Gandalf vs. Sauron

[the phantom]

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master [Sauron]--being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form.

This quote gets used a lot but is it that meaningful? I have a problem with that quote that focuses on the use of the word "expected".

First, saying "expected" requires an opinion- the opinion of the people who are doing the expecting if you get my meaning. Tolkien did not say "Gandalf might beat Sauron", he said "Gandalf might be expected to beat Sauron". This requires the presence of an opinion on whether or not Gandalf could defeat Sauron. Tolkien is commenting on this opinion.

Tolkien then gives a reason for this opinion- "being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order".

So the quote seems to mean "Gandalf is an Ainu just like Sauron and he was sent by the Powers to challenge Sauron so he is someone who people might expect to master Sauron."

It does not say "Gandalf would beat Sauron", "Gandalf might beat Sauron", or even "Gandalf has a slight chance at beating Sauron". It simply says "Gandalf might be expected to beat Sauron".

Expectations can be wrong.

And also, notice the "might". That certainly does not lend strength to the quote.

The quote does not seem to be particularly solid so its importance should be lessened.

[Boromir88]

I'm not sure whether or not Gandalf would be a match for Sauron, If Sauron had the Ring then it would certainly improve his chances by at least 50%, but maybe Gandalf could pull it off but I personally think it's unlikely.

Obloquy:

Based on what? Do some research, cite some sources. Look at the arguments I linked to above and give responses to the points made therein, instead of arbitrary, meaningless, ignorant, regurgitated speculation.

I happen to agree, that is a meaningless pointless comment. But, whether you or I think it's meaningless or pointless, doesn't matter, this is a forum, people can post their own opinions. I never knew "citing sources" to support our opinion was a requirement? Sure, it helps your opinion, but one can still post an opinion without "supporting" it, whether it is a meaningless opinion or not.

[obloquy]

Tolkien frequently spoke in this way--he liked to evoke the impression that his world was its own living thing, the exact laws and parameters of which not even he could absolutely define. However, the quote is really just saying that if anyone had the potential to overcome Sauron, it was Gandalf alone.

So what, though? The argument does not hinge in the least upon one's interpretation of the quote that mark has provided. The quote merely adds one more minor piece of support. I have provided ample argument for my (Gandalf's) camp; ample argument, I believe, to place the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of Sauron's supporters. So let's have it.

[obloquy]

I never knew "citing sources" to support our opinion was a requirement? Sure, it helps your opinion, but one can still post an opinion without "supporting" it, whether it is a meaningless opinion or not.

Maybe it isn't required, but it should be. If you refuse to provide any textual backing for your assertions, you can be confident that whatever you post will be dismissed (at least by those of us who know better) as the inane and unwelcome prattle of children who are sitting in on an adult conversation.

[Boromir88]

Oh of course, giving textual evidence definately puts points in your favor, and then your argument actually has liability. But, I'm just saying if someone wants to post ignorant, meaningless, regurgitated speculation, let them. If they want to look like fools let 'em.

However, we adults can learn a lot from children. I suggest you take the time to actually think about what some of them have to say. But that is just my take on things.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Sorry if people think my comments were ignorant and stupid and honestly I have to agree with you on a lot of what you said, I should have explained my reasons for writing what I wrote and your criticisms were, let's be fair, justified and I'm sorry if anyone got annoyed with what I said.

[gorthaur_cruel]

"Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master [Sauron]--being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form."

If you'd quoted the entire three paragraphs, it would have been quite obvious that Tolkien was saying that only Gandalf might be expected to defeat Sauron if he used the One Ring. It says that Gandalf and Sauron both had an even chance of beating each other if Gandalf used the Ring. Which implies that Gandalf is no match whatsoever against Sauron w/o using the Ring. Here's the 3 paragraphs in full, for those not satisfied with my summary

In any case a confrontation of Frodo and Sauron would soon have taken place, if the Ring was intact. Its result was inevitable. Frodo would have been utterly overthrown: crushed to dust, or preserved in torment as a gibbering slave. Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himsefl. In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of "mortals" no one, not even Artagorn. In the contest with the Palantir Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructivle form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance.

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him - being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the "Mirror of Galadriel", it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. IF so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self, was not contemplated.

One can impagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.

[obloquy]

Someone needs to post evidence of Sauron transforming into a much more powerful being when in possession of his Ring. This seems to be a very common idea, but I've never seen any reason to believe it. Tolkien tells us that Sauron is always in "rapport" with the power contained within the Ring--he always has access to it. He may be weakened to a degree by not having the Ring on his hand, but he never exceeds his original potential. My argument is that Sauron and Olorin (Gandalf) were beings of equal power in their beginnings, and therefore Gandalf's potency was equal to that of Sauron with his Ring.

Possible arguments:

Tolkien, in places, indicates that things would be hopeless and Sauron would be unstoppable if he came into possession of the Ring again. My response: This would have been the ultimate defeat because the only means for overthrowing Sauron at this point in Middle-earth's history was the destruction of the One Ring. All beings with the spiritual potency to resist Sauron were either gone or leaving. Even if they (Galadriel, Elrond perhaps, and Glorfindel) had stayed, they would not have commanded the kind of force necessary to overthrow Sauron militarily. Which leads into possible argument #2:

Why, then, didn't Gandalf just kick Sauron's butt? We're all familiar with the oft-discussed limitations on the Istari. These weren't limitations on their spiritual power (see my links), they were restrictions on how they could address Sauron's threat. Leading an army to destroy Sauron would have resulted in the slaughter of all involved--Sauron's armies were vast, and an army sizeable enough to overcome his would have been impossible to amass. The hope of those warring against Sauron's forces at Minas Tirith was still only in Frodo's quest. They were dead men. The limitations placed upon the Istari were actually a hint from the Powers: in effect, "you've got one hope, and it's not to put up your dukes and challenge him."

Why does Sauron need the Ring, then? Obviously, to prevent anyone from seizing it and claiming it. The quote states that if someone were to bend the Ring to their will, Sauron would be broken and the effect would have been as if the Ring had been destroyed. Sauron needed it, first and foremost, to prevent this possibility (since he never conceived that someone might actually destroy it). He also wanted the power over the Three to eliminate any threat from the elf angle.

The Ring was Sauron's anchor to the physical realm and it contained a large portion of his power. For these reasons it was Sauron's only weakness, and we might cornily adjust The Don's advice thus: "Keep your friends close, but your weaknesses closer."

Remember, Sauron had been defeated before while in possession of the Ring. We might consider it a beefing item for a bearer other than Sauron (who was able to wield it) since they would have access to the majority of Sauron's power; but for Sauron, the Ring only contained his own power and was not a supplementary source for enhancing himself.