Bilbo´s treachery

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

And this for Morgothrond before I post the 'next bit'...

I've edited your post for clarity by omitting most of your blurb. I'll leave in the juvenile misspelling of my name that you have continued unabated throughout your posts, much like your incessant maundering. You do yourself a disservice by rambling, mitigating what might be clearer debate. Concision, thy name is not Ivriniel.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

This, in my 'stupid' argumentative series means that -- contrasting the two assumptions -- there is a six year window of ***DOUBT*** about which (oh my god, my head hurts) hypothesiss-es hobbitses applies. That is, the Hobbit was READ by CS LEWIS sometime in or around or prior to 1931. We do not know 'which' 'Hobbit' Tolkien was referring to when he states that his ring was the ring not the Ring in LETTERS, for example (and I have QUOTED which LETTER he did say what he did)..

I refer here to another error in your research. I have underlined it for ease of reference. Humphrey Carpenter, in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, writes the following forward to a letter dated January 4, 1937 (Letter 9, to Susan Dagnall, Allen & Unwin Ltd.):

Tolkien wrote the greater part of The Hobbit during his first seven years as Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. A text was in existence by the winter of 1932, when it was read to C.S. Lewis, though at this stage the typescript apparently lacked the final chapters, and broke of shortly before the death of Smaug.

So, the letter of C.S. Lewis you refer to, written in 1933, recalled Lewis reading The Hobbit in the winter of 1932 (or, per Lewis, a bit later in that same winter, January 15, to be exact). This was The Hobbit that was eventually published, and the one Tolkien was reading to his children -- not some other, phantom Hobbit floating about like a garish specter in or before 1931 with visions of malign Rings created by Dark Lords dancing in the children's heads.

In any case, and beyond your blatant error, there is no indication here, and you have not provided anywhere, that the magic ring was anything other than a magic ring, a folkloric motif for which Tolkien was fond. Like talking troll purses. Or magic diamond cufflinks that fastened themselves. Or trolls that turn to stone at sunrise. Or caves with magic keyholes. Or glow-in-the dark-when-orcses-are-around Elven swords. Or moon runes. Or animal table servers. Or spectral white stags. Or disappearing fey banquets. Or talking Odinic ravens. Or a black arrow that always returns to the rightful bowman.

In addition, not only did Tolkien have to rewrite the character of Gollum to fit the later, revised story of his birthday present (which, as we know from reading the actual, original version of The Hobbit, Gollum was gladly willing to give to Bilbo because, of course, it was not the One Ring), Sauron had to be added as well:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 163, to W.H. Auden

...I had no conscious notion of what the Necromancer stood for (except ever-present evil) in The Hobbit, nor of his connexion with the Ring. But if you wanted to go on from the end of The Hobbit I think the ring would be your inevitable choice as the link. If then you wanted a larger tale, the Ring would at once acquire a capital letter; and the Dark Lord would immediately appear. As he did, unmasked, on the hearth at Bag End as soon as I came to that point.

As soon as I came to that point. This indicates that indeed the connection was arrived at while he was writing Lord of the Rings -- at Bag End to be specific. As I stated previously, Tolkien got a great idea (as great writers often do) to incorporate the magic ring and the Necromancer into a greater tale of the One Ring (given now a capital letter, as Tolkien stated) and the immortal Maia Sauron, for whom he managed at great expense to barge down the river from the Isle of Werewolves in the 1st Age. Because, as we also know, the 2nd Age hadn't been invented yet.

And this is where I leave this addled conversation. I have no intention of wading through the mire any further. I believe I have proved my point without further elucidation -- or an adversary's erring, unproven assumptions that remain unproven after many posts.