Rings of Power & Osanwe-Kenta

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Neithan

I think that in order to use the Rings they had to "open their minds to them" that is, they had to use this "mind power" to use the Rings and so the Rings became tied to that power. And so through the One Ring Sauron could get around their "unwill".

This I think is part of the whole essence of why the Rings were created. To the Elves, they must have held some kind of power, or else why would they have been created? They were clearly not symbolic but had a purpose. Repeating the quote I used in my original post:

they were given into the hands of the Wise, who concealed them and never again used them openly while Sauron kept the Ruling Ring. Therefore the Three remained unsullied, for they were forged by Celebrimbor alone, and the hand of Sauron had never touched them; yet they also were subject to the One.

Tolkien does not directly say what their use was, but this quote hints at it strongly, and hints at the possibility that they were used for purposes of sanwe. How? Because they then had to be hidden from Sauron, and how would he 'know' they were being used if he was at a distance unless they did possess some power?

Another hint at the 'purpose' is here:

As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and perceived that he would be the master of them, and of all that they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings.

In Unfinished Tales, there is the following interesting information in the History of Galadriel and Celeborn:

"What would you have then?" said Celebrimbor

"I would have trees and grass about me that do not die - here in the land that is mine," she answered. "What has become of the skill of the Eldar?" And Celebrimbor said "Where now is the stone of Earendil? And Enerdhil who made it is gone."
"They have passed over sea," said Galadriel, "With almost all fair things else. But must then Middle Earth fade and perish for ever?"

"That is its fate I deem," said Celebrimbor. "But you know that I love you (though you turn to Celeborn of the trees), and for that love I will do what I can, if happily by my art your grief can be lessened."

Wielding the Elessar all things grew fair about Galadriel, until the coming of the shadow to the forest. But afterwards when Nenya, her chief of the three was sent her by Celebrimbor, she needed it (as she thought) no more, and she gave it to Celebrian her daughter, and so it came to Arwen and to Aragorn who was called Elessar.

The Elessar was created before the Rings, and it must have held some kind of similar power if she gives it up once she receives Nenya. It also seems to be 'immune' to the power of the One Ring. Does it make use of some kind of sanwe in the creation of Lothlorien? Another question here is whether Celebrimbor creates these things for love of Galadriel, and if he is so easily misled by Sauron because he is working for love of Galadriel and cannot see how he has been deceived? And if the Elessar has a similar power, what does this say about Aragorn's discovery of the White Tree?

[HerenIstarion]

Question of Unwill (how can it be overcome) I have thought about before, but came not to a definitive conclusion. I have a theory, though, which runs as follows:

Maybe, Unwill is not overcome in a strict sense - the breach is allowed for by the person him/herself. Cf:

S77

Then straightaway they brought him into the dreadful presence of Sauron; and Sauron said: 'I hear now that thou wouldst barter with me. What is thy price?'
And Gorlim answered that he should find Eilinel again, and with her be set free; for he thought Eilinel also had been made captive.
Than Sauron smiled, saying: 'That is a small price for so great a treachery. So shall it surely be. Say on!'
Now Gorlim would have drawn back, but daunted by the eyes of Sauron he told at last all that he would know.

I.e. - would Gorlim stand fast, Sauron would not be able to enter his mind, but he let him in, once in, he suspended Gorlim's will to force it all out. The process may be similar with the rings - if the person fails even once, he lets the power into his mind he is not able to get rid of later

And following another piece (Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth), it should be concluded that following the Fall, no man is able not to fail.

But the opening key may be deceit - the mind is not forced, but tricked (or, more appropriate here - seduced) to open up a breach.

Besides, having in mind that all matter (of which hröar are built) contains taint of Melkor, and hröar are affecting fëar, it is to be assumed no living being (elves and men alike) has a perfect mind, able not to allow for a breach. Hence, even Gandalf (in incarnate form) fears to take the Ring)

***

As for the Gift of Death and its withdrawal (commenting on human servants who keep leaving not useful), brief comment, dependent on the treatment former King of Angmar threatens Éowyn with:

Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye

It is stated Gift of Eru can not be withdrawn, but we have Nazgûl living on and on. And here, it seems, the explanation is provided for why that should be so. It is another trickery, cheating. Deceit in another form - it seems Sauron learned how to turn flesh into what they call Undead in PC games I may an addict of, not letting the body die, but transforming it, so keeping the sould tied up to it. The Gift of Eru is not, technically, withdrawn - just the object has not died yet. Its a bit like of what effect may be of freezing one's body for infinite time in a fridge (I've heard some rich people practice the process - with the hope of being returned to life in some better future), but retaining operational functions (i.e. ability to move and be conscious) at the same time. The death is postponed, not cancelled.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Heren Istarion

Question of Unwill (how can it be overcome) I have thought about before, but came not to a definitive conclusion. I have a theory, though, which runs as follows:

Maybe, Unwill is not overcome in a strict sense - the breach is allowed for by the person him/herself

This is a good point, and it is also borne out in the Osanwe-kenta itself:

Here he was aided by the simplicity of those unaware of evil, or not yet accustomed to beware of it. And for that reason it was said above that the distinction of openess and active will to entertain was of great importance. 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 his own thought, to deceive it and win it to his friendship

This does suggest that if Unwill was not something a being realised they needed to put into play, then it would indeed be too late once Melkor had entered their thoughts. This leads on to one of the many ideas I had after reading Osanwe-kenta, the possibility that Orcs were created by entering the thoughts of innocent Elves (as in, innocent minded, even maybe naive) and enslaved. As the essay states, those who were aware of Melkor were those he most sought to enslave, yet found it hardest to trap; for this reason he made use of language.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

. . .This leads on to one of the many ideas I had after reading Osanwe-kenta, the possibility that Orcs were created by entering the thoughts of innocent Elves (as in, innocent minded, even maybe naive) and enslaved. As the essay states, those who were aware of Melkor were those he most sought to enslave, yet found it hardest to trap; for this reason he made use of language.

Would it be inappropriate if I suggested this idea might profitably be applied to another of our discussions? It would seem here that Tolkien does not admire or advise a wilful blindness to evil. Those who are aware of the existence of evil are those most able to recognise when they are being enticed or manipulated or led away. Knowing how evil operates means one is better able to stand up to it. Those who do not understand evil's existence are those most vulnerable to it.

Would not this suggest that Tolkien would not want readers to shy away from certain knowledge of the orcs' treatment of Celebrian? He intends readers to recognise evil when it is suggested, to educate them, as it were, in its more vile means? I'm referring, of course, to the thread "Celebrian's Misfortunes."

Just a thought.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Knowing how evil operates means one is better able to stand up to it. Those who do not understand evil's existence are those most vulnerable to it.
Would not this suggest that Tolkien would not want readers to shy away from certain knowledge of the orcs' treatment of Celebrian? He intends readers to recognise evil when it is suggested, to educate them, as it were, in its more vile means? I'm referring, of course, to the thread "Celebrian's Misfortunes."

Certainly off-topic, but...

I think Tolkien's position was that we should only 'study' evil to the point that we can recognise it - not that we should go into its nature & pratice in depth. Elrond warns that is is dangerous to study the arts of the Enemy. I suspect that Tolkien would say that knowing that the Orcs 'tormented' Celebrian to the point that she could no longer remain with her beloved husband & children & had to pass into the West is enough, & that to enquire any further into her fate is to risk being 'corrupted' by what one might find out. Its easy to get ideas & images into one's mind, but more difficult to get rid of them.

Personally, the image of Celebrian being raped by orcs is not something I want to imagine - I don't even like writing those words. Whether that makes me overly sensitive I don't know.

I think it is quite possible to be able to recognise evil without studying it in all its graphic detail.

So, while I agree that Tolkien did 'intend readers to recognise evil when it is suggested' I can't agree that he intended 'to educate them, as it were, in its more vile means?'. I think his intention was the opposite. He was fullly aware that the practices of 'evil' were quite commonplace, even in our 'civilised' society, & that it wasn't at all necessary to describe them in detail. What was necessary was to make people aware that such things are evil, & inexcusable. In other words, he wanted us to be aware of what Evil is in its essence, not to educate us in its practice...

[Bêthberry]

You have expressed much better than I did, davem the applicability I saw in Lalwendë's post:

I think Tolkien's position was that we should only 'study' evil to the point that we can recognise it

Much obliged.

[drigel]

Deceit in another form - it seems Sauron learned how to turn flesh into what they call Undead

Heren - your post was great, but I am unsure about the undead thing. I would throw in that the point of the Nazgul form was that there wasnt any flesh. The physical entity IMO was utterly forsaken. The only thing that was bound was the spirit (granted that could take form only if it was clothed or armoured). There was a lot of defiance of Eru going on at that time, but there was no usurping, IMO.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

I think Tolkien's position was that we should only 'study' evil to the point that we can recognise it - not that we should go into its nature & pratice in depth. Elrond warns that is is dangerous to study the arts of the Enemy.

Well said!

And to build on that, remember how Saruman fell: by delving too deeply into the lore of Sauron's power. Sauron's evil. To study evil too closely is to become tempted by evil, and the possibility of turning to evil becomes increasingly strong. Gandalf does not fall, while Saruman does, because he knew better than to study Sauron that deeply. (Okay, there were other reasons too, but this is a biggie.)

[Lalwendë]

I've got to thinking again after reading the comments by davem, Bethberry and Formedacil on evil. Tolkein as a Catholic and Christian would have heard much on the 'nature' of evil by way of his religious beliefs, and one of those could well have been the line of thought that it is best not to go too deeply into the study of evil lest it corrupt the soul into evil itself. This is a common thought amongst many fundamentalists today, who ironically do not always approve of Tolkien!

But applying these comments to the Osanwe-kenta, I'm quite sure that Tolkien was making a point about being aware of and wary of evil; or perhaps suspicious is a better word? But alongside this, he could also have been making a philosophical point about those who allow too much knowledge of evil to eneter their heads. He could have been saying that evil can be manipulative, it can treat you as a 'friend', much in the same way as Melkor does to those he wishes to enslave, and that while we must be aware, we must also not go too far into these matters, in case we too become enslaved.

So, aside from the Osanwe-kenta telling us much new information about Arda, does it also have a metaphorical message for us?