will anything else. :p

But... was Melian right to do what she did? I mean, certainly, she was never an evil character. Furthermore, the results of her actions most certainly resulted in considerable good--namely the introduction of Maiarin blood into the noblest of the Elven and Mannish bloodlines, as well as the defence of Doriath.

But... was this what she was supposed to do?

I mean, if this is what she sung in the Music, was this because she sang aright the them of Ilúvatar? Or did the rebellion of Melkor incline her to start singing her own harmony? After all, Eru can work good out of the worst of things--as his words to Melkor "that no theme may be played in my despite", and insofar as Melian was still "good," I'd say she would be easily forgiven on that note.

All the same... I can't help but getting a rather Radagastly feeling from her, as though going native in Middle-earth, marrying a local, and getting involved in a land-war with Morgoth was not exactly toeing the party line. Certainly, she seems have lost all contact with Valinor once she settled in Doriath, and she's definitely active with the Noldor--more complicit with them, one might argue, than Thingol, given her greater sympathy--though not caught up in the Doom, due to being a Maia.

Definitely, she was more effective than Radagast... but... was she, perhaps, still a Radagast-like figure, rather than a Gandalf?

Depending on whose line you're talking about, the Valar's or Eru's - which aren't necessarily identical. I don't quite feel that the Valar's policy of retiring to Valinor, setting up an Unblemished Disneyland (forgive the sarcasm) and summoning the Elves to live there happily ever after while abandoning Middle-earth to Morgoth to do there as he pleased had the One's unrestricted approval - it certainly didn't have Tolkien's, who repeatedly chided the Gods for their fainéance during most of the First Age.
Melian, on the other hand, not only was a teacher of wisdom to the Elves of Middle-earth (like the Valar were to those who had gone west), but also helped to protect them and provide a safe refuge against the forces of Morgoth. Maybe in her willingness to get involved she even was truer to Eru's will than the Lords of the West in their splendid isolation? I see nothing Radagastly at all there through my pair of spectacles, rather the contrary.
Marrying and producing offspring with one of His Children is another matter, of course - no idea what Eru thought of that. But consider: without Lúthien and her marriage to Beren, no Eärendil, no messenger who pleaded the case of the Children before the Valar and moved them to take some long delayed action, no War of Wrath and defeat of Morgoth (unless you take the early version where Earendel came too late and the Host of the West had already set forth). Maybe Melian's doings, together with Ulmo's (sending Tuor to Gondolin, etc.pp), were actually part of Eru trying to get the message across to the Valar that Morgoth's dominion of Middle-earth had gone on long enough?

I never understood how Melian, a Maia, was able to "take the form" of one of the children of Ilúvatar, to be able to procreate a child of Ilúvatar from her womb. I don't see how she was able to do that at all, effectively transforming herself into one of the children of Ilúvatar. Wasn't this power, to create life like that, reserved to Ilúvatar Himself? As I recall, one of the Valar, Aulë, created the Dwarves, and Ilúvatar wasn't too pleased, was he!

I've always been unclear about the Ainur (who comprise both the Valar and the Maia), who were supposedly created directly from the mind of Eru (Ilúvatar), and how they were able to mate with Elves and Men. If they could do that, could they mate with themselves as well, and produce offspring? And were they all (including Gandalf) created before Eä, so that they all heard the Ainulindalë (and did they remember it?) or were some created afterward? Did Gandalf have some kind of a childhood?

In fact, the doubts I have about this sometimes make me suspect that some of the elements of these stories may be fictional. ;)

I wouldn't call the Istari "powered down" Maia. Gandalf did single-handedly defeat a Balrog, after all.

For some cross-cultural comparisons, Gandalf and the Balrog remind me of a pair of large guardian statues which flank the entrances of Buddhist Temples in Japan, most notably the Todai-Ji, located in Nara. Known as the "Nio" ("benevolent kings"), they represent two sides of the attribute of strength.

Agyo (阿形) is a symbol of overt strength and violence, is armed, and is depicted with an open mouth:
http://www.cbkarateclub.com/images/LWF00061.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ukongoshin.JPG
I see Balrogs, Melian, or other Maia who manifest their strength overtly as akin to an Agyo

(more in the post below, as I can't fit 4 images in one post)

(continued from above)

Ungyo (吽形) is usually bare-handed. He symbolizes latent strength, holding his mouth tightly shut:
http://www.cbkarateclub.com/images/LWF00051.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0px-Nikko3.jpg
I see Gandalf, or other Maia who manifest their strength latently and reservedly, as akin to an Ungyo.

Thanks for the cross-cultural education. In the same vein, I see the Balrog as akin to Godzilla. :p

But were the Istari trapped/imprisoned by the Valar and prohibited from direct displays? I've always thought they accepted their participation in the building of Earth much the same way that Frodo took upon himself the bearing of the Ring.

There's nothing in the Ainulindale or the Valaquenta to suggest such bullying power and control on the part of the Valar. Usually we would attribute to Melkor such actions, but not the Valar. We know that the Maiar were spirits who began before the World and were of the same order but of less degree than the Valar.

I think a clue to the indirect displays of power and splendor lies in the story of the Valar and Melkor.

The full display of their visible powers creates envy in Melkor, that figure of ego, hatred, jealousy and malice. I've always rather thought that when the Istari came to Earth this terrible lesson was remembered and the forms chosen were chosen for their ability not to create envy and not to increase jealousy, competition, hatred, distrust or mistrust. So, while outwardly they appeared to be frail humans (or, in the case of Olorin, elves), and were susceptible to the same ills as any Child of Illuvatar, that did not essentially lessen their powers. Olorin still had the power, for instance, of putting fair visions or promptings of wisdom into the hearts of the children of Illuvatar, the source of which the Children did not know. In fact, it was probably this very invisibility and the Children's inability to attribute the thoughts to another being that enabled Olorin to do his work. Had he been recognised, the visions would most likely have been questioned and his wisdom rejected and descried.

So, the question isn't about diluted states or a lessening of power, but of how that power is displayed, and to whom, and what context. The full power still remains; it is simply hidden. The challenge for the Istari was to apply that power in ways which would not evoke envy, malice, fear.

Okay, maybe I should've chosen better words than "trapped" and "imprisoned." I did not mean to imply that the Valar bullied with their power. But from what I've gathered from the Unifinished Tales (Of the Istari), the Istari were definitely bound in incarnate forms, forever, until their mission in ME is fulfilled. It is mentioned in the UT, that to the Istari, the vision of Valinor was somewhat like a hazy dream/vision to them, and ever they yearned for it. So while they did volunteer or agreed to set out for ME, when they were bound in flesh, they definitely were limited (not out of agreement but as a consequence of becoming incarnate) in spiritual power/magic.

Well that is true, in a sense. I agree that the full displays of power would create fear and envy among those who were less mighty, but that is precisely why they were locked in those incarnate forms by the Valar, after they were nominated to go to ME. I truly believe they were lessened by their incarnate forms. Why else would Cirdan surrender Narya to Gandalf? In his true maia form, he wouldn't need Narya's support, but he does need it in his incarnate form to ward off the weariness. And these fair promptings or visions of wisdom, this was his power in the West. But when he came to ME, that is why Narya was surrendered to him because it worked accordingly with his natural powers to inspire. This gives me the impression that in incarnate form, Gandalf isn't effective in inspiring peoples of ME like he was in the West in his true form. Hence why Cirdan surrendered Narya to him for that much needed power boost. Without Narya, he would not be able to accomplish some of the feats.
The full power remains? I'd have to disagree. Why else were the Istari dependent on their staves? When Gandalf broke Saruman's staff, Saruman was greatly diminished... almost insignificant. Same thing when Grima warned the Warden at the Golden Hall to have Gandalf part with his staff (how effective is the White Rider without it?). Lastly, why was Gandalf afraid of the Witch-king (or why was the Witch-king so confident he'd mop Gandalf to the floor) at their meeting in the gates of Minas Tirith? No, they were definitely powered down, I believe. Because if the only challenege was the righteous application of that power ("full" power, as you said), then Saruman would have been more effective, through and through, in his machinations, considering he was deemed mightiest in the order. Gandalf wouldn't have accepted Narya. And the Istari would have had no problem forsaking their old-men-incognito for a much more powerful and less restrictive form (e.g. Melian), especially for Saruman who has fallen from the right path.

I hope I'm making sense.

Thanks for a thoughtful and considered reply, Gorthaur.

In reply, I would suggest the following:

God was no less God when He appeared before Moses as a burning bush.

Nor did God diminish Himself when He became a babe in the manager, although Christ may have needed John the Baptist--his stave--to go before Him.

Incarnate does not, in the mythology closest to Tolkien (aside from Middle-earth's) mean weaker.

Hmmm...speaking strictly from a canonical source...

*Morth chuckles malignly*

...I would have to disagree somewhat. Under the heading Third Age in Appendix B of LotR it says, "[The Istari] were forbidden to match his [Sauron's] power with power..." the passage does not say they lacked the power, rather they were forbidden to use such power. This, I believe is significant, and quite telling in Saruman's later abandonment of his mission, and his seeking of power for power's sake.

He was not limited by any corporeal constraints to become Dark Lord once he had the Ring and Sauron was overthrown. This, I think, is the primary difference between Saruman and Galadriel. Galadriel had thoughts of becoming a dread and beautiful queen with the aid of the Ring, but then backed away from her folly; Saruman, however, was fully ready and capable of assuming Sauron's throne, even to the point of creating vast armies and making Rings himself (he was, like Sauron, a follower of Aule back in the good ol' days).

I think the primary misunderstanding many well-read folk have regarding the making of Elvish Rings is the intent Celebrimbor and the Gwaith-i-Mirdain had in their creation. These were not Rings of domination but of preservation. Does Gandalf need Narya to ward off weariness? Perhaps, but not any moreso than Sauron or Saruman need the One Ring to culminate their quest for complete power. All the great players in the 3rd Age either have Rings or covet Rings they don't have.

In the same Appendix B, Cirdan tells Gandalf, in addition to supporting his own weariness, "this is the Ring of Fire, and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that has grown chill." Cirdan, for his underplayed but important part, understood Gandalf's role and may well have been told about the prohibitions against power the Istari had placed upon them by the Valar. The Valar themselves were abject failures in moving the greater part of the peoples of Middle-earth, even the more sensible Elves. How then could a single Maiar, whether cloaked or uncloaked, hope to move the peoples to rise up and fight, and more importantly, fight cohesively without an overt display of power and grandeur? This was Narya's primary function, to conserve the will and instill that will to fight against terrible odds.

The staffs were symbolic, and at best a method of concentrating power. At the point where Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff, Gandalf is now Saruman, or as Saruman should have been. The breaking of the staff merely made the verdict of the Valar official. Gandalf defeated a Balrog with Glamdring and not his staff, thus proving that arcane efficacy lay in the innate power of the individual and not an appliance.

You are confusing movie lunacy with textual proofs. Nowhere in the book is Gandalf afraid of the WitchKing, who is all talk just like any schoolyard bully. Gandalf had already faced several Nazgul alone on Weathertop and defeated a Balrog. Where exactly does Gandalf show any trepidation whatsoever? Sauron was Gandalf's primary foe, not the WitchKing. Gandalf and WiKi do not meet in battle at the last because Tolkien wished to show that the chain reaction Gandalf had started among the Free Peoples was more important than single combat. The WitchKing ends up dying ignobly to a young, untested woman and a wounded Hobbit.

No, they were forbidden to match power with power. It says so in the book. Saruman, eschewing the bonds by which the Valar constrained him, could indeed have become Dark Lord had he had some better luck. Fate just wasn't with him.

I suppose Saruman knew about Gandalf's possession Narya, didn't he? I imagine the entire Council of the Wise must've known it, and anyway Saruman was the wisest in the lore of the great rings. I never thought about how that might have influenced Saruman's relationship with Gandalf, and his actions toward him. Perhaps, considering his great interest in the rings of power, Saruman must've been quite jealous.

It states quite clearly in the text that Cirdan only told Elrond and Galadriel of Gandalf's possession of Narya. For some reason, these three felt it better to withhold the information from Saruman, which is quite an interesting plot point. Galadriel, for her part, wanted Gandalf rather than Saruman to lead the White Council. It seems, even at the start, they did not fully trust Saruman in their hearts.

The UT essay on the Istari indicates Saruman at least had a strong suspicion Gandalf had Narya.

Saruman surely was not happy that fact had been kept from him. That probably fed his desire to act alone, and not keep the Council fully advised of his doings in looking for the One, even before he was dominated by Sauron and began to actively aid him.

I know the rings gifted to the Elves had the glamour of keeping people from noticing the rings unless they were specifically looking for them on the hands of their owners, but with all his knowledge of ring lore how could Saruman not know... unless Gandalf didn't wear it but kept it under his hat (or as a nipple ring maybe)? :rolleyes:

Yes, I suppose it was a chicken or the egg type situation: did Saruman begin acting alone due to plots against him in the White Council, or did the Wise actually act wise in this instance and withheld information that became crucial to saving Middle-earth? As I said, this is an intriguing plot point. What were the misgivings that drove Galadriel and even Gandalf to hide certain important information from Saruman? After all, he was the leader of the Istari, and obviously thought highly of by the Valar. And that's another thing -- once again, the Valar make a misjudgment! The Silmarillion is littered with Valaric mismanagement and misjudgments!

Well, not all of the Valar thought so highly of him. In the chapter about the Istari in UT, it is mentioned that at the council in which the first of the Istari were chosen, after Curumo/Saruman and Alatar jumped up and volunteered, and Manwe volunteered Olorin/Gandalf, Manwe said that Olorin would go "as the third," and Varda said, "not as the third," which Curumo remembered. I can only imagine that Tolkien mentioned that he remembered this because it was the first indication that things would not go well between the two. Alas, the book is up the stairs which I just fell down, and I'm not going back up until the ice packs on my knee and elbow have numbed things a bit more. sigh

Ibrin, I do realize that my posts incite giddiness and effusive excitement amongst the forum-members here, but please, do me more careful in future.;)

Oh, I wasn't going after the book. I was just numbing my mind while surfing the net on my laptop after I made the stupid slip. Not to say that the Downs are mind-numbing, of course... :D

Ibri, you have obviously never played Werewolf. :D

I actually think that's the case. Doesnt Gandalf say, when Frodo first notices Naria on his finger at the Grey Havens that he "wears it openly only now" (or is that just in the radio version?). That's sounds to me like he didn't actually wear the ring up until that point he just had it (unless he used some magic to make it invisible or unnoticed)

Actually, the implication seems to be that there's some way for the bearers of the Three to mask their Rings, even as they wear them. Galadriel says it's remarkable that Frodo noticed Nenya (although not so remarkable considering he's a Ring-bearer himself), and even during the temptation scene when she holds the darn thing aloft for all to see Sam doesn't recognize it for what it is.

At any rate, if memory serves correctly the radio version puts what we have in the narrative into Frodo's lips since the narrator's role is limited. Presumably, in-story, this would have been something Sam noticed and recorded (which he wasn't able to do with Galadriel) since I doubt Frodo would've been working on the Red Book on the road.

The text gives it as a narrative: As he turned and came towards them Frodo saw that Gandalf now wore openly on his hand the Third Ring, Narya the Great, and the stone upon it was red as fire. Then those who were to go were glad, for they knew that Gandalf also would take ship with them.

I suppose ring bearers, when not wearing their rings openly, carried them on chains around their necks as Frodo did his.

The problem with this theory is that, in that case, they would not have been able to make use of them (simply having the Ring around his neck did not give Frodo any more powers except Improved Angst). But Galadriel says that the power of Nenya helps keep Lorien hidden, and Gandalf is able to raise spirits during the Siege of Gondor simply by passing people by.

Presumably they would not have to be constantly using their rings and so would not have to have them on their fingers all the time. We have seen that the rings, when used, have lasting effects that do not require the ring to stay on the finger. The sustaining power in particular of the rings can be effective merely by possession of the ring, without using it. For example, the text is clear that Frodo never put the ring on his finger in the 16 years between the time Bilbo left it to him after his 111th birthday party, and Frodo's departure for Rivendell. However, the text is equally clear that in those 16 years it became apparent that Frodo had somehow "inherited" Bilbo's unnatural ability to keep from physically aging.

The case of Frodo, Bilbo, and even Gollum is not the same as the Elves, as they were all Mortals and the Elves were not. Frodo was specifically told that a Mortal who wears a Ring of Power is not affected by it in the same way. I rather suspect that, aside from Hobbit toughness, the reason Gollum did not turn into a Ringwraith was because he had the master ring, not one that had been specifically designed to turn its wearer into a thrall, as in the case of the nine and the seven (and we know that the seven didn't work because of the nature of the Dwarves). It is also said that when Sauron put on the One, the owners of the Three took off their rings, knowing they had been betrayed. To me, the implication here is that unless Sauron has the One in his possession, it's safe for the keepers of the Three to wear and use their Rings. Given the purposes for which they were made (and especially the fact that of the Three Keepers during the time of LotR, only Gandalf was an extensive traveler), I can't see that any purpose would be served by putting it on and taking it off all the time; indeed, for Lothlorien and Rivendell, it would seem wiser if those who were using the rings to help protect their lands kept them on as much as possible.

To me, the incident at Galadriel's mirror, in which Frodo sees her ring and Sam doesn't, is a very clear statement that the rings can remain hidden while on the owner's hand, unless the owner wishes otherwise, or the person looking has a greater ring in their possession. When Tolkien said that Gandalf wore Narya "openly," I don't believe he was implying that Gandalf had taken it out of his secret pocket or off the chain around his neck; he had merely stopped exerting his will to keep it from being seen by the eyes of others.

Now, if this method of concealment was effective with Saruman, I suspect it would have given Saruman even greater reason to hate Gandalf and think that he was trying to usurp his position. But that's another kettle of fish.