# Gandalf the Black?



## Jotun (Jan 24, 2005)

I was reading "The White Rider" in "The Two Towers" last night and towards the end, Gandalf says something along the lines of "I'm Gandalf the White, but Black is more powerful". What exactly does that mean? Does it mean there's a group of black wizards, or that he isn't stonger than evil/Sauron?


----------



## Kuduk (Jan 24, 2005)

*Re: Question...*

I've always thought of it as more the latter, especially in its context. Earlier in the same paragraph Gandalf says "I have spoken words of hope. But only of hope. Hope is not victory." I see his reference to 'Black being more powerful' as a pithy reinforcement of that sentiment cautioning Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn (not to mention the reader). Gandalf may have come back as 'the White' and therefore more powerful than before, but they should not see that as a certain indicator that everything will turn out all right.

Also, I would say that 'Black' doesn't only mean Sauron, but something broader like Evil, perhaps. However, if you want to say Gandalf was referring to some specific thing in the story, I would choose the Ring rather than Sauron. I say this because in that same paragraph he also says, "War is upon us..., a war in which only the use of the Ring could give us surety of victory. It fills me with great sorrow and great fear: for much shall be destroyed and all may be lost." 

This is immediately followed by "I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still." So I see those words as a summing up. They are a caution, and also a foreshadowing of the death, destruction, and other badness to come.


----------



## Jotun (Jan 24, 2005)

*Re: Question...*



Kuduk said:


> Also, I would say that 'Black' doesn't only mean Sauron, but something broader like Evil, perhaps.



That's why I put "evil / Sauron".  

I've been thinking about it more thoroughly and what you said makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: Question...*

There was a window of opportunity to overthrow Sauron, when he was newly arisen and had not consolidated his power; but Saruman counselled against action, as he wanted to find the One Ring for himself. He finally allowed an attack on Dol Guldur when he percieved that Sauron was also aware of where Isildur met his end; but by then, Mordor was ready and waiting, and Sauron repaired there before Dol Guldur was attacked. The increasing darkness was one of the reasons so many Elves had left Middle-earth, and so the power of the White (Council) was considerably less than the power of the forces behind the black gates of Mordor.


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: Question...*

I would say it meant that as powerful as Gandalf had become, he still could not defeat Sauron while the Ring existed.


Eledhwen said:


> There was a window of opportunity to overthrow Sauron, when he was newly arisen and had not consolidated his power; but Saruman counselled against action, as he wanted to find the One Ring for himself.


Yes, Saruman held back the White Council, but Gandalf and Elrond (I think both of them) say that Sauron can never be defeated while the One Ring exists. Therefore there never was a real opportunity to overthrow Sauron. They might have delayed him, messed with his plans, etc., but as long as the Ring existed Sauron would find a way to come back.


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: Question...*

Also, in one of Tolkien's note collections (i think it was HoMe, please correct me if wrong) JRR tells us that when Manwe wanted to send Olorin, aka Gandalf, into Middle-Earth to lead in the resistance to Sauron Olorin told him that he feared Sauron, and did not think he was capable of the task on his own (which is where Saruman comes in). Personally I think Gandalf returned to being a true Maia after Moria, which is why he was greater than the Nine, and the most powerfull being Gimli would see in ME, unless he met Sauron face-to-face.


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: Question...*

Gandalf is no doubt talking about Sauron-for Sauron was the only being more powerful than Gandalf-as Gandalf himself states. Gandalf also tells Imrahil that it was his charge to get rid of Sauron, and not to guard against any evils that followed-for evil would exist in Middle-Earth until the end of time, and since it was not Gandalf's charge to fight _evil_ there would be no point in stating he was weaker than evil in general. As others have already pointed out there as no way Sauron could be got rid of unless the ring was destroyed-unless, as the council thought the ring was lost forever, in which case all they could do was defeat Sauron's tools-his armies-again Saruman blocked any such move, but I think Sauron's armies were too large for a weakened west to deal with effectively-as Gandalf tells Denethor, Gondor had waited for Sauron to gather his power too long, yet if Gondor the bulwark of Middle-Earth could not stop Sauron from rounding up his troops then what chance did the White Council have?


----------



## Helm (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: Question...*



Inderjit S said:


> Yet if Gondor the bulwark of Middle-Earth could not stop Sauron from rounding up his troops then what chance did the White Council have?


 
That's a good Question. And on that topic, did the White Council have a greater physical power (as in sword fighting) then say Aragorn, or intellectual (or spiritual) power? I think the latter, but a good argument could sway my thought.


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 20, 2005)

I do not understand what your point is. The White Council are made up of individuals, and so we cannot compare the council as a whole to Aragorn but as individuals. You can also be powerful without being a warrior. As Sam tells 
Faramir the lady Galadriel is indeed perilous, not as a warrior perhaps but she was a powerful being" spiritually", so to speak. Though I have no doubt that Galadriel was a powerful warrior in her own right, Elven women could and at times did fight, and in some versions of the story she was said to repel the attacks of the Noldor on the Teleri. There were also few men like Aragorn-the greatest of all the line of Amandil apart from Amandil himself and maybe Elendur. Few could have matched him-Denethor is the only one who springs to mind. But the Elvish leaders of the council were a lot more powerful than Aragorn-as were the Istari, some, such as Gandalf and Elrond were more powerful both spiritually and physically and some such as Radagast were more powerful beings, whilst some such as Celeborn were wiser. But then again Aragorn may have been a better warrior and leader of men-in the first age them men of the three houses supplied some of the best warriors on the war against Morgoth and Men often had greater physical power than Elves-why else did Legolas skip over the snow and Boromir and Aragorn make a path? Sorry for all the pedantry-I will get to the point soon. (As anybody on this forum will point out I am a total pedant.)

Elrond readily admits himself that neither he, Celeborn or Cirdan have the power the defeat Sauron-admittedly this was towards the end of the T.A when lots of Elves had left but I think this would have applied beforehand too, Sauron simply had too many minions and the dwindling Elves could not match him in battle. The only way in which they could have defeated Sauron in war was by using the ring.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 20, 2005)

Jotun said:


> I was reading "The White Rider" in "The Two Towers" last night and towards the end, Gandalf says something along the lines of "I'm Gandalf the White, but Black is more powerful". What exactly does that mean? Does it mean there's a group of black wizards, or that he isn't stonger than evil/Sauron?



"Black is mighter still." My take on that is that he could not have survived a direct confrontation with Sauron. But that was the only place in the whole saga that such a statement was ever made.

Barley


----------



## Kuduk (Feb 20, 2005)

Despite the many excellent points made by others in the preceding posts, my inclination is still to say that Gandalf wasn't only referring to Sauron when he uses the word 'Black'. Yes, I agree that Sauron was certainly on Gandalf's mind when he says "but Black is mightier still." But I get the sense that he was also getting at something more.

In my earlier post, I used the word 'Evil' for lack of a better word and not to mean evil in the general sense as we would understand it. To clarify, I think Gandalf is implying that even if Sauron were to be defeated, 'Evil' could still triumph in Middle-Earth simply because of the manner used to accomplish his defeat. I base this opinion on the context which Gandalf's 'Black' quote appears in the story. By saying in the same speech that "only the use of the Ring could give us surety of victory," Gandalf seems to say that Sauron could be defeated through the use of the Ring and yet Middle-Earth would still lose because there would simply be another 'Sauron' set up in his place.

Which is why in my earlier post, I ventured that if Gandalf was referring to any specific entity, it would be the Ring, not simply because Sauron may yet retrieve it and become more powerful, but also because someone else might use it successfully against Sauron. At different points earlier in the story, Gandalf and Galadriel both make the implication that with the Ring either one of them could defeat Sauron. But both also make it clear that such a victory would be a pyrrhic one.

In the context of his return as 'the White', Gandalf seems to have acquired greater strength and powers, but that does not necessarily include greater power over the Ring. Again, just my interpretation, but I feel that that is what he is trying to get at when he says 'Black' rather than a simple reference to Sauron's military or innate strength.

The preceding posts on this thread, however, have brought up an interesting question which I don't think is clearly answered in the books: Could Sauron truly be defeated as long as the Ring existed? 

In their respective parts of the story, Gandalf and Galadriel seem to say the question doesn't matter since whoever defeated Sauron would simply become another 'Sauron' in spirit if not in name. But could either one of them (or any other powerful being) really have defeated Sauron through the use of the Ring combined with his/her own innate powers? Or would the Ring have simply treated Gandalf or Galadriel like Frodo or any other being with lesser powers and have given them only the delusional confidence to believe that such a feat was possible without any real capability to take on Sauron?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 20, 2005)

Kuduk said:


> But could either one of them (or any other powerful being) really have defeated Sauron through the use of the Ring combined with his/her own innate powers? Or would the Ring have simply treated Gandalf or Galadriel like Frodo or any other being with lesser powers and have given them only the delusional confidence to believe that such a feat was possible without any real capability to take on Sauron?



I don't think we can be wholly certain either way. Though I think a select few (and really only few) would be capable of wielding the One against Sauron.

Here's a portion of Letter #246:



> 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 himself. 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 Aragorn. In the contest with the Palantír 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 destructible 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', 1381, 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 imagine 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.
> 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).



It would appear that Gandalf is the only person for whom it can be said with any certainty that he could stand up to Sauron. Galadriel and Elrond could also possibly have succeeded (not in a one-on-one duel, though). Strangely, Saruman is not considered.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 21, 2005)

Kuduk said:


> Despite the many excellent points made by others in the preceding posts, my inclination is still to say that Gandalf wasn't only referring to Sauron when he uses the word 'Black'. Yes, I agree that Sauron was certainly on Gandalf's mind when he says "but Black is mightier still." But I get the sense that he was also getting at something more.



If he meant something more than Sauron had more power than he did, the only other thing it could have been would be to imply that evil is mightier than good, something I think would never have entered Tolkien's conscious thoughts.

However, anyone who has lived through combat, or has grievously and unjustly suffered in this life could certainly give that idea serious contemplation...

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 21, 2005)

I don't think he was refering to evil in general because there were other than Sauron and Gandalf was a steward of good, not the only force of good in the world. As for evil being mightier than Gandalf of course it is a reference to Sauron for evil in general is mightier than everybody apart from Eru and no-one can challenge evil even if one had the power to do so. 

"There, peeping among the cloud wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty forever beyond it's reach"


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 21, 2005)

With regards to the letter posted by Ithrynluin, does that mean that when Sauron percieved Frodo in Mount Doom With the Ring (and the lead piping, in the library  ), he did not fear Frodo's claim, but rather as you or I would percieve a child running off with a prized antique? More of a danger to the Ring than a danger of Frodo's challenge?


----------



## Kuduk (Feb 21, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> If he meant something more than Sauron had more power than he did, the only other thing it could have been would be to imply that evil is mightier than good, something I think would never have entered Tolkien's conscious thoughts.


 I agree that Tolkien would not say that evil in general is mightier than good. My comment about Gandalf meaning something more than Sauron is referring to the situation at that particular juncture in the story rather than some grander philosophical truth about good and evil. 

I suppose I'm making a distinction between Sauron and the One Ring. As my earlier post elaborates, I thought Gandalf was considering the possibility that Sauron could be beaten and 'Evil', as embodied by the Ring and its effects, could still triumph (a possibility also considered by Tolkien, according to the letter kindly provided by Ithrynluin) . To put it another way, 'Gandalf the White' could still become 'Gandalf the Black' if he were hypothetically to use the Ring to defeat Sauron, even at this juncture in the story where Gandalf has returned no longer 'Grey' but as the more powerful 'White.'

To clarify again, I'm not excluding Sauron from Gandalf's definition of 'Black.' I'm just saying he seemed to me to have also had other things in mind, such as the Ring and its potential effects as I've mentioned. But if one could choose only one thing that Gandalf was referring to (a hypothetical question which I'm not saying that Gandalf was actually doing here), for the reasons I've outlined here and in my earlier posts on this thread, I would choose the Ring rather than Sauron per se.



Hammersmith said:


> With regards to the letter posted by Ithrynluin, does that mean that when Sauron percieved Frodo in Mount Doom With the Ring (and the lead piping, in the library ), he did not fear Frodo's claim, but rather as you or I would percieve a child running off with a prized antique? More of a danger to the Ring than a danger of Frodo's challenge?


That is how I would interpret Sauron's fear.


----------

