The effect of the Great Rings upon Men

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

There are other contradictions not fixed as requiring too much rewriting.

For example, in the chapter “The Shadow of the Past” Tolkien has Gandalf explain:

A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care – and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too.

Yet we later learn that at that time Gandalf has been secretly bearing a Ring of Power for close to two thousand years, a Ring given him freely by Círdan its keeper. Either Tolkien intends Gandalf to be uniquely lying, has accidentally typed “A Ring of Power” instead of something like “One of Sauron’s Rings”, intends the reader to understand that Gandalf has made a slip of the tongue, or perhaps had not yet invented the idea that Gandalf was secretly bearing an Elvish Ring of Power freely given to him by Círdan its keeper.

I can bring up other contradictions within The Lord of the Rings and still more in The Hobbit and between The Lord of the Rings and the published Silmarillion if you wish.

Gandalf does not offer a contradiction; he evidently offers everything Frodo needs to know about a Ring of Power, particularly the One he carries, without revealing where the 3 Elvish rings are.

Frodo will not know that Gandalf or Elrond hold Rings of Power until after the One Ring is destroyed (obviously, it has been predetermined that not even Frodo should have such information). Frodo will not know Galadriel has a Ring of Power until she herself reveals it to him in Lothlorien.

In any case, the three Elvish Rings of Power do not have the same issues as the Sauronic Rings of Power: the Elvish rings can be gifted freely and without resultant psychological/addictive problems, and they are held indefinitely by Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel because, unlike the Sauronic Rings wanting to escape to their master (Sauron) and having the taint of the Dark Lord upon them, the Elvish Rings were created separately and for very different motives.

Obvious enough, to me at least.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

"... he [Gandalf] evidently offers everything Frodo needs to know about a Ring of Power, particularly the One he carries, without revealing where the 3 Elvish rings are."

I have argued similarly with respect to invisibility. Gandalf suggests to Frodo that the Great Rings confer invisibility, but in a letter Tolkien says that the Three (very arguably included among the "great" rings) do not confer invisibility. In other words, I have argued that the exception of the Three runs counter to what Gandalf wants Frodo to absorb about the Rings of Power -- since Frodo's ring does confer invisibility.

And I think it is natural enough in speech to leave out digressions that might only confuse, or do not illustrate the intended point at hand (especially if also a warning in some measure), even if what one is saying is technically "false" due to some silent exception.


I would say the same of Aragorn's Sauron comment. Since it is usually true that Sauron does not permit the name "Sauron" to be spoken, and since the point is made that the S-rune cannot be for Sauron, Aragorn need not speak to every possible exception (what about someone essentially speaking for Sauron as messenger, like the Mouth of Someone), unless he is merely spooning out information.

Although inconsistency with something in a letter is not, in my opinion, a true contradiction in any case, your post made me thing of the invisibility factor too, with respect to the Three.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

In any case, the three Elvish Rings of Power do not have the same issues as the Sauronic Rings of Power: the Elvish rings can be gifted freely and without resultant psychological/addictive problems, and they are held indefinitely by Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel because, unlike the Sauronic Rings wanting to escape to their master (Sauron) and having the taint of the Dark Lord upon them, the Elvish Rings were created separately and for very different motives.

Agreed. Although the Three, being at least partially the product of Sauron's instruction, were subject to the One, they are clearly not in the same mold as the Seven and the Nine. The lack of invisibility of their wearers is a major indication of this.
I wouldn't think a mortal who had run across one of the Three would have been affected in the same way, either. The effect may have been similar to that seen by the Fellowship while in Lórien. They were not immortal, but for them biologically speaking, time slowed.

Back to the subject of the life-lengthening process of the other Rings, the fact that the Seven did not influence the Dwarven lifespan has always interested me. Because of their very nature they could not be turned to wraiths either. Did the Dwarven keepers become invisible while wearing their rings? I would think not, because the invisibility, life-lengthening, and wraith-potential all seem intertwined.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Obvious enough, to me at least.

Not obvious to me at all.

My point is that if Tolkien had Gandalf used instead of “Ring of Power” some other phrase such as “One of Sauron’s Rings” there would be no contradiction. I never suggested that Gandalf should have revealed the current location of the Elven Rings. The idea is absurd.

Gandalf first uses the term “Rings of Power” to Frodo when he discusses the creation of Elven-rings by their Elven creators in Eregion, who created the lesser rings and then “the Great Rings, the Rings of Power”. Then he describes the Great Rings as perilous to mortals and seems to imagine each of these Great Rings or Rings of Power brings invisibility onto its bearer, which Tolkien denies in the Waldman letter written later.

Tolkien, as far as I recall, never uses “Rings of Power” to distinguish the Sauronic Rings from the three Elvish Rings, except possibly once in this chapter, which I accordingly would see as a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Galin

And I think it is natural enough in speech to leave out digressions that might only confuse, or do not illustrate the intended point at hand (especially if also a warning in some measure), even if what one is saying is technically "false" due to some silent exception.

I agree that Gandalf’s statement can be described as only technically false, if one wishes. Tolkien however portrays Gandalf as usually pedantic and sometime comically precise in his English.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Did the Dwarven keepers become invisible while wearing their rings? I would think not, because the invisibility, life-lengthening, and wraith-potential all seem intertwined.

Tolkien only writes on this head in his note on the effect of the Rings on Dwarves: “Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will.” This statement permits Dwarves to be reduced to shadows not enslaved to another will but does not require it.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Not obvious to me at all.

My point is that if Tolkien had Gandalf used instead of “Ring of Power” some other phrase such as “One of Sauron’s Rings” there would be no contradiction. I never suggested that Gandalf should have revealed the current location of the Elven Rings. The idea is absurd.

Gandalf is making a point. There is no contradiction unless you wish to split pedantic hairs -- which I realize you do in the most prolix and circumlocutious manner possible.

Gandalf wishes to impress something on Frodo without confusing the issue or saying, "Well, Frodo, this set does this, that set does that, but not always, and sometime it may be like this, and other times like that, and...oh, would you look at the time? We best be off on our quest."

He gave Frodo all the information he needed to know. He was specific. He did not cloud the issue. Frodo understood precisely what he was saying.

Everything further is useless gobbledygook.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Gandalf is making a point. There is no contradiction unless you wish to split pedantic hairs -- which I realize you do in the most prolix and circumlocutious manner possible.

And I realize that you don’t wish to discuss this. The problem is that your lack of argument doesn’t solve the problem. Gandalf first introduces the term “A Ring of Power” in referring to the three Elvish Rings created by the Elven-smiths of Eregion. Then he says that no-one in history, as far as he is aware, before Bilbo, has ever given up a Ring of Power to another voluntarily.

Tolkien writes this. I am not going to accept blame from you for what Tolkien wrote. If this is gobbledygook, it is Tolkien’s gobbledygook. You seem to be angry because you cannot explain it satisfactorily. Insulting the messenger seems to be your only recourse, which tends to show that the messenger is right.

I do not wish to split pedantic hairs. Which pedantic hairs have I split invalidly? If I had done so, you would be able to show politely and clearly where I have misrepresented Tolkien, without insults.

Others have noticed this discrepancy.

Hammond and Scull in the The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion, page 87, note:

55 (I:64). its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care – and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing and really done it. – This is true of the One Ring, but not of all Rings of Power, of which Gandalf seems to be speaking generally. Celebrimbor gave away the Three Rings. Círdan gave his Ring to Gandalf, Gil-galad (when dying) gave his to Elrond, and Thrór gave his Ring to Thráin.

Galin notes quite rightly, that we are not expected to take this passage literally. It should be considered only technically inaccurate. But it is therefore at least technically inaccurate.

Tolkien represented The Lord of the Rings as based on Frodo’s writing which might possibly be in error in some cases. We should surely not expect that Frodo is to be considered to have recorded every conversation he records with perfect accuracy. Indeed Tolkien ascribes an error to Frodo as a footnote at the beginning of Appendix F:

¹ In Lórien at this period Sindarin was spoken, though with an ‘accent’, since most of its folk were of Silvan origin. This ‘accent’ and his own limited acquaintance with Sindarin misled Frodo (as is pointed out in The Thain’s Book by a commentator of Gondor). All the Elvish words cited in Book Two chs 6, 7, 8 are in fact Sindarin, and so are in fact Sindarin, and so are most of the names of places and persons. But Lórien, Caras Galadhon, Amroth, Nimrodel are probably of Silvan origin, adapted to Sindarin.

If you plan to show that Tolkien’s every word is perfect, there are many more passages besides the one from “The Shadow of the Past” that you need to fix up, most if not all of these errors being well known and frankly, unfixable except by rewriting.

Point out where I have posted anything on this passage that you consider unfair, and be detailed.

[Zigûr]

Does Professor Tolkien ever specifically use the phrase "Rings of Power" to include the Three?

I suppose it's implied but we could just as easily argue that "Rings of Power" simply means "the Great Rings and the One Ring".

In fact a search of The Letters and The Lord of the Rings itself suggests to me that "Rings of Power" is mostly used to refer specifically to the Great Rings (particularly the Nine) and "the Ring of Power" (singular) is mostly used to refer specifically to the One Ring.

In the Tale of Years, Professor Tolkien distinguishes the forging of the "Rings of Power" from the forging of the "Three Rings".

Meanwhile in "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" in The Silmarillion the Three seem to be more included with the "Rings of Power": the Great Rings are described as "all the remaining Rings of Power", which is to say those Sauron found after Celebrimbor hid the Three.

So I would argue that it's simply not a very specific term. Sometimes it seems to encompass the Great Rings, sometimes it's the Great Rings and the One Ring, and sometimes it's the Great Rings, the One Ring and the Three Rings.

As a result, Gandalf isn't being completely accurate, but I'd argue that he isn't entirely wrong either. In any event it was forbidden to speak of the Three and not relevant in any case.

[Galadriel55]

I want to remark that the original question was not about Gandalf's accuracy or otherwise. No matter how well you want to research Gandalf's habits and other "inconsistencies", no matter how "good" your argument, it still doesn't get you closer to answering. You're not helping anyone that way, just aggravating people around you.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

And I realize that you don’t wish to discuss this. The problem is that your lack of argument doesn’t solve the problem. Gandalf first introduces the term “A Ring of Power” in referring to the three Elvish Rings created by the Elven-smiths of Eregion. Then he says that no-one in history, as far as he is aware, before Bilbo, has ever given up a Ring of Power to another voluntarily.

I will simply add that Cirdan voluntarily and with great foresight surrendered a "Ring of Power" to Gandalf himself. And Gil-Galad entrusted Vilya, the most powerful of the three Elven rings, to Elrond. Those were both prior to Bilbo giving up the One Ring.

Next.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I will simply add that Cirdan voluntarily and with great foresight surrendered a "Ring of Power" to Gandalf himself. And Gil-Galad entrusted Vilya, the most powerful of the three Elven rings, to Elrond. Those were both prior to Bilbo giving up the One Ring.

Next.

Heh, Gandalf was being cagey about that, since he had Narya in his pocket.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I will simply add that Cirdan voluntarily and with great foresight surrendered a "Ring of Power" to Gandalf himself. And Gil-Galad entrusted Vilya, the most powerful of the three Elven rings, to Elrond. Those were both prior to Bilbo giving up the One Ring.

Next.

I think often statements that sound complete and encompassing aren't meant to be taken as literal fact. You have Gandalf's statement about Bilbo giving up the Ring:

'A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it....But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it.~The Shadow of the Past

its keeper never abandons it...and Bilbo alone in history I don't think are meant to be interpreted as absolute fact. Compare that to a statement about the Grey Company

"He led the Company forth upon the journey of greatest haste and weariness that any among them had known... No other mortal men could have endured it, none but the Dunedain of the North, and with them Gimli the Dwarf and Legolas of the Elves.".~The Passing of the Grey Company

Elladan and Elrohir seem to be forgotten in this statement. They were indeed with the Grey Company and endured the Paths of the Dead. If we interpret this statement literally, than Elladan and Elrohir weren't there at all. I think sometimes with these absolute statements, Tolkien just went with what sounded better, or what flowed better on the page. And he wasn't really thinking about whether speaking in absolutes were literal fact.

"its keeper never abandons it" and "Bilbo alone in history" just flows better than "Bilbo, Cirdan, and Gil-galad, alone in history..." Similar to the Passing of the Grey Company "and with them Gimli the Dwarf and Legolas of the Elves," is more poetic than say..."and with them Gimli the Dwarf, and Legolas of the Elves, and the sons of Elrond, Elladan and Elrohir." It's just my opinion to interpret these types of absolute statements as hyperbole, and what flows better on the page.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I will simply add that Cirdan voluntarily and with great foresight surrendered a "Ring of Power" to Gandalf himself. And Gil-Galad entrusted Vilya, the most powerful of the three Elven rings, to Elrond. Those were both prior to Bilbo giving up the One Ring.

Next.

Hello there Orthoron_M it's great to see your post. I was only yesterday, pondering a question about the differences between the Powers of Preservation and their variation (or divergent powers) in the Nine and the Seven.

You have clarified a point I do not understand, about the relative power of the three. I appreciate that Elrond being 'kinda' the 'next king-ish' of Elves (after Gil Galad's death) should get the most powerful Ring. For Gil Galad was of Turgon's line*. So, in any case it's funny that the Kingship jumped to Ereinion rather that Elrond after Turgon's death. I don't get that, first of all, though it's an aside. Hence the *

But I do not see Imladris as more 'preserved' in the way that the Elves obsessed about a non-fading world and sun (I read somewhere that it's Morgoth's influence over the Sun that is implicated in The Fading of Middle Earth). In fact, 'Unfading was an obsession, and The Elessar II (or whatever was going on with that headache of a 'two Elessar' green stone thing), and Celebrimbor made a Green Stone for that purpose. They (Elves) were after a Power Conduit for a while - a bit like Helium 3 technology atm, and mining it from the moon's surface. (it's great to see you

Anyways, Laurlindorenan has a great Nett Area 'Preservation' Annexe and we seem to find the Lore of the Ring changing the very flow of time in Caras Caladhon. Recall, Frodo and co spent a month and time seemed "not to have passed at all", and the coincidence of the sickle moon upon leaving and all that. Clearly Tolkien was making us aware of something very significant about Galadriel's Realm that we don't see in Rivendell. In any case, how is it that Galadriel does this. More Elvish mojo in her? Thus, she must also have been pretty annoyed at getting Power Number Two, but showing off her realm to her poor, weaker cousin/relative in his titchy Rivendell.

Both prior points, lacking concision-Ivriniel (CI) do in any case, have some merit to the third point. About The Three.

We are told that the One was made after the Three. We are told that Sauron had to imbue much of his native power/essence into the One in order to get an 'Annexe'-Interdict effect to subsume influence of the Three. All that perversion of that Elvish Telepathy thing implicated in his megalomania in the 'being perceived' remotely by Sauron thing. This is interesting of itself as well, because it was a means to influence a race that shut him out (and Elvish Telepathy - what's that word for it?) was denied to Sauron ordinarily. He had torture or do something really base and barbaric and not very efficient to 'get information' ordinarily.

In any case - what Power went into the Three to allow them to be Great Rings, when we all know darned well that Sauron was 'lessened' (without his Ring) in power. What? Did Celebrimbor 'have that much' native power to imbue Elvish Rings? Sauron never touched them.


*grin warning*

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Agreed. Although the Three, being at least partially the product of Sauron's instruction, were subject to the One, they are clearly not in the same mold as the Seven and the Nine. The lack of invisibility of their wearers is a major indication of this.
I wouldn't think a mortal who had run across one of the Three would have been affected in the same way, either. The effect may have been similar to that seen by the Fellowship while in Lórien. They were not immortal, but for them biologically speaking, time slowed.

Back to the subject of the life-lengthening process of the other Rings, the fact that the Seven did not influence the Dwarven lifespan has always interested me. Because of their very nature they could not be turned to wraiths either. Did the Dwarven keepers become invisible while wearing their rings? I would think not, because the invisibility, life-lengthening, and wraith-potential all seem intertwined.

Tolkien in a discussion regarding the Rings of Power in general, states the following regarding the Three:

Originally Posted by Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, 1951

The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility.

The emphasis above is mine. There are obvious differences in the Rings of Power themselves and how they effect the wearer, and even how they effect what race is wearing them. Dwarves, being the stuff of the earth and indomitable, did not vanish, and, based on genealogical charts, do not seem to have excessive longevity.

Mortal Men (and Hobbits), however, exhibit all the signs Gandalf warned about. Frodo had the One Ring, and the Nazgul were under the power of the Nine and wanted to kill Frodo. No other Rings (the Seven or the Three) mattered. So why would Gandalf confuse Frodo with provisos, quid pro quos, caveat emptors and various other Latin phrases that may or may not have anything to do with what Gandalf was talking about and what he needed to impress upon Frodo so that the Hobbit could achieve his mission?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So why would Gandalf confuse Frodo with provisos, quid pro quos, caveat emptors and various other Latin phrases that may or may not have anything to do with what Gandalf was talking about and what he needed to impress upon Frodo so that the Hobbit could achieve his mission?

Precisely. Gandalf avoids lumping in the Three with the others because of their innate differences from the other Great Rings.

Also, in the later discussion at the Council of Elrond, Gandlaf notes of Gollum, that:

'The power of the ring had lengthened his years far beyond their span; but that power only the Great Rings wield.'

Surely there he was not including the Three. Why would rings made by Elves for Elves have the power to extend the wearer's lifespan?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Gandalf could simply have been referring to the visible forms, imparted by the clothing. I still don't see how ordinary horses would support an insubstantial being.

Because Tolkien indicates they do. Picture enchanted clothing which insubstantial wraiths may wear and which give solidity and weight to their wraith content, but not visibility.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I think I side with Inziladun on this one... I have no reason to think that the Nazgul were telekinetic, so they must have had some way of interacting with their horses, swords, etc. They can also smell and see (though poorly) which require sensory organs.

When their robes are destroyed the Nazgûl naturally, having no support and being intangible, fall helplessly through the ground to the centre of the Earth. Or rather they would if they had no telekinetic ability. Therefore they must have had some telekinetic ability to float above the ground.

How any invisible being sees at all is a puzzle. How does its invisible eyeball lens focus in its invisible retina?

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Surely there he was not including the Three. Why would rings made by Elves for Elves have the power to extend the wearer's lifespan?

An answer from the Waldman letter:

The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the preservation or slowing of decay (i.e. change viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance – that is more or less an Elvish motive.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not buying it. The RW were invisible, not insubstantial. Or maybe the W-K at the Pelennor had a substantial invisible body wearing armor up to the neck, but no tangible head visible or invisible and he was holding the crown up with telekinesis?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I'm not buying it. The RW were invisible, not insubstantial. Or maybe the W-K at the Pelennor had a substantial invisible body wearing armor up to the neck, but no tangible head visible or invisible and he was holding the crown up with telekinesis?

Gandalf says, “the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living.”

This to me strongly implies that without those robes the Nazgûl are unformed and shapeless, and insubstantial. The word nothingness indicates their insubstantialbility. See wraith for dictionary meanings, many of which suggest insubstantialbility.