# Sauron and the Ring



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 24, 2019)

As it's Christmas I hope forum members won't mind if I ask a stupid question.

If Sauron was a disembodied lidless eye then how could he put the Ring on if he captured it?


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 24, 2019)

Sauron wasn’t a disembodied lidless eye. That’s filmmaker Peter Jackson’s depiction. 

Gollum had seen Sauron face-to-face and spoken with him. He makes it clear in his conversations with Frodo and Sam that Sauron has hands, and that he is missing one finger on one hand: from the chapter “The Black Gate is Closed” in _The Two Towers_,
“[Sauron] has only four [fingers] on the Black Hand, but they are enough.”​
In _Letter_ 246 Tolkien wrote,
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 demeanor and countenance.​This was after Sauron’s first avatar was destroyed in the Downfall of Númenor, when it was submerged along with the rest of the island.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 25, 2019)

Yeah, don't feel bad -- it comes up from time to time -- most recently here:









Sauron's physical form in the Third Age


The films obviously portray Sauron as confined to the form of lidless eye. But did Tolkien intend for this to be just a metaphor for his near-omniscience? Did Sauron in fact have a body during the third age? And if so, why didn't he come forth to lead the war effort himself? I like to...




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 25, 2019)

There is some basis to the "lidless eye" idea:

From The Battle of the Pelennor Fields chapter 6 of The Return of the King:

_A cold voice answered: ‘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*.’ _


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 25, 2019)

One writer on fantasy has said that "in fantasy, there is no safety in metaphor", meaning, I suppose, that fantasy, by introducing nonrational, or irrational subjects and events, makes it difficult to differentiate between metaphorical and literal meaning. Still, I take this example as metaphor.

The repeated use of the image, and the non-appearance of Sauron in the story make it a bit problematic, admittedly; more so than an obvious metaphor used by Denethor, say:

_"To this city only the first finger of his hand has been stretched"._

As we've just been witnessing the battle of armies before the gates, no one would conclude that Sauron's "finger" was made of orcs. I will say that there's at least a possibility that Sauron's eyes were indeed "lidless"; as one of the Maiar, he might well have been able to get by without them -- but as for he himself being only a disembodied eye, we have the author's own statement, as quoted by Alcuin, to refute such an idea.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 25, 2019)

There are also arguments about how many eyes Sauron had: one or two. I suppose an argument could be made that, like the Babylonian god Marduk, Sauron was covered in eyes, but I’ve never seen that posited. 

I think the “eye of Sauron” and the “lidless eye” are symbols of what Sauron claimed was his omniscience: that he was ever-watchful and saw everything. These are good concepts for a tyrant to ingrain in his subjects, lest they dare to step outside his will for fear of being caught and punished. That Sauron could be tricked, that he was unaware of many important things that he would like to know is made sufficiently clear in the tale: though powerful, wise, and knowledgeable, he was far from omniscient or infallible. “Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants.” (_Letter_ 183, which contains some of Tolkien’s “political” thought as well.) In a footnote to this very passage, Tolkien adds that Sauron’s “pride became boundless. … [H]e claimed to be Morgoth returned.” 

Did Sauron have two eyes, or was he a cyclopean monster? I think he had two eyes, but used the symbol of the “lidless eye”. But his eyes were strange: in the Mirror of Galadriel, Frodo saw
a single Eye … rimmed with fire, … glazed, yellow as a cat’s, watchful and intent, … the black slit of its pupil open[ing] on a pit, a window into nothing.​The phrase “yellow as a cat’s” harkens back to earlier tales in which the character that evolved into Sauron was called Tevildo Prince of Cats; this may be echoed in the mysterious Queen Berúthiel, the Black Númenórean princess Falastur King of Gondor wed for dynastic purposes, a Sauron worshipper who kept ten cats, nine black and one white: she set the black cats to spy on the people of Gondor, and the white cat to spy on the black cats. 

Now were you to envision Sauron in the form of “a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic,” with “only four [fingers] on” one hand, with a single eye “rimmed with fire, glazed, yellow as a cat’s” with vertical pupils like a cat’s (or snake’s), I suppose you must be forgiven; for myself, I think he had two such eyes. But I don’t believe Sauron was a disembodied eye floating between two big antennae atop a really tall tower like some escapee from Duck Dodgers.





Can you imagine how much Visine he’d need?


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 26, 2019)

Alcuin said:


> ... But I don’t believe Sauron was a disembodied eye floating between two big antennae atop a really tall tower like some escapee from Duck Dodgers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HEALTH WARNING! My following "brainstorming" may lead to eye issues for all who continue reading, like wild rolling … 🤪

One indication that the Valar weren't only disinterested spectators in the War of the Ring comes with the change of wind first noticed by Ghân-buri-Ghân in the book, just before he hand his Woses had led the Rohirrim as far as possible down the Stonewain Valley towards Gondor, and then disappeared into the woods again. It was a south wind, the one that helped speed Aragorn and his forces from Osgiliath to Minas Tirith in time to intervene decisively in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Wind would have to mean help from Manwë.

Now all maps I have available to me place Orodruin pretty much due west of Barad-dûr, so a south wind would not have been quite as much of a nuisance. After Aragorn's forces had arrived at Minas Tirith, however, Manwë could have added a nice touch by then shifting the wind to the west. That would have driven the gunk still emanating from Orodruin straight back to Barad-dûr - and PJ's lidless "searchlight". Lidless. So no chance of wiping dirt from the eyeball by the first choice of all land-living vertebrates (some of the amphibian and reptile persuasion had tongues long enough to serve as "windshield wipers"). Something of a missed opportunity, that missing eyelid. A furious blinking could have caused all sorts of uproars within and outside Barad-dûr. Inside, causing a minor (?) earthquake, with all sorts of "furnishings" ending up in a jumbled mess. Outside, a serious disruption of communications. One airborne Nazgûl to another: "What was that latest message from the Big Boss?!?" "I have no idea. It made no sense whatsoever!"

Going back to the accepted "lidless" notion, the (eight remaining) Nazgûl could have been massively distracted by having to hose down the "searchlight" in some middle-earth equivalent of fire-fighting airplanes or helicopters. The furnishings mess within Barad-dûr could have been even worse than in the above "blinking" scenario. Now the straight-line distance from the Pelennor Fields to Barad-dûr seems to be about 140 miles or 225 kilometers. Fast WW II fighter planes whose top speed exceeded 400 mph or 640 kph would still have needed over 20 minutes to get to Barad-dûr. Giving the aerodynamically far less sleek Nazgûl the benefit of the doubt at half that top speed, it would have been almost three quarters of an hour before they could start "hosing down". They might have arrived at a scene of a totally wrecked Barad-dûr, with a huge "searchlight" hopping around the ruins like a demented frog Godzilla ...


----------



## 1stvermont (Dec 26, 2019)

Not sure if this was mentioned but i was just reading many meetings and Gandalf told Frodo had he become a wraith he would have seen Sauron take the ring from him into Saurons hand.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 26, 2019)

Olorgando said:


> One indication that the Valar weren't only disinterested spectators in the War of the Ring comes with the change of wind first noticed by Ghân-buri-Ghân in the book, just before he hand his Woses had led the Rohirrim as far as possible down the Stonewain Valley towards Gondor, and then disappeared into the woods again. It was a south wind, the one that helped speed Aragorn and his forces from Osgiliath to Minas Tirith in time to intervene decisively in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Wind would have to mean help from Manwë.


 And the stiff north wind that blew on the day the Ring was destroyed hastened the arrival of Manwë’s Eagles, who drove back the Nazgûl from the Host of the West and rescued Frodo and Sam from certain doom at the foot of Mount Doom. And since it was cold because it came from the north, the direction of Morgoth’s old strongholds of Utumno and Angband, Sauron might easily have mistaken it as propitious for him. 



1stvermont said:


> Not sure if this was mentioned but i was just reading many meetings and Gandalf told Frodo had he become a wraith he would have seen Sauron take the ring from him into Saurons hand.


Yes: good catch.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 26, 2019)

For those without a copy "to hand":
_"You would have become a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord; and he would have tormented you for trying to keep his Ring, if any greater torment were possible than being robbed of it and seeing it on his hand"._


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 27, 2019)

This may be an awful chestnut already discussed in older threads to no end, but there is the question of Sauron and his One Ring at the destruction of Númenor. How could Sauron, having become disembodied in that wreck, have "carried" his One Ring back to Middle-earth? Or did he leave it in Barad-dûr, as against mere mortals he presumed (rightly, as it would turn out) that his remaining powers were more that sufficient in dealing with Ar-Pharazôn and his lot?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 27, 2019)

There was discussion on a fairly recent thread, IIRC --- I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 27, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> There was discussion on a fairly recent thread, IIRC --- I'll see if I can find it.


Well, if it runs to more than a couple of pages, we probably won't be able to add any more "meaningful insights" now. HoMe was completed in 1996, way before the films.
It could be of some interest in a sense of "archaeology" - or as you have called it "necro-posting".


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 27, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> There was discussion on a fairly recent thread, IIRC --- I'll see if I can find it.


This is a recent one. I think there are several.








Why did Ar-Pharazôn not take the Ring when he beat Sauron?


Isildur took the Ring for himself after besting Sauron, why didn't Ar-Pharazôn do the same? Ar-Pharazôn sounds like the type of character who would be even more susceptible to trying to use it. than even Isildur. If the Ring was not with Sauron when he was captured (a possibility as one...




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 27, 2019)

Thanks. I think there's an even more recent one; I seem to recall posting on it myself, but still haven't found it. My search has so far resulted only in a necropost.  It may have been an OT comment on a different thread subject, anyway.

IIRC, it touched on the problem discussed in your linked thread -- the difficulties involved in Sauron having the Ring in Numenor.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 27, 2019)

This is another good thread about Sauron's physical form on the 3rd age








What does Sauron look like?


What did Sauron look like in the Third Age? Just like he did after Numenor in the Second Age.... Let's dig a bit here. (I sure hope I can find the 4 fingers quote) First, before we get to the messiness of what his shape was like, let's establish the fact that Sauron did indeed have a shape...




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 27, 2019)

I don’t think the Rings of Power were obvious. I am rereading _Lord of the Rings_ again (over one hundred times: I lost count twenty years ago), and just reread the passage at the end of “The Mirror of Galadriel” when Frodo first sees and recognizes Galadriel’s ring, Nenya, the Ring of Adamant. Galadriel complements him on his insight, and attributes it to his being the Ring-Bearer and having seen the Eye of Sauron in her Mirror. She asks Sam if he saw her ring, and he replied that he had not. 

A few points here.
Even Frodo as Ring-bearer could not see Galadriel’s ring before he had seen Sauron in the Mirror.
Sam could not see Galadriel’s ring even _after_ both Frodo and Galadriel told him she was wearing one.
I think we can presume, based upon this, that Gandalf and Elrond were also wearing their rings: none of the other characters mention having seen them.
At the end of the story as Frodo and Bilbo prepare to leave with Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel, the text says that Gandalf was “wore openly upon his hand the Third Ring, Narya the Great, and the stone upon it was red as fire.” Both Frodo and Sam could see the rings of Elrond and Galadriel, but by then Sam had also worn the One Ring. The point is, though, that Gandalf was wearing Narya “openly”, meaning that he was no longer concealing it: these Three Rings could be hidden from others.
The Dwarves apparently never knew exactly who had the Ring of Durin. That it was passed from one Dwarf king to the next they assumed; but none of them saw it. And Thráin’s ring was taken from him “with torment” in Dol Guldur: I think that means Sauron had to force him to give it up. That strongly suggests Thráin was wearing his ring, and it could not be forcibly removed from him without killing or maiming him (as Isildur maimed Sauron’s physical form).
 Now, Bombadil put on the One Ring and the Hobbits could still see him and the Ring: it startled and surprised them that he did not vanish. But Tom Bombadil was not subject to the power of the Ring as were others in Middle-earth (Tolkien indicates that this was because Bombadil had renounced power, a kind of vow of poverty I think), and he does not seem to have wanted to conceal it. 

Concerning Sauron and the One Ring in Númenor, Tolkien writes in _Letter_ 211,
I do not think Ar-Pharazôn knew anything about the One Ring. The Elves kept the matter of the Rings very secret, as long as they could. In any case Ar-Pharazôn was not in communication with them.​which indicates that even during the War of the Elves and Sauron midway through the Second Age when the Númenóreans prevented Sauron from overwhelming and destroying Gil-galad and Círdan’s kingdom of Lindon, the Eldar never revealed to them the true cause of the war: the Dúnedain only learned of the Rings of Power during the War of the Last Alliance! That alone is worth noting. (Otherwise, Ar-Pharazôn would have had records from Tar-Minastir’s expedition and known about the One Ring.) This letter also contains the passage (almost immediately following the one just cited),
Though reduced to “a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind”, I do not think one need boggle at this spirit [i.e., the disembodied Sauron] carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended.​


----------



## Elthir (Dec 27, 2019)

For myself, I don't think the Three were invisible.

For my argument with respect to this, right now I'm out of time again, having wasted too much of it looking up how to spell _Gryffindor,_ and then spelling it differently anyway. And then briefly explaining about Gryffindor in this post.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 27, 2019)

The earlier quote from letter 246 says "the form that he (Sauron) took". So can we surmise that Sauron could project a single lidless eye in the mirror of Galadriel as well as adopt the form of a "man of more than human stature".


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 27, 2019)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> The earlier quote from letter 246 says "the form that he (Sauron) took". So can we surmise that Sauron could project a single lidless eye in the mirror of Galadriel as well as adopt the form of a "man of more than human stature".


Don’t forget, Pippin also saw Sauron, in the palantír. So did Aragorn. They might have gotten a good look at him, too, as he really was. But Galadriel’s Mirror showed things in a more evocative fashion: hers was _hydromancy_ or a form of it: divination by looking into water. Neither Pippin nor Aragorn reported anything odd about Sauron’s appearance: single disembodied eye, one-eyed, so on; Pippin in fact did not want to discuss Sauron’s appearance at all! But the mirror of Galadriel might focus on something easily interpreted, or misinterpreted: just an eye, just one eye, a clear sign (remember, it’s divination or mighty closely akin to it) that the viewer – Frodo in this case – was seeing a vision of Sauron. 

None of this definitively says Sauron had one eye, two eyes, or more eyes. But since the sign of Sauron was “the lidless eye,” the vision Frodo experienced in Galadriel’s garden in Lórien was of a single eye. That seems to me more striking, and perhaps more frightening, than two eyes. In any case, Rivendell_librarian, I think you are certainly free to interpret it in any way that seems most natural to you. 



Galin said:


> For myself, I don't think the Three were invisible.
> 
> For my argument with respect to this, right now I'm out of time again, having wasted too much of it looking up how to spell _Gryffindor,_ and then spelling it differently anyway. And then briefly explaining about Gryffindor in this post.


_Gryffindor_ is a Harry Potter character, isn’t it?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 27, 2019)

It's one of the "Four Houses" at Hogwarts"








Hogwarts Houses


Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry was divided into four Houses: Gryffindor, founded by Godric Gryffindor; Hufflepuff, founded by Helga Hufflepuff; Ravenclaw, founded by Rowena Ravenclaw; and Slytherin, founded by Salazar Slytherin. Houses at Hogwarts were both the living and learning...




harrypotter.fandom.com





Modeled on the "houses" traditional in English public schools -- as the Harry Potter books are fantasy versions of English "school stories".

As to hydromancy, Tolkien is always careful to mark a clear distinction between any use of divination or prophecy by "good" characters, and anything smacking of "dark arts"; in this case, what "sanctifies" it is the light of Earendil's star:

_The evening star had risen and was shining with white fire above the western woods._

Emphasized, after the visions:

_Earendil, the Evening Star, most beloved of the Rlves, shone clear above._

And again, in Galadriel's gift to Frodo, light and water are combined and identified with each other:

_'In this phial,' she said, 'is caught the the light of Earendil's star, set amid the waters of my fountain. It will shine still brighter when night is about you'._

The author must have taken great care with the garden scene, as it is also an example of _katabasis, _in which characters "go below" in order to learn about future events, as in Homer or Vergil -- In those instances, by conversing with the dead, which would of course be abhorrent to both the Elves, and Tolkien himself, as shown by The Hobbit's designation of Sauron as "The Necromancer".

It's interesting that the demonic parody of the _katabasis _ sequence combines that feature with both lights and water, in the scene in the Dead Marshes.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 27, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> As to hydromancy, Tolkien is always careful to mark a clear distinction between any use of divination or prophesy by "good" characters, and anything smacking of "dark arts"; in this case, what "sanctifies" it is the light of Earendil's star:
> ...
> The author must have taken great care with the garden scene, as it is also an example of _katabasis, _in which characters "go below" in order to learn about future events, as in Homer or Vergil -- In those instances, by conversing with the dead, which would of course be abhorrent to both the Elves, and Tolkien himself...
> 
> It's interesting that the demonic parody of the _katabasis _ sequence combines that feature with both lights and water, in the scene in the Dead Marshes.


I had never thought of that! There is a connection between Frodo’s visions in the Mirror and his visions in the Dead Marshes. “Do not touch the water,” says Galadriel; but it is only when your face is against the marshy water, or in it, that you see visions in the Dead Marshes. The Mirror is reflective; the Marshes are dead and dark, physically and spiritually. There are no birds: when the Company leaves Lórien, one of the first things Tolkien notes is that there are no birds singing any longer. There were no birds in the Old Forest; none in Hollin but the Crebain and hawks, both of which the Company took as spies, and now no birds in the woods along the river south of Lórien. 

In view of your description of the Dead Marshes as a demonic parody, it is well to remember that the Dead Marshes were originally the military cemetery of the fallen soldiers of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. Probably the only verdant section of the Dagorlad, neighbour of the Nindalf or Wetwang across Anduin from the inflows of the Entwash, it had been selected as the burial ground of the honoured dead; but Sauron has corrupted it into a horror where no one dares go, all memorials drowned in the swamp he has made of the cemetery.
“For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy.”​


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 27, 2019)

Many -- I would say most -- scenes and events in LOTR have either a "contrasted parallel" or demonic parody. It would be an interesting, if confusing*, exercise to identify them all.

*I once tried to diagram the contrasted parallels among some of the characters -- that quickly turned into a hopeless mass of crossed lines.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 27, 2019)

Alcuin said:


> “Do not touch the water,” says Galadriel; but it is only when your face is against the marshy water, or in it, that you see visions in the Dead Marshes. The Mirror is reflective; the Marshes are dead and dark, physically and spiritually.


Good point, and one _I _hadn't thought of!


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 28, 2019)

Galin said:


> For myself, I don't think the Three were invisible.
> For my argument with respect to this, right now I'm out of time again, having wasted too much of it looking up how to spell _Gryffindor,_ and then spelling it differently anyway. And then briefly explaining about Gryffindor in this post.





Alcuin said:


> ...
> _Gryffindor_ is a Harry Potter character, isn’t it?


Ah, so perhaps half the fog that Galin spewed in “The Halls of Tolkienology”, “The Hall of Fire”, thread “The Three Riders from Rivendell” lifts! Leaves “Endorfin”, which, as I have read widely on the neurosciences including neurochemistry, makes me suspect something of an insider’s insider joke. I await enlightenment by competent sources – ah, what the Angband, I’ll enjoy a “Pythonesque”, nutty “definition” too, as should be clear from some of my posts! 🤪


----------



## Elthir (Dec 30, 2019)

Galin said:


> "For myself, I don't think the Three were invisible. For my argument with respect to this, right now I'm out of time again, . . ."



Oh, but you had time to look up a Harry Potter reference, didn't you?

Anyway, very short version of my argument:

1) According to letter number [illegible] Tolkien noted that the Three do not confer invisibility.

2) Elves wear rings. See _Laws and Customs_ [MR], or ask any of the _Mírdain_ "Jewel-smiths"

3) I wear a gold, unadorned ring. No One thinks it's the One. And No One is right, 'cause it isn't.

4) Frodo "saw" Nenya with his eyes [its light is likened to the Even-star] _and _understood with his insight.

5) Sam saw Nenya and did not understand, and apparently wasn't _listening_ very well neether (understandably upset about home), as, if he was listening well, even "Halfwise" might have guessed that the light he _saw_ between Galadriel's fingers [likened again to a star] was Nenya.

6) If the Lord of the House of Elrond [Elrond] is thinking about describing the Three at the Council of Himself, should he arguably put on a long sleeved robe? I mean, I doubt Brormir would have thought that Galion of Mirkwood had one of the Three (if we imagine that B. knew of Galion, for the sake of this ridiculous argument). But even if Gandalf reveals, as he did, that each of the Three had its proper gem. . .

7) . . . my wife's ring has its "proper" gem. I guess. It's not the only ring with that gem, but anyway.

7.5) And she is sometimes (or in general) "many-ringed" too.

Or something.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 30, 2019)

Haven't we been through this before?

Answer: "Yes".


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 31, 2019)

Galin said:


> Galin said:
> 
> 
> > "For myself, I don't think the Three were invisible. For my argument with respect to this, right now I'm out of time again, …"
> ...


Great. Now Galin's talking to himself. 
And he has yet to dispel the fog surrounding "Endorfin". Which he may have misspelled just like "Griffindor" (in that other thread I mentioned earlier) ... 🤔


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jan 1, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Haven't we been through this before?
> 
> Answer: "Yes".


Aha! Here:








Did Elrond Maximize Vilya’s Powers?


It was stated that Vilya (the blue-stoned ring) was the mightiest of the 3 Elven rings, and in Elrond’s keeping. But I don’t recall Elrond doing all that much with it. Gandalf seemed to get full use from Narya: which most likely augmented both his own courage & that of those around him, and...




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Elthir (Jan 1, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Haven't we been through this before? Answer: "Yes".


 
I apologize for Galin's repetitious ramblings about the Three. He should be punished, and I'm thinking of banning him and taking his place.
At least for a while.

Yours in haste
Endorfin 

PS. And what's "Galin" anyway? Some sort of Elvish invention? Dwarvish? How's it pronounced? Questions that don't need answering, in my opinion.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jan 1, 2020)

Come now, Galin, whoever ye be -- "rambling" is what this site is about! (Isn't it? I hope so -- otherwise, I'd be banned for sure! ).


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 1, 2020)

Galin said:


> I apologize for Galin's repetitious ramblings about the Three. He should be punished, and I'm thinking of banning him and taking his place.
> At least for a while.
> Yours in haste
> Endorfin
> PS. And what's "Galin" anyway? Some sort of Elvish invention? Dwarvish? How's it pronounced? Questions that don't need answering, in my opinion.


_*Sigh*_
Some of JRRT's traits as a writer, specifically leaving unexplained vistas tantalizingly on the edge of clear vision, seem to rub off on participants of sites celebrating him.
Where are the Fosters or Tylers for such sites to help us out?
And now we have - what - usurpation like that of Castamir vs. Eldacar? Or Boromir going to Rivendell instead of Faramir?
Or is this actually shape-shifting, like Beorn's? Or, in a more sinister vein, that of the thread's "name-patron" (basically ended with the end of the Second Age)?
But perhaps I can lessen the fog about "Endorfin" by use on my lexicons, by myself.
Let's see: there's "Endoré", Quenya for Middle-earth; "fin" is usually associated with the first King of the Noldor, Finwë ...
"Middle-earth Finwë"? Celebrimbor or Gil-galad in the Second Age? Elrond or Galadriel in the Third Age? Aragorn in the Fourth Age? Though for the last, the thinning of the "strain" by about two to the power of seventy reaches homeopathic dimensions … 😵


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jan 1, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> "rambling" is what this site is about!


*Ahem* See? What did I tell you?


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Jan 3, 2020)

Alcuin wrote:


> None of this definitively says Sauron had one eye, two eyes, or more eyes. But since the sign of Sauron was “the lidless eye,” the vision Frodo experienced in Galadriel’s garden in Lórien was of a single eye. That seems to me more striking, and perhaps more frightening, than two eyes. In any case, Rivendell_librarian, I think you are certainly free to interpret it in any way that seems most natural to you.



I take it that the "form of a man" means two eyes yet the "lidless eye" is clearly a single eye - hence a different form not part of a "man of more than human stature".

Taking the "lidless eye" as a symbol of Sauron what was it based on?


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 3, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> Alcuin said:
> 
> 
> > None of this definitively says Sauron had one eye, two eyes, or more eyes. But since the sign of Sauron was “the lidless eye,” the vision Frodo experienced in Galadriel’s garden in Lórien was of a single eye. That seems to me more striking, and perhaps more frightening, than two eyes. In any case, Rivendell_librarian, I think you are certainly free to interpret it in any way that seems most natural to you.
> ...





Alcuin said:


> I think the “eye of Sauron” and the “lidless eye” are symbols of what Sauron claimed was his omniscience: that he was ever-watchful and saw everything. These are good concepts for a tyrant to ingrain in his subjects, lest they dare to step outside his will for fear of being caught and punished. That Sauron could be tricked, that he was unaware of many important things that he would like to know is made sufficiently clear in the tale: though powerful, wise, and knowledgeable, he was far from omniscient or infallible. “Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants.” (Letter 183, which contains some of Tolkien’s “political” thought as well.) In a footnote to this very passage, Tolkien adds that Sauron’s “pride became boundless. … [H]e claimed to be Morgoth returned.”
> …
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 3, 2020)

As Sauron and his realm of Mordor can easily be identified with *all* totalitarian / authoritarian forms of rule, regardless of their excuses for exerting the maximum control possible over their subjects (and not any specific state or ruler as was too often done after publication of LoTR), it is the very symbol of this constant, unceasing surveillance. An eye without a lid cannot be closed, by implication never sleeps. What Orwell expressed in his book "1984", "Big Brother is watching you".

A bit strange as a symbol of Sauron. As per Wiki _"The "Eye of Providence" is a symbol, having its origin in Christian iconography, showing an eye often surrounded by rays of light or a glory and usually enclosed by a triangle."_ I had vague memories of this eye in a triangle having to do with Freemasonry and appearing on the one-dollar bill (where it is part of the Great Seal of the US), but all these appear to be derived. The symbol seems to be very old, but first uses in Christianity somewhat lost in the fog of history (of the first millennium).


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jan 3, 2020)

The eye goes back much further than politics or states, indeed much further than Christianity. Alcuin posted a pic of the Eye of Horus, here or on another thread, but that was a benevolent symbol for the Egyptians.

The malevolent aspect appears, in literary form at least, in Homer. The Greeks conceived sight as physically active, rather than passive, that is, the eyes emitted a kind of "ray" that lighted on objects before them. There are phrases demonstrating this, such as "he threw his sight out upon the sea" and the like. We unknowingly use a surviving vestige of the concept when we say "cast your eyes on this".

One aspect of the conception was that the sight _affects _the obect it lands on, including people, and so the idea of the "evil eye" was born; the more evil the "watcher" the more dire the effect. And what was the most evil creature? The dragon. In fact, the Greek word _drakon_ is formed from _derkomai, _"sight", "to see", or a "gleam" or "flash" of the eye.

This evil eye of the Dragon spread and survived through history, and we see it adapted by Tolkien in Glaurung and Smaug -- and Sauron.

It also survives in Greece, as a visit to shops will show:


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 3, 2020)

The Eye of Horus is the earliest depiction of which I am aware.




The Eye of Horus is the “All Seeing Eye”, which has these characteristics (Jan Koenderink, “The All Seeing Eye?” _Perception_ 2014 , volume 43, pp 1-6):

the All Seeing Eye is Ever Watchful;
the All Seeing Eye escapes overlooks nothing;
the All Seeing Eye sees things as they Really Are;
the All Seeing Eye makes no mistakes, and never hallucinates;
the All Seeing Eye sees The World As It Really Is.
Perhaps there are earlier depictions, but I am not aware of them, not yet at any rate.

The Eye of Providence is a similar representation, said to be Christian iconography; and a 2012 BBC article on the Helix Nebula says there are similar representations in Hinduism and Buddhism.





Peacocks are considered sacred in Hinduism, the tails of the males considered depictions of the eyes of various all-seeing gods, and from India the motif spread westward to Babylonia, Persia, and Greece, each time with appropriately fashioned myths.





Finally, there is the star Fomalhaut, α Piscis Austrini, about which there is a debris disk with planets forming in the dust cloud, sometimes called “the Eye of Sauron”.





Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> The eye goes back much further than politics or states, indeed much further than Christianity…
> 
> The malevolent aspect appears, in literary form at least, in Homer. The Greeks conceived sight as physically active, rather than passive, that is, the eyes emitted a kind of "ray" that lighted on objects before them. There are phrases demonstrating this, such as "he threw his sight out upon the sea" and the like. We unknowingly use a surviving vestige of the concept when we say "cast your eyes on this".
> 
> ...


A link to More on the Evil Eye, which as Squint-_eyed_ Southerner points out, is most appropriate for Sauron and the dragons. 😉


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jan 3, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Alcuin posted a pic of the Eye of Horus, here or on another thread,


There it is!


----------



## Miguel (Jan 3, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> The eye goes back much further than politics or states, indeed much further than Christianity. Alcuin posted a pic of the Eye of Horus, here or on another thread, but that was a benevolent symbol for the Egyptians.
> 
> The malevolent aspect appears, in literary form at least, in Homer. The Greeks conceived sight as physically active, rather than passive, that is, the eyes emitted a kind of "ray" that lighted on objects before them. There are phrases demonstrating this, such as "he threw his sight out upon the sea" and the like. We unknowingly use a surviving vestige of the concept when we say "cast your eyes on this".
> 
> ...



I have one of those, i don't know if it works or not 🤔


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 3, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> As Sauron and his realm of Mordor can easily be identified with *all* totalitarian / authoritarian forms of rule, regardless of their excuses for exerting the maximum control possible over their subjects (and not any specific state or ruler as was too often done after publication of LoTR), it is the very symbol of this constant, unceasing surveillance. An eye without a lid cannot be closed, by implication never sleeps. What Orwell expressed in his book "1984", "Big Brother is watching you".
> 
> A bit strange as a symbol of Sauron. As per Wiki _"The "Eye of Providence" is a symbol, having its origin in Christian iconography, showing an eye often surrounded by rays of light or a glory and usually enclosed by a triangle."_ I had vague memories of this eye in a triangle having to do with Freemasonry and appearing on the one-dollar bill (where it is part of the Great Seal of the US), but all these appear to be derived. The symbol seems to be very old, but first uses in Christianity somewhat lost in the fog of history (of the first millennium).


Yeah, it meant the omniscience of God before being corrupted and stolen, like many other Catholic symbols, such as the Pentagram. 


CL


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 4, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> … One aspect of the conception was that the sight _affects _the object it lands on...


I find it amazing how advanced (_*very*_ advanced) science has occasionally proved ancient concepts like that, which have no relevance for everyday life, to be true for extremely specific and narrow fields of research: quantum physics. The first double-slit experiment showing that electrons could behave like waves was conducted 1927. More to my point, development the electron microscope started a few years later, in the early 1930s. This *sight* with electron beams *definitely* affected the object they landed on (I can't resist one Python OT tangent: Kal-El from the planet Krypton - remnants of which appear to have been used in my car's main headlights - is said to have "heat vision", "x-ray vision", "telescopic vision" and "microscopic vision"; no mention of "electron vision", though for the resolutions he appears to have achieved with the last this would have been a must; electron microscope technology must have been too far away from "popular science" at this point to be included by the original authors). Which led to Werner Heisenberg formulating his uncertainty principle. And the creators of Star Trek (I believe in the original Kirk-Spock etc. TV series) to postulate "Heisenberg compensators" for beaming. Asked by an interviewer how these things worked, one of them gave the only sensible answer for such areas of science-fiction: "Quite satisfactorily, thank you." 😂


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 4, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Yeah, it meant the omniscience of God before being corrupted and stolen, like many other Catholic symbols, such as the Pentagram.
> CL


You might get some annoyed looks by members of Christian Eastern Orthodoxy (the older paradigm) by implying, by my interpretation of your post, (Roman) Catholic exclusivity about things that are not exclusive to it. And just looking at two recent feast days, All Hallows Eve and Christmas were established centuries after the original Apostles to assimilate pagan festivities of two different pagan beliefs. 🤨


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jan 4, 2020)

I think its antiquity has been established; the citations in the wiki Alcuin linked point to pre-literate origins. It may even be pre-_human._


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 4, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> : Kal-El from the planet Krypton - remnants of which appear to have been used in my car's main headlights - is said to have "heat vision", "x-ray vision", "telescopic vision" and "microscopic vision"; no mention of "electron vision"


Dang, he has telescopic and microscopic?? I need to read more comics! XD


CL


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 4, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> You might get some annoyed looks by members of Christian Eastern Orthodoxy (the older paradigm) by implying, by my interpretation of your post, (Roman) Catholic exclusivity about things that are not exclusive to it. And just looking at two recent feast days, All Hallows Eve and Christmas were established centuries after the original Apostles to assimilate pagan festivities of two different pagan beliefs. 🤨


Actually Catholics celebrated Halloween since the ancient times, All Hallow's Eve, part of the Triduum with All Saint's Day and All Souls Day following, the pagan part didn't come till the 13th century! 


CL


But again, Off-topic.


XD


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 4, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Dang, he has telescopic and microscopic?? I need to read more comics! XD
> CL


Not sure that would help. I mean, there have legions of films (some in the ancient serial mode), TV shows and cartoons about him. I'm pretty sure about telescopic, slightly less so about microscopic (and then he might have been able to combine both with x-ray …)


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 4, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Not sure that would help. I mean, there have legions of films (some in the ancient serial mode), TV shows and cartoons about him. I'm pretty sure about telescopic, slightly less so about microscopic (and then he might have been able to combine both with x-ray …)


Okay, true, that is very true, I just knew about x-ray and heat, I guess the mythos of Supes changed over time. 


And. maybe! In the movie_ Superman Returns_, he was able to go through what I would say are different layers of x-ray vision when examining someone, so I would think so!



CL


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 4, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> ... the pagan part didn't come till the 13th century!
> CL


I'd be very careful with that statement, too. From our early 1990s vacation in Ireland, I have two seriously fat books about Irish (Celtic) mythology, legends, and fairy-tales. I'll just mention the terms "Ulster Cycle" or "Red Branch Cycle", with its central heroes "King" Conchobar mac Nessa and the ultimate warrior Cú Chulainn, believed to take place in the first century AD, the Fenian Cycle centered around Fionn mac Cumhaill (ostensibly recorded by his son Oisin or Ossian. and taking place in the 3rd century AD), or the Welsh "Mabinogion", may have all been first reliably *written down* in the 13th century (at the time the "Romanization" of the divergent Irish Catholic Church may or may not have been completely achieved by Anglo-Normans), but at any rate by Christian writer bent on "sanitizing" these stories. As even the unknown author of "Beowulf", writing perhaps several centuries (how many is in dispute, JRRT favored earlier times) before the 13th, did. Though with an amount of sympathy lacking in Bede, a venerated if somewhat (not to say severely) narrow-minded man totally lacked, and which I would argue was only matched by JRRT many centuries later, whom I have elsewhere called "the Beowulf-author of the 20th century".


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 4, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> I'd be very careful with that statement, too. From our early 1990s vacation in Ireland, I have two seriously fat books about Irish (Celtic) mythology, legends, and fairy-tales. I'll just mention the terms "Ulster Cycle" or "Red Branch Cycle", with its central heroes "King" Conchobar mac Nessa and the ultimate warrior Cú Chulainn, believed to take place in the first century AD, the Fenian Cycle centered around Fionn mac Cumhaill (ostensibly recorded by his son Oisin or Ossian. and taking place in the 3rd century AD), or the Welsh "Mabinogion", may have all been first reliably *written down* in the 13th century (at the time the "Romanization" of the divergent Irish Catholic Church may or may not have been completely achieved by Anglo-Normans), but at any rate by Christian writer bent on "sanitizing" these stories. As even the unknown author of "Beowulf", writing perhaps several centuries (how many is in dispute, JRRT favored earlier times) before the 13th, did. Though with an amount of sympathy lacking in Bede, a venerated if somewhat (not to say severely) narrow-minded man totally lacked, and which I would argue was only matched by JRRT many centuries later, whom I have elsewhere called "the Beowulf-author of the 20th century".


I guess the All Hallow's eve type celebration was celebrated by us Catholics since the ancient times and the other weirdo pagan celebrations were around that time.


Pagans were doing whatever carnality they were doing, Catholics were thinking about Death and people departed, I'd say both perfectly fit Halloween, wouldn't you?


(Yeah, we Catholics really think about Death. We build chapels out of skulls. I'd say we Catholics have a more mood-appropriate festivities than Candy seeking. XD)



CL


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 4, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I think its antiquity has been established; the citations in the wiki Alcuin linked point to pre-literate origins. It may even be pre-_human._


Sight is very dang important. Heck, the Bible talks about it a whole ton metaphorically and not pretty dang continuously, just for reference.



CL


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 4, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> … I guess the All Hallow's eve type celebration was celebrated by us Catholics since the ancient times and the other weirdo pagan celebrations were around that time.
> Pagans were doing whatever carnality they were doing ...
> CL


For whatever Wikipedia is worth:
_"The feast of All Hallows', on its current date in the Western Church, may be traced to Pope Gregory III's (731–741) founding of an oratory in St Peter's for the relics "of the holy apostles and of all saints, martyrs and confessors". In 835, All Hallows' Day was officially switched to 1 November, the same date as Samhain, at the behest of Pope Gregory IV."_

And again, pagans were not (all) involved solely in carnality. This is like the accusation that the "(Roman) Catholic Church believed in a flat earth even after Copernicus (?)" - mostly Protestant propaganda. And in one sense, the *Roman* Catholic Church exists in its current form only since the west-east schism (finally) provoked by Pope Leo IX in 1054. Popes had been annoying eastern patriarchs (and Byzantine Emperors) for centuries before that.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 4, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> And again, pagans were not (all) involved solely in carnality.


I was joking. XD



CL


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 4, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> You might get some annoyed looks by members of Christian Eastern Orthodoxy (the older paradigm) by implying, by my interpretation of your post, (Roman) Catholic exclusivity about things that are not exclusive to it. And just looking at two recent feast days, All Hallows Eve and Christmas were established centuries after the original Apostles to assimilate pagan festivities of two different pagan beliefs.



Off Topic, but … this is appropriate for the season. 

On Halloween you might be correct, celebrating All Saints’ Day and All Soul’s Day to “purify” the community of pagan Samhain. Christmas, however, is and always has been a Christian holiday celebrated on the _days_ – *not day!* – it is still celebrated since at least the second century. This we know by letters dating to that period, which indicate celebration of the season was already established long before that.

The New Testament does not give the day of the birth of Jesus. Luke says that the angel Gabriel visited Mary “in the sixth month”, which in the Jewish calendar would be about March if you’re using the civil calendar that begins in Tishrei, or about September if you’re using the religious calendar that begins in Nisan. 

But _Luke_ and _Acts_ are the _only_ books in the Bible, Old or New Testaments, not written by Jews. Luke, a physician from Troas (ancient Troy), was Greek, and he used the Greco-Roman calendar, the Julian calendar of which our modern Gregorian calendar is but a tweak to get the equinoxes in line, and the “sixth month” is still _June_. 

Christians celebrated Christmas _not_ because Jesus was born then, but because they could date the Visit of the Magi very precisely. A careful reading of Matthew chapter 2 reveals that the “star” the Magi saw was Jupiter, the “King of the Planets”, in triple retrograde motion around Regulus, the brightest star in the constellation Leo: “King-King-King” around the one of the brightest stars in the sky in the constellation traditionally associated with Judah “the lion of Israel.” Archaeoastronomy reveals the third and final retrograde movement of Jupiter about Regulus occurred precisely on 25 December 2 BC, and if you were in Jerusalem, it would appear in the direction of Bethlehem. 

January 6 is Epiphany, “Three Kings’ Day”, and the evening before that is Twelfth Night. Christmas lasts from December 25 until January 6; Catholic and Protestant Christians (who are “protesting” Catholicism) celebrate December 25, Orthodox Christians celebrate January 6. The giving of presents is in memory of the gold, frankincense, and myrrh brought as gifts by the Magi. 

Santa Claus is a modern perversion by greedy men.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 4, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Santa Claus is a modern perversion by greedy men.


And not to mention a thief of the name of a Saint who gave away all his wealth.



CL


----------



## grendel (Jan 4, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Which led to Werner Heisenberg formulating his uncertainty principle.



I always laugh at the "Futurama" episode where Professor Farnsworth is watching a horse race that ends in a dead heat. They use photos... a magnifying glass... microscope... finally an electron microscope to determine a winner. And Professor Farnsworth rages, "You altered the outcome by observing it!" #nerdhumor


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 5, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Off Topic, but … this is appropriate for the season.
> ...
> Santa Claus is a modern perversion by greedy men.


Tom Shippey provide some interesting thoughts that connect Christian feast days with Sauron, specifically the day of his final downfall, 25 March (I'll pass over imprecision between the Gondorian calendar and ours).

In his 2000 book "J.R.R. Tolkien - Author of the Century", in the section (or chapter) IV "The Lord of the Rings (3): The Mythic Dimension", on pages 209-209 of my 2001 HarperCollins paperback, he notes:

"However as [JRRT] knew perfectly well, in old English tradition, 25th March is the date of the Crucifixion, the *first* Good Friday …"
"25th March remains a date deeply embedded in the Christian calendar. In old tradition, it is the date of the Annunciation and the conception of Christ - naturally, nine months exactly before Christmas, 25th December. It is also the date of the Fall of Adam and Eve [!], the _felix culpa_ whose disastrous effects the Annunciation and the Crucifixion were to annul or repair. One might note that in the Calendar of dates which Tolkien so carefully wrote out in Appendix B, December 25th is the day on which the Fellowship sets out from Rivendell. The main action of The Lord of the Rings takes place, then, in the mythic space between Christmas, Christ's birth, and the crucifixion, Christ's death."

06 January "Heilige Drei Könige", Epiphanias, is a holiday in three German states, including Bavaria, where I live. In some regions of Germany, the twelve night from 24/25 December to 05/06 January are called "Rauhnächte", and folk beliefs (or superstitions) and events with clearly pagan roots are also sometimes celebrated, to "drive out the stormy evil spirits of midwinter".

Saint Nichols (traditionally 15 March 270 – 6 December 343), bishop of Myra, that faintly echoed ancestor to a soft-drink manufacturer's invention (or was that Macy's fault?), has his feast day on 06 December, which in earlier times here may have been the day of gift-giving, rather than Christmas.


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 5, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Santa Claus is a modern perversion by greedy men.





CirdanLinweilin said:


> And not to mention a thief of the name of a Saint who gave away all his wealth.
> CL


Actually, that advertisers' perversion's name is derived from one that was brought to the "New World" by the Dutch, to a place called New Amsterdam, under the name "Sinterklaas".
The Brits, long before soft drinks and Macy's, not only stole the (probably misunderstood) Saint's name, they stole the whole freakin' place from the Dutch! 🤨


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 5, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Actually, that advertisers' perversion's name is derived from one that was brought to the "New World" by the Dutch, to a place called New Amsterdam, under the name "Sinterklaas".
> The Brits, long before soft drinks and Macy's, not only stole the (probably misunderstood) Saint's name, they stole the whole freakin' place from the Dutch! 🤨


As is the British Way, XD

CL


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 6, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> As is the British Way, XD
> CL


Umyes … kind of reminds me of a Latin saying (note: despite three years of Latin in high school, most of the Latin sayings I still remember are from the French comic book series "Asterix the Gaul" - and in contrast to the Germen translation, in the French original these Latin phrases *are not translated in footnotes*! Shades of JRRT in LoTR!): "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes", commonly translated as "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" - actually "timeo" means *I* fear. The origin of this saying may have something to do with that legendary wooden horse at Troy. Aeneas, the Roman equivalent to Homer's Odysseus (the latter also known to the Romans as Ulysses) in Virgil's "Aeneid", is a Trojan Hero who is seen by the Romans as an ancestor of Romulus and Remus, which would explain a certain Roman suspicion of things Greek - though they did practically copy the entire Greek pantheon for themselves, if romanizing every god's name.
Besides both the Greeks and the British being noted seafaring nations, if at different times in history as being dominant, the both acquired a reputation of being highly untrustworthy, often even by nominal allies. One does get the impression that this was due to the high degree of influence exerted over centuries by the merchant class ...


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 12, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Haven't we been through this before?


Repetitive discussion is an art form. Galin, who now calls himself “Ando”, is good at it: he and I have engaged in it repetitively over the years. I beg we cut him some slack; besides, I too may want to reëngage a discussion in this way myself in some later thread: so might you, my friend whom I greatly respect. 



Galin said:


> And what's "Galin" anyway? Some sort of Elvish invention? Dwarvish? How's it pronounced? Questions that don't need answering, in my opinion.


_Galin_: is that an Sindarization of Galen the Physician? Or is it (as seems more likely) a Sindar word I have failed to interpret properly?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jan 12, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> so might you


No doubt!


----------



## Elthir (Jan 13, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> _ Galin_: is that an Sindarization of Galen the Physician?




No, but I found a very loose connection between us: _"In order to unite his theories about the soul and how it operated within the body, he [Gal__e__n] adapted the theory of the pneuma."_ And I highly recommend this:









> Or is it (as seems more likely) a Sindar word I have failed to interpret properly?



I think I liked it 'cause it seemed like it could be both Sindarin (Neo-Quenya Nalindo maybe), or a name from _Dvergatal._


----------

