LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 02 - The Shadow of the Past

[Estelyn Telcontar]

After these recent post excursions into the depths of philosophical thought, I'd like to get back to Tolkien's practical philosophy as he expressed it in this chapter. Rereading it made me realize just how many of the book's famous quotes are placed here! We not only have exposition here (the background of the Ring, history of Middle-earth's past ages, etc.), we have wonderful wisdom passed on to us. I'd like to mention just a few of the most important, not quoting them completely, since we all know them well and can reread them ourselves.

His knowledge is deep, but his pride has grown with it.

'I wish it need not have happened in my time...'
...so do all... But that is not for them to decide. All that we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

It was Pity that stayed his hand.

Many that live deserve death...

'Why was I chosen?'
You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess...

These wisdoms have proverbial quality and an innate worth that makes them timeless and applicable to my life. Again, the genius of Tolkien puts them not into the narration, but into Gandalf's words, showing us his deep wisdom - and Tolkien's as well!

There are other practical insights, less lofty, that make me stop to think on them:

Frodo's age (parallel to Bilbo's) at the onset of the adventures, and his restlessness - "the old paths seemed too well-trodden." Mid-life crisis described at a time when no one had yet coined that term?

The observation that immortality can be a curse "until at last every minute is a weariness."

The description of the addictive influence of the Ring on Gollum, as Squatter already mentioned.

The significance of roots - "I shall know that somewhere there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again."

The importance of companions - "I don't think you need go alone."

These thoughts are what make LotR more than just another story for me!

[mark12_30]

Thanks, Esty. I like the practical philosophy quite a bit. I think that's one reason (among many) that I'm so fond of the four war-hobbits; they have lots of gut-level relationship-oriented reactions. Frodo especially manages to express them eloquently; Sam in his simplicity attains an elegance all his own ("...and that's why I choked...")

[Maédhros]

The thing that to me amazes me most about this chapter is the Ring of course and the thinking of both Gandalf and Frodo.
As Gandalf and Frodo now know, the ring must be destroy, yet is seems to me that neither of them can do it.
As it has been quoted previously, Gandalf cannot be the guardian of the Ring, so therefore the keeper of the Ring must be Frodo, for the time being at least.

‘But why not destroy it, as you say should have been done long ago?’ cried Frodo again. If you had warned me, or even sent me a message, I would have done away with it.’
‘Would you? How would you do that? Have you ever tried?’
‘No. But I suppose one could hammer it or melt it.’
‘Try!’ said Gandalf. Try now!’
Frodo drew the Ring out of his pocket again and looked at it. It now appeared plain and smooth, without mark or device that he could see. The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its colour, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he had intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. But he found now that he could not do so, not without a great struggle. He weighed the Ring in his hand, hesitating, and forcing himself to remember all that Gandalf had told him; and then with an effort of will he made a movement, as if to cast it away - but he found that he had put it back in his pocket.

Does Frodo has the will to destroy the Ring? This begins a whole series of actions that will put the quest of the destruction of the ring with Frodo but to me he was doomed to failed from the start, for how could he destroy the Ring, if he couldn't even throw it in his own fire in Bag End?

Concerning Gandalf and the Ring
The following quotation has always interested me:
From the Letters of JRRT: 246

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']

How do one makes good seem evil?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.

I have to disagree. In the Athrabeth "estel" seems to be hope without assurance, as opposed to "amdir", optimism based on rational evaluation of evidence. What you say suggests that estel is, rather, hope based on ultimate, complete assurance of final victory, which would seem to be rather the opposite.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Seems reasonable that Tolkien preferred Beowulf-form over more modern ideas.

Very true! Thanks for those parallels; I'd never noticed them before.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Sorry, davem, but I really don't see any 'dark' side to Frodo in this chapters. Of course, he is (like us) not without flaws, but his reactions here are no more than I would expect in light of what Gandalf is revealing to him. As Orofaniel says, he is scared, and quite justifiably so in my opinion. And, while his comments concerning his fellow inhabitants of the Shire do reflect a frustration with their narrow-mindedness (again, understandable given his broader outlook on life), I detect that he nevertheless has great affection for them. Certainly, to my mind, he is being far from literal when he talks of earthquakes and Dragons. As I see it, he is simply saying that they could do with a good shake-up on occasion. And, going by the attitude displayed by Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon, and the parochial picture painted in the preceding chapter, I see no reason to disagree with him on this.

I have to say that I agree. Frodo is certainly no epic hero in the early chapters, but I don't see any darkness - if by darkness we mean some minor form of evil. The only possible point at which I can see any such evil inclination at all is when he wishes that Bilbo had killed Gollum. But this wish is certainly very natural, and it seems to me that Frodo is saying it primarily in response to Gandalf's news of the mischief Gollum has done recently - revealing the names "Shire" and "Baggins" to Sauron. I don't think that the Ring has anything to do with it at all - particularly because much later on, when the Ring has far more control over Frodo, he changes his mind on this point and pities Gollum, and does not slay him.

Conventional wisdom be confounded! Personally, I don't hold with the view that there is any "correct" way to structure a story. The trick is in the skill of the story-teller.

Well, I agree and disagree. There certainly are poor ways of telling a story, for there are poor novels. There is a real danger in starting with too much exposition. But I think that often the conventional wisdom is short sighted or incomplete. That's why I find it so interesting to take cases like LotR, where the conventional wisdom is violated with good results, and to try to determine what causes their success.

HerenIstarion wrote:

Now, the Ring is somehow an union of those two concepts of Evil.

This is certainly my view. It is also the one that Tom Shippey argues for in Author of the Century.

I think, incidentally, that "Manichean" is not the best name for the one sort of evil, for "Manichean" suggests not only the external existence of that evil but also a kind of dualism, in which good and evil are cosmologically equal.

There is no question that, in Tolkien's universe, good is cosmologically dominant over evil. I think the more relevant question with regard to the Ring is simply whether the evil of the Ring is external - in the Ring itself - or internal - in the owner or desirer of the Ring. And I think that there is sufficient evidence in favor or each of these apparently contradictory claims that we must conclude that somehow both are simultaneously true.

I don't think that broad cosmological/theological arguments have all that much point with regard to this ambiguity, either. For regardless of the ultimate nature of evil, it cannot be denied that Sauron is an external power. And there is no theological reason that he cannot have placed a part of that power in the Ring (as is indeed said), so that there is in fact an external evil will within the Ring.

To try to simplify the picture and force all the evidence to fit either a Boethian or a Manichean view, or to force the smaller scale situation to match exactly with the cosmological, is to miss much of the subtlety of Tolkien's world.

[davem]

Aiwendil

Davem wrote:Quote:
Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.

I have to disagree. In the Athrabeth "estel" seems to be hope without assurance, as opposed to "amdir", optimism based on rational evaluation of evidence. What you say suggests that estel is, rather, hope based on ultimate, complete assurance of final victory, which would seem to be rather the opposite.

You're right to pick me up - I was oversimplifying the two terms. I would say, however, that I understand estel to be more along the lines of 'hope without evidence', as opposed to 'hope without assurance' - ie Tolkien is comparing it to religious faith. But I accept I could have explained the terms better.

Now, I know I'm risking Esty's wrath, As I've been asked to avoid 'falling into deep waters', but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your points, so, a short response only:

I think the more relevant question with regard to the Ring is simply whether the evil of the Ring is external - in the Ring itself - or internal - in the owner or desirer of the Ring.

Obviously, for the Ring to have any influence/effect on its bearer it must strike a chord - it 'cannot burn snow' - but it cannot overwhelm the bearer's will unless they agree to that. If the manichaean position was correct, it could - but it never does - not once- in fact there's no example I can think of where any of the Rings - or any of the magical objects - Palantiri, swords, Silmarils, anything, corrupt a good person against their will.

And now, having stated my position on that subject I'll not stray there again (at least as regards this chapter!).

[Bêthberry]

Obviously, for the Ring to have any influence/effect on its bearer it must strike a chord - it 'cannot burn snow' - but it cannot overwhelm the bearer's will unless they agree to that. If the manichaean position was correct, it could - but it never does - not once- in fact there's no example I can think of where any of the Rings - or any of the magical objects - Palantiri, swords, Silmarils, anything, corrupt a good person against their will.

davem, and Aiwendil too,

Perhaps the point lies in your statement about striking a chord? Think of Gandalf's comment about how Gollum was drawn in:

The ring had given him power according to his stature.

Rather than overwhelming a person's will, the ring in fact works through a person's temperament. The ring reaches Bilbo through his delight in pranksmanship and so Bilbo is less prone to cruelty, whereas the Ring gains power over Smeagol through inciting his avarice and tendency to violence. Gandalf would in fact be made to use his pity and mercy to dominate others. Perhaps a better way to think of the Ring's influence is not that it dominates the wearer's will but that it perverts the will to achieve Sauron's intent?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Rather than overwhelming a person's will, the ring in fact works through a person's temperament. The ring reaches Bilbo through his delight in pranksmanship and so Bilbo is less prone to cruelty, whereas the Ring gains power over Smeagol through inciting his avarice and tendency to violence. Gandalf would in fact be made to use his pity and mercy to dominate others. Perhaps a better way to think of the Ring's influence is not that it dominates the wearer's will but that it perverts the will to achieve Sauron's intent?

Wow. Yes; the twisted, twisting corruption of pure desires (i.e. what should be virtues) toward idolatrous appetites (vices). (A definition of sin, if I'm not mistaken.) So the Ring turns a person's innate tendencies towards evil-- whether those tendencies were evil pre-Ring (Gollum) or not (Gandalf).

Brilliant, Bb.

[Novnarwen]

I must admit that I haven't read the whole thread yet. But I would still like to comment one thing I found interesting...

Máedhros Wrote:

Does Frodo has the will to destroy the Ring? This begins a whole series of actions that will put the quest of the destruction of the ring with Frodo but to me he was doomed to failed from the start, for how could he destroy the Ring, if he couldn't even throw it in his own fire in Bag End?

Interesting theory about being doomed from the start. I think, Frodo thought he was doomed when receiving the ring. I mean, isn't it obvious? He is a Hobbit. A little man who has no past of ever being much outside of the Shire, and then Gandalf tells him that he is going to save everyone from Sauron who will arise again as the Dark Lord. This is were I think Davem is trying to say that Frodo is self-centred and so on, because he offers the ring to Gandalf. However, as Orofaniel says (and others) he is just scared. Would it be natural for a Hobbit not to be scared in a situation like this, maybe? But what I think is perhaps the most important thing is what Máedhros pointed out about Frodo being doomed and not having the will. And in order to this, I would say that asking Gandalf to take the ring is the most HUMBLE and least egocentric thing he could ever do. I mean, if he already thinks he is doomed, why should he go with the Ring?

“But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?”
“No!” Gandalf cried, springing to his feet.

From Shadow of the Past (Bold; my own..)

Offering the Ring to Gandalf only points out that he cares about the Shirelings and what happens to them. In order not to fail (as he is doomed), he wants to pass the ring over to someone who actually might have a chance. By saying that Gandalf is wise and powerful, it is as if he looks at himself of no good use in the quest Gandalf has laid before him.

But then, Gandalf denies the Ring, and says that only Frodo can take it. This, obviously, gives him confidence as he admires and respects Gandalf. This confidence gives him the will to take the Ring, right? If not, where does the sudden will come from?

I will stalk off now, read the whole thread before I possibly post again. I hope I haven't taken the discussion far back, but you can always just not take heed to it.

Cheers,
Nova

[Durelin]

The ring had given him power according to his stature.

Rather than overwhelming a person's will, the ring in fact works through a person's temperament. The ring reaches Bilbo through his delight in pranksmanship and so Bilbo is less prone to cruelty, whereas the Ring gains power over Smeagol through inciting his avarice and tendency to violence. Gandalf would in fact be made to use his pity and mercy to dominate others. Perhaps a better way to think of the Ring's influence is not that it dominates the wearer's will but that it perverts the will to achieve Sauron's intent?

I believe this is one thing that can reveal a 'character' to the Ring. It is as cunning as its master, and as good at finding evil where it already lies. Sauron used the greed of Men to turn them to darkness, and the divisions between Elvenkind and Mankind to separate the power of the Free Peoples. The Ring clearly is a manifestation of evil, which is truly the evil found in the hearts of the beings of Middle-Earth. This is where a battle between good and evil begins. Not the ideal of angels vs. devils, but the real thing: beings fighting the evil within them. As Frodo stands before the Cracks of Doom, that fight comes to a pinnacle, as he makes his choice.

Although this choice is obviously contrary to the one he makes in this Chapter, Frodo must constantly remake his decision throughout the book. This makes the battle of good vs. evil even more realistic, as it is not made in one act. Referring to the belief in an apocalypse, it seems that this battle, in truth, rages on into eternity. Even the title of the Chapter brings this to attention. 'The Shadow of the Past' A shadow has fallen on the land, and the Wise are aware of Sauron's power growing. And now they discuss the Shadow that was in the past, and also the Shadow of the future (I'd love to add more to that part, but that will have to wait until we get to Lorien. )

So the Ring turns a person's innate tendencies towards evil

I just wanted to quickly bring up the fact that the Catholic religion teaches that a human beings tendencies are toward evil, because of the sin that's in the world. But good is there, of course. Just something to consider, as Tolkien was a Catholic, and anyone could think of it that way, separate of a religion.

-Durelin

EDIT: Cross-posted with Nova, otherwise I would have elaborated on some more points... A vicious circle, it is...

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Durelin

I just wanted to quickly bring up the fact that the Catholic religion teaches that a human beings tendencies are toward evil, because of the sin that's in the world. But good is there, of course. Just something to consider, as Tolkien was a Catholic, and anyone could think of it that way, separate of a religion.

Hmmmmm. I suspect we are thinking of somewhat similar things, but let me clarify.

Tolkien makes the point that since Eru is a creator, and we are made in the image of Eru, then it is part of our nature to create-- and in order to glorify God, we should sub-create. I would argue that Tolkien does not consider the *desire* to subcreate a fallen desire. It is a desire, simply put.

(It is like the plain and simple desire for food-- neither good nor bad; it is not yet gluttony. Gandalf's enjoyment of a good meal is not gluttony. )

Similarly, Celebrimbor had the desire to sub-create. He did so. I do not believe Tolkien considered that sinful. It was Sauron's creation of the One Ring to dominate that was sinful. Good desire (to subcreate) was turned to evil purposes (domination.) Incidentally I don't recall that Celebrimbor sinned in all this; he was duped, but I don't remember any outright rebellion.

(Same thing with Feanor. I don't think there was anything wrong with his desire to sub-create; it was Feanor's reaction to his finished Silmarils that was sinful ("MINE").)

This is not to imply that Celebrimbor (or Feanor) was without sin; just that his desire to sub-create was not in itself bad (remember that Tolkien endorses the desire to sub-create.)

Back to your quote, Durelin; when you say that man's tendencies are toward evil, I find that an acceptable statement. But to imply that any desire that the Ring twisted for its own purposes was therefore an inherently evil desire: that I disagree with.

Gandalf says he has the desire to do good, and to show pity. **That** is the desire that he fears will be twisted by the Ring. To do good is not something that I believe Tolkien would have called a fallen, perverted, twisted desire. It is a good desire.

However, the Ring will twist it to evil. And fallen humanity has little capacity to resist that very twisting. If that is what you are referring to then we are on the same page.

Another Edit: Durelin, are we cross-editing?

[Durelin]

Back to your quote, Durelin; when you say that man's tendencies are toward evil, I find that an acceptable statement. But to imply that any desire that the Ring twisted for its own purposes was therefore an inherently evil desire: that I disagree with.

I really was actually not implying that, so, once again, we agree. I was simply elaborating upon the Ring's ability to use the inherent evils that exist, and often to turn a desire/thought of good into one of evil.

I wonder if desire is the best word for all of this, though it does seem to fit well when you're talking about the Ring.

[Firefoot]

It seems to me that this is the chapter where the Ring is introduced, not only as a focal object of the story, but also as a main 'character'. It is an inanimate object, and yet it also is not at the same time. It looks after itself, can slip off a finger, and wants to be found, according to Gandalf. Now we are bringing in some other points, which I agree with: the Ring turns a person's innate tendencies towards evil, can give people power according to their stature, and some others. Not exactly your typical inanimate object! The Ring seems to have an ability to understand its bearer, if it is able to give them power and use their strengths/weaknesses. Now, where I am going with this is this: just how much is the Ring able to do and what are its weaknesses? Obviously, it can't get up and walk or talk, etc, but it can certainly get around after its own fashion and if it can work on its bearer's mind in this way, is talking really necessary? If the nature of the Ring is to work Sauron's will, how much of the Ring's power over people comes from Sauron and how much is the Ring's nature? To clarify, (not saying this is possible, but...) if Sauron were somehow destroyed and the Ring left, what would happen to it? Would it still carry out Sauron's will?

[Bêthberry]

Fascinating points and insights discussed here, and hard to find a way to introduce my thoughts into the discussion! I particularly liked Guinevere and Orofaniel's observations about the importance of younger friends to Bilbo and Frodo, and the suggestion (Fordim's or SpM's?) that the Ring is given characteristics of a character, acting as it does to influence events. I think davem's perception of certain negative qualities in Frodo touches a nerve with many because Tolkien's characterisation is so sharp: he does not idealise his hero or glorify the terrible task Frodo faces.

Yet it is Estelyn's post which I think allows us to understand another reason why this chapter resonates so much with many readers. It is not simply Tolkien's control over exposition, his sure judgement as a story-teller, but the style Tolkien chooses to express Gandalf's perspective. Gandalf speaks in the short, almost pithy form of ancient wisdom literature which uses proverbs exclusively. The structure of proverbs gives Gandalf's lines power.

I can attest to Estelyn's idea about the force of the practical philosophy in these proverbial lines:

Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Once several years ago I saw these lines generate a very long and heated debate about capital punishment. Talk about applicability!

It is Gandalf's telling of Gollum's story that I think is so suggestive, for we 'see' Gandalf applying his own value of pity towards the most wretched creature; we understand how he applies what he has learnt. And it is this initial perspective of sympathy which I think makes Gollum's "almost conversion" so much more heart-breaking and poignant later, when Sam's good intentions in fact thwart Gollum. For me, the heart of LotR lies in Gandalf's point of view here.

That said, I am intrigued by a couple of perhaps lesser points in this chapter. One is the offhand way that Tolkien incorporates vampires, creatures of dark mythology, into the story, with this brief comment:

The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood.

One other is the depiction of Gollum's home community as a matriarchy.

There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and wealthier than most, and it was ruled by a grandmother of the folk, stern and wise in old lore, such as they had. ... It is not to be wondered at that he [Gollum] became very unpopular and was shunned (when visible) by all his relations. They kicked him, and he bit their feet. He took to thieving, and going about muttering to himself, and gurgling in his throat. So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away, and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole.

Here is the 'downside' of the Hobbits' lack of vision and sympathy, perhaps, but what I wonder about is why Tolkien decided to devote this context to what is essentially a matriarchal form of society. We have here the cruelty of a society which practices 'shunning' (as many very insecure, strongly ideological cultures do) but why does it have to be a grandmother in charge? Is this Tolkien thinking of ancient records of pre-patriarchal cultures here, to depict a society that lacks any form of ruth (using the old, now disputed meaning of that word)? Certainly this is one of the saddest parts of Gollum's story, that he then wanders in extreme loneliness, so much so that he comes to flee from the light, the sun in this context being female.

The last point I wonder about is Gandalf's comment to Frodo concerning how he wrung "the true story out of" Gollum.

in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him...

Is this a foreshadowing of Gandalf the White, he who no longer is under any requirement to limit his power? Or is this simply the story-teller being ironic about the fate of Gollum, even before readers know it? Or is this one of those oblique "consciously so" references to hellfire and damnation?


Edit: cross posting with everyone after Esty's post!

[Orofaniel]

Aiwendil wrote:

I have to say that I agree. Frodo is certainly no epic hero in the early chapters, but I don't see any darkness - if by darkness we mean some minor form of evil. The only possible point at which I can see any such evil inclination at all is when he wishes that Bilbo had killed Gollum. But this wish is certainly very natural, and it seems to me that Frodo is saying it primarily in response to Gandalf's news of the mischief Gollum has done recently - revealing the names "Shire" and "Baggins" to Sauron.

About Frodo's wish (Bilbo should have killed him):

Don't you guys think this was a rush reaction to what Gandalf had told him? I doubt that if Frodo had thought it "though", as gotten more time, he wouldn’t have said the same thing. Later in the book, we must remember that it was actually Frodo who prevented Sam from killing Gollum. Yet, I'm not sure that Sam really would have killed him, but that is another discussion. I may add, when I'm at it; that I do believe saying something or thinking something as "major" as this is very different from actually "doing it". When I read this chapter, hearing Frodo's frustration (yes, because I would call it that), I can understand it. After my opinion he hadn't gotten enough time to think everything through and digest the horrible tale that Gandalf brought with him.

And about the "epic hero"; I would say that in a certain way he is. I don't know however what Tolkien's intension was. I would say that Frodo is indeed a small hero when he takes Ring. No one would have expected it; because he's only a small Hobbit who doesn't care for the outside world- (Like many if not all, Hobbits). Heroism can be a simple thing after my opinion - although the result of it may not be as comprehensive all the time.

People can of course, interpret this exact quote in different ways, and therefore many conclusions and opinions regarding Frodo will occur.

Cheers,
Orofaniel