# Was Frodo a hero?



## Rivendell_librarian (Aug 17, 2019)

People who watch the PJ LOTR trilogy often remark that Sam is more of a hero than Frodo. I don't think this is entirely due to PJ but rather modern values.
For instance Frodo declaring "the Ring is mine" does not fit in with people exposed to superhero comics, James Bond films etc. This is Le Carre rather than Fleming. Tolkien swerved away from the traditional heroic narrative and so made a deeper and better message. There is evil in the world and it is powerful. We need external help to defeat it and that help can come in unexpected ways. Had Bilbo, Frodo, Faramir etc. not had mercy on Gollum then would Sauron and evil have triumphed?

But had Tolkien made Frodo a traditional hero what would he have said in Mt Doom instead? "Take that Sauron, serves you right for underestimating hobbits of the Shire"

Other suggestions welcome.

I do think Tolkien intended Frodo to be considered a hero but not in the traditional James Bond sense.


----------



## Miguel (Aug 17, 2019)

I don't know about the Lotr books since i haven't read them, but in the movie Sam is like a mom/dad in the form of a dude. Is that why Gandalf was pleased that he was with Frodo?.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 17, 2019)

Good post, RL -- but I don't think you can tie the reactions to comics, superheroes, James Bond, or the like -- a "modern" sensibility, in other words. Tolkien cited a letter from a reader saying Frodo shouldn't have been feted, but hanged. He (Tolkien) then goes on to state his conception: that Frodo strove to get the Ring to Mount Doom, to the very entrance of the Sammath Naur, where "all other powers were subdued". That was heroism enough for any, and more than many could have done. At that point, yes, he succumbed, but I think the implication is clear that _no one_ in that situation could have resisted the power of the Ring. As you say, an outside power was needed, and in the event, just as Gandalf's heart told him, the pity of Bilbo did indeed "rule the fate of many".

But Sam was a hero, too.

Hey Miguel -- I thought you said you'd listened to the audio books. Am I misremebering?


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 17, 2019)

I don't think you can say that "Tolkien swerved away from the traditional heroic narrative" since he based his mythology on many traditional sources. There were different types of Heros in the story, you have Aragorn who had spent something like 70 years preparing for the war of the Ring and becoming High King of Arnor and Gondor. Then you have Frodo, very happy to live quietly in the Shire but forced by circumstances to leave his home and undertake a dangerous journey he did not want to take. Also there are the heroic companions who would not have gone on this journey if not for friendship. Each has traditions. Frodo pushed further than any thought possible and failed at the last hurdle but that does not wipe out all the hardships that he suffered to get to that point. Yes it is true that he only succeeded because of Smeagol but there was none in Middle-earth who could have made it even that far, to the place where it was possible for the ring to be destroyed. All others would have failed sooner. Though many forget, Frodo was also the hero that was forgotten by nearly everyone and had to give up that which he most wanted, a quiet life in the Shire. He saved the Shire for everyone except himself.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Aug 17, 2019)

Gothmog said:


> I don't think you can say that "Tolkien swerved away from the traditional heroic narrative" since he based his mythology on many traditional sources. There were different types of Heros in the story, you have Aragorn who had spent something like 70 years preparing for the war of the Ring and becoming High King of Arnor and Gondor. Then you have Frodo, very happy to live quietly in the Shire but forced by circumstances to leave his home and undertake a dangerous journey he did not want to take. Also there are the heroic companions who would not have gone on this journey if not for friendship. Each has traditions. Frodo pushed further than any thought possible and failed at the last hurdle but that does not wipe out all the hardships that he suffered to get to that point. Yes it is true that he only succeeded because of Smeagol but there was none in Middle-earth who could have made it even that far, to the place where it was possible for the ring to be destroyed. All others would have failed sooner. Though many forget, Frodo was also the hero that was forgotten by nearly everyone and had to give up that which he most wanted, a quiet life in the Shire. He saved the Shire for everyone except himself.


*applause*

Yes, he suffered so greatly, and I think that's why I can connect with Frodo on so many levels. He failed, but he's not perfect, somehow in the pit of all evil, it was almost expected, but he didn't fail until he was in that cavern, and that's farther than anyone. As someone that religiously believes sacrifice and suffering could be heroic, I always feel a respect for Frodo in that regard.

CL


----------



## Miguel (Aug 17, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Hey Miguel -- I thought you said you'd listened to the audio books. Am I misremebering?



Yes, as it is my preferred approach, but i need multiple sessions in order to comprehend the whole thing. However, i tend to lean more towards the early days of Arda and that's were my mind is for the most part, though i am aware that knowing every nook and cranny in TH & LOTR is a must to get the whole picture.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 17, 2019)

Don't worry -- I've been reading it for more years than I want to say, and find new things every time!


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Aug 18, 2019)

The "swerve" only applies to Frodo's decision to claim the ring as his own in Mt Doom.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Aug 19, 2019)

For me personally, Frodo appears as the main hero in LotR, more so still than Aragorn or even Sam. He is called upon against his will to carry an enormous burden, sets out to fulfill his task and fails - never mind the fact that the Ring ended up where intended - against much higher forces. His return to his former life fails as well from the consequences of his task. In the end he looses everything including his beloved Shire to seek some final peace for himself.

Does this part not feel like a classic Greek tragedy (Oedipus comes to mind) for which a happy end for Frodo never was the intention? I dare saying that it is a quite classic approach to story construction; Shakespeare would have been delighted...!


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Aug 19, 2019)

Hello Merroe,

I like the comparison to Greek drama. I did a course on Greek Drama and listened/watched various plays online (and one live in my home town). They are plays that use direct language and well constructed plots that deal with fundamental human issues, hence similar to Tolkien. The Oedipus trilogy is a particular favourite, especially Oedipus at Colonus.


----------



## user16578 (Aug 20, 2019)

Gollum snatched the Ring from Frodo and fell into the mountain... Frodo was too overwhelmed with the attraction of the Ring to do it himself.
I think that Sam, as a co-bearer of the Ring, and the endurance he showed on the journey makes him a greater hero than Frodo... I also think he should have been allowed, that after his long life etc., to travel to the west... as Frodo and Bilbo did...


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Aug 20, 2019)

Belthil, as regards Sam it is suggested that he did.

In the unpublished Epilogue Sam has a certain fore-feeling in the year 1436 that this would be his end:

_[...]
'And you came back,' said Rose.
'I did,' said Sam; 'to the most belovedest place in all the world. I was torn in two then, lass, but now I am all whole. And all that I have, and all that I have had I still have.'
They went in and shut the door. But even as he did so Sam heard suddenly the sigh and murmur of the sea on the shores of Middle-earth._

"The Tale of years" notes for the year 1482:

_Death of Mistress Rose, wife of Master Samwise, on Mid-year’s Day. On September 22 Master Samwise rides out from Bag End. He comes to the Tower Hills, and is last seen by Elanor, to whom he gives the Red Book afterwards kept by the Fairbairns. Among them the tradition is handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens, and passed over Sea, last of the Ring-bearers._


----------



## user16578 (Aug 20, 2019)

Merroe said:


> Belthil, as regards Sam it is suggested that he did.
> 
> In the unpublished Epilogue Sam has a certain fore-feeling in the year 1436 that this would be his end:
> 
> ...


Well thank you very much Merroe for this, I guess I never knew that part, or forgot it... so thanks for this enlightment!! 
So everybody should forget my last remarks in my post... 

I really must have had a black-out... :

_Born 6 April III 2980, *passed over the Sea late September IV 61 *(1380-1482 by the Shire-reckoning)_


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 20, 2019)

Frodo was very much a hero, and a very modern one at that. Now memory is sketchy as to the exact sources, but Verlyn Flieger in her 1997 book “A Question of Time: J. R. R. Tolkien's Road to Faerie” (I have been desperately unsuccessful in obtaining the 2002 revised edition of her 1983 book “Splintered Light: Logos and Language in Tolkien's World”) and Tom Shippey in his must-have books “The Road to Middle-earth” (2003 revised 3rd edition – I also have the 1992 2nd edition) and “Author of the Century” (2000) drive the point home that JRRT was very much a “modern” (but not “modern*ist*”) author. In the process, practically all of the early (and often even much later) “modernist” negative criticism of LoTR is left in tatters. _(Those “modernists" may have been too occupied with their preference for “incestuous dukes in Tierra del Fuego”, a quote from an earlier statement by one of JRRT’s most vociferous critics, with which he basically shot away the foot of his later JRRT criticism with a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun – or was it a six-barrel Gatling gun?) 😆_


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Aug 20, 2019)

Fyi the "vociferous critic" is supposed to be Philip Toynbee


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 20, 2019)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> Fyi the "vociferous critic" is supposed to be Philip Toynbee


Exactly. As to his ability to find Tierra del Fuego on a map - no idea. I suspect he and his ilk were mostly drooling over the incest part (in whatever books he actually meant in his article - probably few if any about Tierra del Fuego!) - nothing of the sort in LoTR (yawn!). But I do not find consigning the names of such hopelessly self-contradictory whatsits to memory profitable (checked it out in Shippey's "Author of the Century").


----------



## Shieldmaiden of Rohan (Dec 29, 2019)

Miguel said:


> I don't know about the Lotr books since i haven't read them, but in the movie Sam is like a mom/dad in the form of a dude. Is that why Gandalf was pleased that he was with Frodo?.



I have both read the books and watched the movies but it was years ago. I am just starting to read them again. Please forgive me if I am wrong. I think that Sam in the movies is a lot like Sam in the books. Frodo in the Movies however is much weaker.

I might be wrong but I think that Tolkien had a batman/orderly in mind when he wrote Sam and a gentleman and officer in mind when he wrote Frodo. Frodo in the movies is less of an officer then the one in the books. Because of this the relationship feels more like a parent child dynamic than it does in the books.

Having watched the biopic I wonder if it was true what is shown about the relationship between Tolkien and his batman Sam. Was there really a man called Sam in Tolkien’s life (and why is he addressed with his first name. Was This how batmen usually were adressed?)?


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 29, 2019)

Shieldmaiden of Rohan said:


> I have both read the books and watched the movies but it was years ago. I am just starting to read them again. Please forgive me if I am wrong. I think that Sam in the movies is a lot like Sam in the books. Frodo in the Movies however is much weaker.
> 
> I might be wrong but I think that Tolkien had a batman/orderly in mind when he wrote Sam and a gentleman and officer in mind when he wrote Frodo. Frodo in the movies is less of an officer then the one in the books. Because of this the relationship feels more like a parent child dynamic than it does in the books.
> 
> Having watched the biopic I wonder if it was true what is shown about the relationship between Tolkien and his batman Sam. Was there really a man called Sam in Tolkien’s life (and why is he addressed with his first name. Was This how batmen usually were adressed?)?


Yes, Frodo in the movie was decidedly several steps down from the book. Much of this was the fault of having the quest start perhaps a year after the "long-expected party", at which party Frodo turned 33 - and Elijah Wood, 20 when the "Fellowship" film premiered, never mind filming,, look pathetically too young even for that! - instead of 17 years later, when Frodo turned 50 (like Bilbo was at the beginning of The Hobbit). To make it clear, at the time of the "long-expected party" in the book, Sam is 21, Merry is 19 (so both are over a decade away from "coming of age" as Hobbits, at 33), and Pippin is 11!
PJ turns this "age ranking" totally on its head, as Wood was the youngest, and "Pippin" Billy Boyd the oldest in actual life!

That batman/orderly to officer relationship is exactly what JRRT himself described Sam to Frodo to be several times, in "Letters".

JRRT himself having a batman named Sam in real life in WW I is pure fantasy of the filmmakers of the biopic.
How batmen were actually addressed - this may have varied. But if I check out a short story / book series by P. G. Wodehouse, the title character "Jeeves" is the butler, and it is is last (family) name, by which he is addressed. In my 1992 collection of short stories "in honour of J.R.R. Tolkien", "After The King" (celebrating JRRT's 100th birthday), there was the story "In the Season of the Dressing of the Wells", which features a young aristocrat, one knee injured in WW I so that the leg was stiff, and his batman Tinker (taking place just after the end of the war - that horrific 1918-1920 Influenza pandemic killing more people than did the war itself also figures in). Again, Tinker was the family name. The point in the missing prefix "Mr.". Consider "Hobbit customs" and the reverse address of Sam to Frodo, in book and film: *Mr.* Frodo (never Mr. *Baggins*!)


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 29, 2019)

Frodo didn’t see himself as a hero. After the initial shock of surviving wore off, and the reality set in that without Gollum, his quest would have failed, Frodo began to see himself as a failure. He withdrew after his return to the Shire: The overthrow of Sharkey (Saruman) and his minions was accomplished by Merry and Pippin, and Sam was the person most responsible for reconstructing and healing the Shire from the damage they’d done: that’s why he was elected Mayor seven times. 

Frodo reproached himself for his inability to destroy the Ring. Tolkien says that his eventual submission to the power of the Ring was inevitable: the psychological and spiritual force bearing down on Frodo was too much for any mortal, that it was no different than if a rock had a fallen on him and killed him, and in this regard Tolkien reminded his correspondent of the plea in the Lord’s Prayer: “Lead us not into temptation,” the form in Matthew that most of us remember that in Luke is presented as, “Do not subject us to the final test.” (The Greek word πειρασμός translated as “temptation” does mean “temptation”, but its more common meaning is _an experiment, attempt, trial, proving_.) Tolkien also says that Frodo’s failure was inevitable, but that the mercy he showed Gollum preserved him and salvaged the Quest. 

Frodo also was neglected and overlooked by other hobbits in the Shire, something that bothered Sam, who received much of the praise and adulation along with Merry and Pippin. I believe I recall that Tolkien indicates part of Frodo’s problem was _pride_, though I must admit I do not understand what role pride played in this. 

Frodo was a hero in the best sense of the word: there are many heroes in _Lord of the Rings_, and Frodo is foremost among them. But he himself did not see it that way.

By the way, Tolkien received a letter from one reader that I think he described as “savage” in which the reader denounced Frodo as a traitor who should have been executed. And the author noted twentieth century psychological torture and manipulation such as brainwashing. 



Rivendell_librarian said:


> Fyi the "vociferous critic" is supposed to be Philip Toynbee


It figures someone like Toynbee, a cultural suicidalist seeking to destroy the society that made and nurtured him, would hate a tale like _Lord of the Rings_, which praises that civilization and its values.


----------



## Shieldmaiden of Rohan (Dec 29, 2019)

@Alcuin Could you explain why he saw Frodo as proud?


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 29, 2019)

Shieldmaiden of Rohan said:


> @Alcuin Could you explain why he saw Frodo as proud?


No, I can’t. I haven’t figured that out.


Alcuin said:


> I believe I recall that Tolkien indicates part of Frodo’s problem was _pride_, though I must admit I do not understand what role pride played in this.


----------



## Shieldmaiden of Rohan (Dec 29, 2019)

@Orlogando I think Frodo looked like a young hobbit just out of his tweens when he left the Shire. Hobbits come of age at 33. So I think he must have looked like in his late teens. However he didn’t act like that.
Seeing the movies it is not really clear why Sam has such an adoration for Frodo and sees him as a smart man, but reading the book Frodo is not one to be mothered but acts like a father to the others.
I remember the Elijah Wood said in an interview that Sean Astin became a bit like a father to him. It might have played a role here.

@Alcuin I understand! I was thinking that you tought he was proud but don’t know how this played a role but you meant to say that you don’t know why he thought he was proud.

@Orlogsndo: Ich verstehe=I understand, isn’t it? Sounds a bit odd in English. How do you say?


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 29, 2019)

Umm, maybe you mean "*now* I understand" - "*jetzt* verstehe ich" - in the sense that you had not understood Alcuin fully before? I'm assuming this because you used an exclamation mark above. That's the problem with writing, tone of voice, which can convey so much, is basically lost in writing, fonts and smileys / emojis only helping to a degree.
Another affirmation in German, the "contradictory" one ("*doch*, ich verstehe!") is even more difficult, it would need to be translated as "on the contrary, I *do* understand!" if someone has at least implied that you do not understand. French has an equivalent to "doch", "si" not to be confused with the Spanish / Italian one; "oui" is the affirmative yes, "si" the contradictory one ("oh *yes* I do" might be another way of putting this).


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 29, 2019)

Shieldmaiden of Rohan said:


> @Orlogando I think Frodo looked like a young hobbit just out of his tweens when he left the Shire. Hobbits come of age at 33. So I think he must have looked like in his late teens. However he didn’t act like that.


I'm not quite sure what you mean with your question. Do you mean Frodo in the book?
Which would imply (my interpretation of what you wrote) that a Hobbit at coming of age at 33 would look like a human in his late teens. I have difficulty in looking at it that way. 33 to 19 is almost 75% more; while Hobbits could quite frequently (not always) pass 100 - a little less than 50% more compared to a theoretical 70 for humans, and even "only" about 25% more when compared to today's life expectancy in the west, 33 would then be a rather delayed maturity.
The other point you might be making: Frodo, having received the One Ring from Bilbo at 33, when the latter left the Shire, did not age very much - was "well-preserved" as Bilbo had been - until he was 50, when he in turn left the Shire.
But even a Ring-preserved Frodo at 50 looking "in his late teens" by human standards - ah, no, that has my imagination rebelling. 😣
Which is why Elijah Wood will never become my "vision" of Frodo, unlike Ian McKellen's Gandalf.


----------



## 1stvermont (Dec 30, 2019)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> People who watch the PJ LOTR trilogy often remark that Sam is more of a hero than Frodo. I don't think this is entirely due to PJ but rather modern values.
> For instance Frodo declaring "the Ring is mine" does not fit in with people exposed to superhero comics, James Bond films etc. This is Le Carre rather than Fleming. Tolkien swerved away from the traditional heroic narrative and so made a deeper and better message. There is evil in the world and it is powerful. We need external help to defeat it and that help can come in unexpected ways. Had Bilbo, Frodo, Faramir etc. not had mercy on Gollum then would Sauron and evil have triumphed?
> 
> But had Tolkien made Frodo a traditional hero what would he have said in Mt Doom instead? "Take that Sauron, serves you right for underestimating hobbits of the Shire"
> ...




Agreed. In one of his letters he says Sam is the true hero. I would have guessed frodo or gandalf. But with what frodo had to endure he was for sure a hero. Toliien believed in the sin nature of mankind, nobody is perfect.


----------



## Shieldmaiden of Rohan (Jan 1, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean with your question. Do you mean Frodo in the book?
> Which would imply (my interpretation of what you wrote) that a Hobbit at coming of age at 33 would look like a human in his late teens. I have difficulty in looking at it that way. 33 to 19 is almost 75% more; while Hobbits could quite frequently (not always) pass 100 - a little less than 50% more compared to a theoretical 70 for humans, and even "only" about 25% more when compared to today's life expectancy in the west, 33 would then be a rather delayed maturity.
> The other point you might be making: Frodo, having received the One Ring from Bilbo at 33, when the latter left the Shire, did not age very much - was "well-preserved" as Bilbo had been - until he was 50, when he in turn left the Shire.
> But even a Ring-preserved Frodo at 50 looking "in his late teens" by human standards - ah, no, that has my imagination rebelling. 😣
> Which is why Elijah Wood will never become my "vision" of Frodo, unlike Ian McKellen's Gandalf.



Yes, I was talking about Frodo in the book who didn‘t age from the time on when he got the ring. I always imagined him looking like a person who just came of age but then different societies have different ages for when that happened. In Germany it used to be first 21 than 18 for example. I heard that in Poland you used to come of age the day you married in the past. Now they come if age at 18 in Poland. I heard that in some countries, such as Pakistan men and women come of age in different ages. Men need to be 1 but women only need to be 16 in this case. What always shocked me the ost however was when my American friends told me legal minimum drinking age in their country was 21. In Germany in comparison legal drinking age is 14 when a parent is present and 16 when no parent is present.



1stvermont said:


> Agreed. In one of his letters he says Sam is the true hero. I would have guessed frodo or gandalf. But with what frodo had to endure he was for sure a hero. Toliien believed in the sin nature of mankind, nobody is perfect.



I think that Tolkien said in one letter that there was no way he could have succeeded because of the nature of the ring but that he gave all he could and that this was what counted.
A very Christian thought it seems to me. Tolkien believed that we live in a fallen world and that we are pathetically weak and sinful as mankind.


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 1, 2020)

Shieldmaiden of Rohan said:


> ... What always shocked me the ost however was when my American friends told me legal minimum drinking age in their country was 21. In Germany in comparison legal drinking age is 14 when a parent is present and 16 when no parent is present. ...


For the US, when I went to college in 1973-75, MLDA was 18 in New Hampshire (it was one of the many things in the US that are in the jurisdiction of the states, which are often regulated federally in other countries). I noticed that apparently later, this was raised to 21. Wikipedia provides the following:
_"In the 1970s, provincial and state policy makers in Canada and the United States moved to lower MLDAs (which were set at 21 years in most provinces/territories and states) to coincide with the jurisdictional age of majority — typically 18 years of age …"
"Following MLDA reductions in the US, research in several states provided persuasive evidence of sharp increases in rates of fatal and nonfatal MVAs appearing immediately after the implementation of lower drinking ages. These scientific findings galvanized public pressure on lawmakers to raise MLDAs and, in response, the federal government introduced the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which imposed a reduction of highway funds for states if they did not increase their MLDA to 21 years. All states complied and implemented an MLDA of 21 years by 1988."_
But earlier on in the article there was this:
_"In the United States, the minimum legal age to *purchase* any alcohol beverage from a shop, supermarket, liquor store, bar, club or any other licensed premises is 21 years of age; ... *The legal drinking age varies by state*."_
So there may be a difference in purchase age and drinking age when the purchase is made by someone else ...

This differentiation between purchase age and drinking age is in effect in Germany. But it also has some qualifiers, regarding the alcohol content of the drink and the specific situation. Regarding alcohol contents, both sale to and drinking by anyone under 18 of "distillates", probably referred to as "hard liquor" in North America and usually exceeding 20% by volume of alcohol content is prohibited. Dispensing other alcoholic beverages produced "by fermentation", so beer and several "wines" - not all produced from grapes - and usually under 15vol% for wines and 10vol% for beers, is allowed to those 16 or older. Dispensation of these other to those below 16 but 14 or older with the consent of parents or those, to use a term I remember from the US, I think, "in loco parentis", a somewhat fuzzy term to me, is allowed. It may or may not include older siblings of legal age.

For Hobbits, drinking age must definitely have been below "coming of age" at 33, for Pippin, 28 at the beginning of the quest, certainly has no trouble getting his beers at any inns.

As to how old they might look at any given age compared to humans ...
Just through their size - Merry and Pippin, tallest "recorded" Hobbits after having been given "Ent-draughts" by Treebeard (now *what* was in *those*???  ) at 4'6", were in metric units 137 centimeters tall, which seems to me to be pre-teen size - Hobbits would probably have had their true age underestimated badly by "Big Folk", at least at a superficial glance. But then they were very likely stockier than similarly-sized human children of the same height, those of normal weight for their size and age, anyway. The faces are described in the Prologue in FoTR as "broad, bright-eyed, red-cheeked", which would again seem to tend more towards the child-like. But as we must assume (JRRT did not elaborate on the Shire "economy" much, which some have grumbled about) that this was a pre-mechanized agricultural society, a high-percentage majority of the population must have been involved in agriculture and livestock breeding. Meaning being out in the "fresh air" and sunshine (and wind, and rain, and snow …) a good deal of the time. I could imagine Sam, as a gardener, though 12 years younger that Frodo of the "gentry", looking older than the latter (and of course there's the "preserving" effect of the One Ring) simply through being more weather-beaten.
One aside that may have escaped many: while "somewhere" there may have been a mention of their (slightly?) pointed Elf-like ears, PJ giving them huge feet approaching swimming flippers for us is either a misreading or a deliberate ploy at (weak) comic relief. Once only, there is mention of big Hobbit feet, at the long-expected party at the beginning of FoTR, where Bilbo mentions several families, including the appropriately-named Proudfoots. But this is a *distinguishing* characteristic of this Hobbit family among Hobbits, not a general characteristic among all Hobbits. Except for competitive swimming (and most Hobbits "swam" more like stones) such "flippers" are a hinderance for all land-living beings.

Of course, the Shire lacking Internet and the like, even the most stay-at-home Hobbits would never have looked like the pale, bespectacled nerds of our times … 🤓


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 2, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Shieldmaiden of Rohan said:
> 
> 
> > @Alcuin Could you explain why he saw Frodo as proud?
> ...


I foolishly wasted time looking up the references. 

_Letter_ 246 has Tolkien’s discussion of Frodo’s inability to destroy the Ring, and he writes about _pride_ in all three hobbits, Frodo, Bilbo, and Sam.
…At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum – impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. … I do not myself see that the breaking of [Frodo’s] mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a _moral_ failure than the breaking of his body would have been – say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by a falling rock.
…
He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt… But then he … expected to die very soon. But he did not, and one can observe the disquiet growing in him. … Slowly he fades “out of the picture”, saying and doing less and less. I think it is clear on reflection to an attentive reader that when his dark times came upon him … it was not only nightmare memories of past horrors that afflicted him, but also unreasoning self-reproach: he saw himself and all that he done as a broken failure. “Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same, for I shall not be the same.” That was actually a temptation out of the Dark, a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned as a “hero”, not content with being a mere instrument of good.​And in a footnote to this passage, Tolkien also writes about Arwen’s plan to send Frodo to Tol Eressëa in her place and how this was accomplished through Gandalf. 
Bilbo went too. … He bore still the mark of the Ring that needed to be finally erased : a trace of pride and personal possessiveness. … [I]t was … a revelation of the “black mark” when he said in Rivendell … “What’s become of _my_ ring, Frodo, that you took away?”​Then more discussion of Arwen and Gandalf making plans to send Frodo into the Uttermost West. And finally, 
Sam was … deep down a little conceited; but his conceit had been transformed by his devotion to Frodo. He did not think of himself as heroic or even brave, or in any way admirable – except in his service and loyalty to his master. That had an ingredient (probably inevitable) of pride and possessiveness…​This is followed by Tolkien’s expression of regret at the “blighted repentence” of Gollum:
For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes … when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. “Nothing, nothing”, said Gollum softly. “Nice master!” His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense) wasted. Shelob’s lair became inevitable.​Perhaps that is also an example of pride on Gollum’s part, pride in himself, though Tolkien does not say so in this letter.

This is all followed by a discussion of how the remaining eight Nazgûl might have acted towards Frodo had Gollum failed to bite off his finger and fall into the lava; of the impossibility of any mortal, “not even Aragorn,” of wielding the Ring in despite of Sauron and in his actual presence; that Gandalf alone could actually take the Ring and overthrow Sauron, replacing him; that Galadriel imagined she could, too, and if so, Elrond certainly could, but that it was an “essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.” (Cf. Sam and his vision of “Samwise the Strong”.) The note ends with 
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained “righteous”, but self-righteous.​and finally a marginal note,
Thus while Sauron multiplied … evil, he left “good” clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.​


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 7, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Alcuin said:
> 
> 
> > Shieldmaiden of Rohan said:
> ...


I've been playing around with quotes in quotes in quotes, as you can see (Alcuin's above post brought my earlier "tinkerer" self to the surface again; I used to love taking things apart - some even worked after I had put them back together again … 🙄 ). And I found something I had written in another thread about Frodo and pride. As I'm still in tinkering mode, I'll try to get s a single post link here ...









WHY did the wound not heal from the mogul blade on Frodo after one of the nine kings of the Nazgul pierced him?


After a year of dropping the ring of power in lavas of Modor, why did the wound from the mogul blade not heal?.was the medicine of the elves not enough to cure him, did he have to carry the wound for the rest of his life even in the west?




www.thetolkienforum.com





I _think_ it worked ...


----------



## Aramarien (Jan 30, 2020)

Frodo was definitely a hero. Frodo did not believe he had any extraordinary talents or gifts in order to complete the task that he inherited. Even Gandalf said that Frodo was "chosen" not by any special wit or courage, but he was chosen nonetheless. Tolkien said in his Letters that Frodo was given "GRACE". "Grace", in this context, is like a gift from Eru, or a special holiness or goodness to help complete his task. BUT, one of the most important themes is the idea of FREE WILL. Even though Frodo was given "Grace", he still had the choice. He had FREE WILL to accept the task or walk away from it. 

Frodo chose to bring the Ring to Rivendell, to save the Shire. At the Council of Elrond, Frodo once again chose to be the Ringbearer, although when he said he would take the Ring, he was almost surprised to hear himself say it. He wanted to stay in Rivendell with Bilbo with all his heart. 

Because of living with Bilbo, Frodo was more educated about Elves and the old stories than most hobbits. He knew more of what he was getting into than Sam, Merry, or Pippin. Yet he chose to journey to Mordor. He selflessly chose to go by himself at the end of FOTR to protect his friends from the lure of the Ring and the hard journey ahead. Frodo kept going even when he kept feeling it would be impossible to complete the task. He kept going even when his hope was gone. 

Tolkien said in his LETTERS that NO mortal could have resisted the Ring at the Cracks of Doom. It was IMPOSSIBLE. Even the Elves had hidden the 3 rings because Sauron and the one Ring were so strong. How could Frodo resist after carrying the Ring so far that he was not only wounded, practically starving and dehydrated, but also worn down, physically, mentally, and spiritually? Yet he made it to the Cracks of Doom. 

But he still felt he was a failure because he was "human" and wasn't able to resist to the end. 

Shieldmaiden of Rohan, you asked "why he saw Frodo as proud?" Frodo started out as humble, but as the burden got heavier, Frodo was becoming proud in a very, very subtle way. Gandalf and Galadriel knew that the Ring would try to use their abilities, even good ones and twist it. Gandalf saying that if he took the Ring, "....the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity..... " Galadriel knew too..." all will love me and despair.." Frodo was humble, but the Ring was HIS burden, HIS task. A bit of pride was growing in him because of that. Ironically, he needed that bit of pride in order to keep going. The way of the Ring was to find SOME chink in the bearer and that little bit of pride was one of the things it started to gnaw at.


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 31, 2020)

Aramarien said:


> ...
> Shieldmaiden of Rohan, you asked "why he saw Frodo as proud?" Frodo started out as humble, but as the burden got heavier, Frodo was becoming proud in a very, very subtle way. Gandalf and Galadriel knew that the Ring would try to use their abilities, even good ones and twist it. Gandalf saying that if he took the Ring, "....the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity..... " Galadriel knew too..." all will love me and despair.." Frodo was humble, but the Ring was HIS burden, HIS task. A bit of pride was growing in him because of that. Ironically, he needed that bit of pride in order to keep going. The way of the Ring was to find SOME chink in the bearer and that little bit of pride was one of the things it started to gnaw at.


I must say that I still have serious problems seeing pride in Frodo. When at the Cracks of Doom Frodo arrogantly (always the slippery slope for all pride) claims the One Ring as his own, he is succumbing to the overwhelming pressure of it that "no mortal could have resisted", as you quoted JRRT in a letter (and to Angband with Boethius, orthodox belief or no!).

And your statement "Ironically, he needed that bit of pride in order to *keep going*." definitely gave me an "ehwhot?!?" moment. Keep going towards the one place that the One Ring could be destroyed? I am quite aware of what is implicated by this getting closer to that "one place" implies: closer and closer to where Sauron had plenty of forces to apprehend *any* enemy, and never mind one with Frodo's (anti-) quest. But precisely Frodo's (anti-) quest was something that was completely outside Sauron's thinking, an "impossibility".

Taking the One Ring and using it *against* him was Sauron's greatest fear, a deadly threat in the cases of Saruman and Gandalf. With Galadriel and hypothetically Elrond, more questionable, and in the case of all mortals (including probably even Aragorn) illusory. But even Sauron seems to have needed a "change of underwear" when Aragorn wrenched the Orthanc Palantir from him (with which he had ensnared Saruman!).

Frodo persevering "out of pride" due to the One Ring's "gnawing at this weakness": having Frodo give up "humbly" at the Black Gate would have been more "efficient". Submitting to the former Witch-king of Angmar's "command" to put on the One Ring and reveal himself, while the latter was riding out from Minas Morgul to his destruction by Merry and Éowyn in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, while Frodo, Sam and Gollum were just starting to climb the stairs of Cirith Ungol, dito. Even back in the Shire, in Bree, on Weathertop ...

My only conclusions seem to me to be:
1. The One Ring was stupid as was its creator in some aspects (see above)
2. The One Ring had a death wish ...


----------



## Aramarien (Jan 31, 2020)

Olorgando, I understand why my post may have sounded confusing. I agree completely with you about Sauron's biggest fear that one of the "wise" or another person who felt he was strong would wield the Ring. I agree that seeing Aragorn in the Palantir most likely made Sauron begin to think that he was the one who decided to wield the Ring.

Frodo was humble, moral, and pure of heart. The Ring grew stronger every step toward Mordor. In the tower of Cirith Ungol, when Frodo demanded the Ring back from Sam, he said, " ... It's the horrible power of the Ring...... I must carry the burden to the end. It can't be altered. You can't come between me and this doom."

Later on Mt Doom Frodo says, " But you must understand. It is my burden, and no one else can bear it. It is too late now, Sam dear. You can't help in that way again. I am almost in its power now. I could not give it up, and if you tried to take it I should go mad."

Frodo has conflicting emotions. He wants to get rid of the Ring. He is humble and does not want to wield it, although he did it inadvertently a few times in dealing with Gollum. He has carried this burden for far too long and it is eating at his soul. He understands that he is almost in its power completely, yet he still is going on with all the strength he has left to complete the task. I feel he started to have some pride, not that he was proud or had too much pride, but SOME because it was HIS task, HIS burden. This small feeling mixed with his strong feelings of responsibility, love of the Shire, his sense of duty, his faithful heart, and morality kept him going.


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 31, 2020)

I certainly don't doubt that the impression of pride in Frodo can be arrived at. Perhaps even "by" the One Ring, which, having been "loaded" with the better part of Sauron's native power, would also "inherit" his character traits including their weaknesses. But I still feel that this was not really a natural character trait for Frodo, or for the highly unambitious Hobbits as a whole. So that while the One Ring may have "arrived at the conclusion" that pride was the one chink in Frodo to work on, perhaps even rightly so, it still didn't work out quite as expected.

Which leads me to another impression about the rings, either the One or those made by the Elves under Sauron's tutelage, including the seven and the nine: that they worked best with Men. Which immediately raises the question in my mind whether this was by accident or at least partially by design. In support of the latter hypothesis there is the "fact" that Sauron kind "drops out of the action" of the Sil after getting thrashed by Huan, and yielding the First Age Minas Tirith to Lúthien. I believe I have read somewhere, perhaps as speculation in some thread in some JRRT site, that he was sent east by Morgoth to organize some reinforcements there, which would explain the treacherous Easterlings.
More to the point he had over 1000 years in the Second Age to establish his domination over much of Middle-earth, meaning over Men. It is around the year 1000 SA that he begins building Barad-dûr in Mordor, which he chose as a land to make into a stronghold. As of the year 1200 SA he started to try and seduce the Eldar, being rebuffed by Gil-galad, but being more successful with the Elven-smiths of Eregion. Around 1500 SA "The Elven-smiths instructed by Sauron reach the height of their skill, They begin the forging of the Rings of Power" (Appendix B in RoTK). These would appear to be the seven and the nine. Note that the seven failed spectacularly in affecting the Dwarves a the nine did men. So they do appear to be "optimized" for Men. Which might also by hypothesized as one reason why Celebrimbor decided to forge the three Great Elven Rings by himself, without any "input" by Sauron: Celebrimbor might have noticed this "slant" towards Men in Sauron's instructions and decided he could do better by himself for Elven purposes. Which Sauron must then also have noticed in some way, as the express purpose of his forging the One Ring was domination of the three Great Rings of the Elves. About whose properties he was nevertheless not entirely clear, thus leading him to invest the One Ring with the better part of his own native power just to be sure it could actually dominate the Three (a kind of "overkill"; had he known more about the Three, the power he might have needed to invest in the One could have been quite a bit less). But the One would still have a certain "slant" towards Men.

Men here always meant as "Big Folk". And JRRT did make the point that Hobbits, while being very closely related, still had some characteristics that set them apart a bit. Especially that curious toughness that perhaps no one besides Gandalf perceived in them, as it was so at odds with their outward appearance of softness, especially if living in comfortable circumstances. As he says to Frodo in Rivendell just after Frodo has woken up there, after Elrond had found and removed the splinter of the Morgul blade: "I have known strong warriors of the Big People who would quickly have been overcome by that splinter, which you bore for seventeen days." So "optimized for Men", as much of Sauron's "arsenal" seems to have been, does not mean optimized for Hobbits! And that chink of pride that the One Ring tried to work with (and which would have worked to full satisfaction with Boromir, for example) just didn't work as expected. The One Ring also tried that approach with Sam at the pass of Cirith Ungol, even though he had taken it off again: "Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dûr." But love for his master Frodo, and "also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain Hobbit-sense" quickly put an end to that. Perhaps Hobbits really were the *only* ones who could ever have made it to the Cracks of Doom, as besides their stealth and unobtrusiveness their chinks were also the most useless to the One Ring to work on.


----------



## Aramarien (Feb 2, 2020)

Olargando, I completely agree that pride was NOT part of Frodo's personality at the beginning of LOTR. I just felt it was a small vice that had a seed that was starting to grow a bit in response to the situation. 

As to JRR Tolkien saying that Frodo was suffering from pride, I just read an interesting religious definition: 
" Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God." 

Tolkien had said in his letters that Frodo needed to accept more fully that he was an instrument of good, as quoted by Alcuin: "That was actually a temptation out of the Dark, a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned as a “hero”, not content with being a mere instrument of good. "
Perhaps that is what Tolkien meant by "Pride". Tolkien also said in his Letters (sorry I don't have the book at hand to directly quote) that Frodo was given "Grace" to help him complete his mission. Frodo, in this sense, felt a great responsibility to fulfill the task that he accepted in Bag End and the task he took on at the Council of Elrond. Even Elrond said "I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo, and that if you do not find a way, no one will." ( FOTR, The Council of Elrond). But the Ring tries to find a way to the heart of the bearer. Gandalf said in Bag End, " Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good." 

The Ring will try to find something, anything, any chink in the armor of the bearer, Hobbits, in general, do not have a desire for power. Frodo had no desire for power at all. The only power he desired toward the end of the journey was the power to endure and complete his task. I just felt from reading, that Frodo kept on going when all hope was gone, but kept concentrating on HIS task, HIS burden. That he was getting a bit of possessiveness of HIS mission. It was one of the ways that he kept going. A singlemindedness when all hope was gone. That is the pride that I'm talking about, a defense mechanism to keep going. 

I find your discussion of Sauron concentrating his power on Men interesting. In the Ainulindale, The Music Of the Ainur, Melkor, as part of the Ainur, was aware of the Music and what was to come. Sauron, a Maiar under Melkor, may have been aware of the coming of Men. Sauron had a lot of dealings with Men in Numenor in the Akallabeth and with the Elves in Middle Earth. He knew of their virtues and vices. Sauron may have been concentrating his power to overcome Elves and Men, but as Gandalf said, " I believe that hirtherto- hirtherto, make you - he has entirely overlooked the existence of hobbits." (FOTR, The Shadow of the Past)


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 2, 2020)

Aramarien said:


> ... I just felt from reading, that Frodo kept on going when all hope was gone, but kept concentrating on HIS task, HIS burden. That he was getting a bit of possessiveness of HIS mission. It was one of the ways that he kept going. A singlemindedness when all hope was gone. That is the pride that I'm talking about, a defense mechanism to keep going.
> 
> I find your discussion of Sauron concentrating his power on Men interesting. ...


I have a very guarded view on pride - it's not in the list of "Seven Deadly Sins" for nothing. That said, the fact that Frodo (with much help from Sam in Mordor) actually made it to the Cracks of doom is something *any* of the protagonists in LoTR could have *justifiably* been proud of (there is far too much pride around centering on "being" something, almost always purely an accident of birth). JRRT's views on pride may have been even more guarded than mine, from your quotes. Still, the One Ring using this (supposed) chink to work on with Frodo ended up being self-defeating. Giving up, and surrendering himself to some Orcs would have been a suggestion much more helpful to the One Ring - but perhaps that "giving up" angle was one that the One Ring found to have no effect at all with these stubborn types.

To your list of "HIS" items I would add: HIS Ring. Tom Shippey makes the point in "Author of the Century" about one aspect of the One Ring (and perhaps all other Great Rings except the three Elven ones), that it is addictive. Gollum is a total basket case addict (but still had not become a wraith after almost 500 years!). Bilbo had the Ring far longer than Frodo (60 years to a bit over 17), but he may have used it very rarely, perhaps only as often as Frodo did in the LoTR story; and he was very far away from the Ring's center of power in Mordor, while Frodo went right to the heart of that center of power. And just as many addicts know that their addiction can very well kill them, but are basically powerles to kick the habit without outside help, so Frodo was addicted to the Ring even though it became more and more of a crushing burden (crushing to any conceivable form of pride, as I've opined before) the closer he got to Mount Doom. The addict's possessiveness is not quite a voluntary one anymore.


----------



## grendel (Feb 2, 2020)

Forgive me for bringing in another "reality", but this kind of reminds me of Star Trek: The Next Generation... in the episode after the defeat of the Borg (sorry, can't remember the title), when everyone is visiting their families on Earth, and Picard gets into a fight with his brother and then breaks down, berating himself for not being strong enough to have resisted the Borg. When in fact it would have been impossible for any human, they basically sucked the humanity out of you and made you into a machine. It is a foible of humans, I think, and Tolkien was using it in Frodo, to think (after the fact) that "I should have done better, I should have resisted, I should have won!" Call it pride, if you will. The feeling of failure would grow as time passed and the memory of the actual effect the Ring had on his mind and his will faded. I have always thought - please don't take this as sexist - that if women really remembered the pain of delivery and childbirth, no one would ever have more than one kid. And yet they do. It is a tendency of humans (my opinion, I'm no psychologist) to remember the good and repress the bad.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 3, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Aramarien said:
> 
> 
> > I find your discussion of Sauron concentrating his power on Men interesting.
> ...


Awks, looks like I left one point hanging in the air, sort of … 

The bit about men in all facets I mentioned above is a hypothesis, but with some plausibility - all in 20-20 hindsight.
The most glaring one to me would be pretty much utter failure of The Seven to affect the Dwarves, compared to the total success of The Nine with Men.
JRRT did once write something, making it an Elven viewpoint, I believe, that men were easily duped, won over, somethinged by Morgoth and / or Sauron. What we would call pushovers or easy marks.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 3, 2020)

Either way, grendel, it probably (I'm also no psychologist but have read widely in psychology and neuroscience) has to to with the workings of selective perception. Frodo's feeling of failure growing would point in the direction of depression, which at the very latest in a clinical stage requiring medical help focuses pretty much exclusively on the negative and ignores positive information. Something like a private bubble, the less-private ones having become so wide-spread in the Internet, and some of whose participants also give the impression of needing professional help.
The positive side would be being able to forget, or at least get closure on, traumatic events. _Repression_ as a term does have, at least in some circles of psychoanalysis (mostly Freudian?), a negative connotation, but their dealings with the phenomenon appear to have fallen out of favor, mostly, and apparently not for no reason.
We humans do seem to have a certain asymmetry in viewing of events (and perhaps we're not alone). Dangers or losses are usually given much more attention; often explained, probably a bit simplistically, as our _*not*_ having been top predator for by far the longest period of our history and prehistory.


----------



## JPMaximilian (Feb 13, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Just through their size - Merry and Pippin, tallest "recorded" Hobbits after having been given "Ent-draughts" by Treebeard (now *what* was in *those*???  ) at 4'6", were in metric units 137 centimeters tall, which seems to me to be pre-teen size - Hobbits would probably have had their true age underestimated badly by "Big Folk", at least at a superficial glance. But then they were very likely stockier than similarly-sized human children of the same height, those of normal weight for their size and age, anyway.



Other than knowing that Merry and Pippin were taller than Bandobras Took who was himself four foot five, isn't it ambiguous exactly how tall they are? They could very well have been four foot eight or taller or shorter provided they were above four foot five. If you have more information about their exact height it has been a curiosity of mine: https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/merry-and-pippins-height.19783/


----------



## NicolausVI (Feb 15, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> People who watch the PJ LOTR trilogy often remark that Sam is more of a hero than Frodo. I don't think this is entirely due to PJ but rather modern values.
> For instance Frodo declaring "the Ring is mine" does not fit in with people exposed to superhero comics, James Bond films etc. This is Le Carre rather than Fleming. Tolkien swerved away from the traditional heroic narrative and so made a deeper and better message. There is evil in the world and it is powerful. We need external help to defeat it and that help can come in unexpected ways. Had Bilbo, Frodo, Faramir etc. not had mercy on Gollum then would Sauron and evil have triumphed?
> 
> But had Tolkien made Frodo a traditional hero what would he have said in Mt Doom instead? "Take that Sauron, serves you right for underestimating hobbits of the Shire"
> ...



I love this question! If you read Letters 142 and 156 to Father Robert Murray in _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, _he talks about how _The Lord of the Rings_ is fundamentally Catholic, and the idea of the priest-king of the ancient Israelites is the basis for the Numenorean kingship. There seems to be a strong influence for the character of Frodo. As Catholics, we believe Jesus was the summing up of three prominent roles present in ancient Judaism; the priest (one who sacrifices), the prophet and the king (cf. The Holy Trinity: The Father (king of the universe) the Son (priest, sacrifice and servant, _gk. diacon_) and the Holy Spirit (prophet-what the prophets spoke from)). Now if you look at these roles, you can easily see that Gandalf is the prophet with supernatural wisdom, Aragorn is the King who can both fight and heal, but who is the priest? Who is the sacrificer, or a Christ-like character? Which character took on the sin of everyone else, walked to their doom carrying a torture instrument, was betrayed, and seemingly sacrifices their-self (ego) for the good of all? Well, Frodo fits that description of a priest pretty well! Frodo is the best kind of hero; one who gives up his life for his friends. Now he does not die physically, but his _self_ dies after the ring is destroyed. He is permanently changed and the hobbit he once was is no longer. It is all too real that Frodo himself would also succumb to the ring's power, as all men succumb to sin, even priests. To have him simply be able to throw it into the fire would be a disservice to what the ring actually represents; _sin_. Frodo is a _scape-goat_ that bears the sins of many (cf. origins of _Yom Kippur_, the Day of Atonement. See also Leviticus xvi.8, 21-22).

A lot of answers to your questions (including my own) come from Letter 181. There are a few articles online that discuss this idea in further detail, if you google "priest prophet king Tolkien" (I cannot link any websites in a reply because it will not let me post it due to spam filters).


> 'Sacrificial' situations, I should call them: sc. positions in which the 'good' of the world depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal – even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking), demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess: he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will': that is against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under the duress. Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.) The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. _J.R.R. Tolkien_ Letter 181.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Feb 15, 2020)

Thank you NicolausVI for this informative post and welcome to the forum

... and of course Frodo took a sword strike from the Witch-King of Angmar Lord of the Nazgul, reminiscent of Christ on the cross?


----------



## NicolausVI (Feb 15, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> Thank you NicolausVI for this informative post and welcome to the forum
> 
> ... and of course Frodo took a sword strike from the Witch-King of Angmar Lord of the Nazgul, reminiscent of Christ on the cross?


I will always hold the view that nothing is more painful than being whipped more than half to death and then crucified alive; his stabbing at Weathertop, his stinging by Shelob, and his finger being bitten off by Gollum (not Smeagol), is but a small pain in the face of Christ's punishment. But it is still punishment nonetheless. The sword stabbing of Frodo and the spear thrust into Jesus' by the centurion seems to be a parallel; did those blows land in the same place on their bodies? Dante Alighieri in _Inferno_ held the lowest circles of hell for traitors and betrayers; Judas, Cassius and Brutus. I tend to agree. The worst feeling in terms of emotional heartbreak is betrayal, especially by a close friend that results ultimately in death (hence why cheating and adultery is a moral sin). So Frodo's betrayal by Smeagol (not Gollum) hurt his soul also. All of these are archetypes of suffering.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Feb 15, 2020)

You can take the priest analogy a step further, I think: just as Peter, who would have drowned in the "Galilean lake", if not saved by Christ, became the priest of the early Church, so Sam, who is pulled from the Anduin by Frodo, becomes the "priest", or at least apostle, of Middle Earth values in the Shire.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Feb 16, 2020)

I guess this has all been said (written) before but do we have the following type/antitype pairs:

Gandalf and Sauron (or Saruman?)
Aragorn and the Witch King of Angmar
Frodo and Gollum
and now
Sam and the Apostle Peter

I wonder who is the counterpart to Pippin?! The Apostle Philip I suppose "show us the Father and that will be enough"


----------



## NicolausVI (Feb 16, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> You can take the priest analogy a step future, I think: just as Peter, who would have drowned in the "Galilean lake", if not saved by Christ, became the priest of the early Church, so Sam, who is pulled from the Anduin by Frodo, becomes the "priest", or at least apostle, of Middle Earth values in the Shire.


Consider this also; Jesus ascended to Heaven and left this Earth, Frodo sailed to Valinor and left Middle Earth. Peter stayed and preached the Gospel in Rome, using written accounts of Jesus and himself, Samwise stayed in the Shire and told stories of Bilbo and Frodo and himself using written accounts (The Red Book; note also that most Latin chant missals are red books).


Rivendell_librarian said:


> I guess this has all been said (written) before but do we have the following type/antitype pairs:
> 
> Gandalf and Sauron (or Saruman?)
> Aragorn and the Witch King of Angmar
> ...


Well I just have to point out this:
Good; evil.
Gandalf; Saruman. Prophet, antichrist.
Aragorn; Witch King. King, tyrant.
Frodo; Gollum. Priest, criminal.
but not Sam; St. Peter because that is good; good, not good; evil. Nor Pippin; St. Phillip, that is still good; good.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Feb 16, 2020)

Yes, the type/antitype duality isn't about opposites, but the prefiguring of a later person or event, a kind of theological typology particularly popular in the Middle Ages. It goes back at least to Paul, who called Adam the "figure";of Christ, who corrects his flaw.

This is not limited to Christian theology; I mentioned in another thread how it can appear, in different form, in the structure of romance and folktale, where one character accomplishes what a predecessor could not. An example would be the pure Galahad, who succeeds where the impure Lancelot failed.

The same relationship is seen in LOTR, when Aragorn says that it is appropriate that "Isildur's heir should repair Isildur's fault".


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Feb 16, 2020)

I should have pointed out that the last two comparisons of Sam and Pippin are not the same type as the earlier three (pairs of LOTR characters)
The Apostles Peter and Philip aren't Tolkien characters.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Feb 16, 2020)

That's a relief -- guess I can stop looking for them then!


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 18, 2020)

NicolausIV, I accept without reservation that you are _applying_ what to you is what JRRT himself in the foreword to the second edition approved as what readers may find in the way of _applicability,_ found by any given reader. But I have the distinct impression that you have strayed too deep into what JRRT considered to be - I think - loose allegory (JRRT was not averse to allegory per se - he used it himself on many occasions, but he used it in a very strict way). Something equals something else (and *nothing* else, an _if-and-*only*-if_ term of logic).
I have stated more than once here on TTF (and perhaps on other JRRT sites) that I view JRRT's "Letters" with deep suspicion when it comes to "canon". Another term highly disputed. With all the details we have received about Middle-earth from them (and only from them, if I recall correctly), the letters have one serious defect: written off-the-cuff, with none of the sometimes slowly grinding revisions so typical of JRRT. They were more like C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books (for which JRRT could never develop any sympathy). Some of the letters you quote are to Catholic clergy; JRRT would have been trying to explain away things not considered Catholic-canon (as he was aware at least as much as his letter correspondents). JRRT quite simply had a fascination with the heathen north (Norse) of Europe that he was ultimately not able to reconcile with his Roman Catholic beliefs.
He basically left out everything explicit that you in your posts have found applicable - and by this *leaving out* wrote one of the greatest books of the 20th century.


----------



## Northman (Feb 21, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Which leads me to another impression about the rings, either the One or those made by the Elves under Sauron's tutelage, including the seven and the nine: that they worked best with Men. Which immediately raises the question in my mind whether this was by accident or at least partially by design.



I think it is generally by accident, since the nature of Men was created to be different from the others. Rather than a conscious decision by Sauron to target Men with his Rings, I think it is a reflection of Men's nature that they were more susceptible to the types of promise that Sauron's Rings offer. Let's consider a few 'racial' differences between Eves, Men and Dwarves:

Elves are, rather famously, immortal, and their leaders have personal memory going back thousands of years. No matter where the Elves dwell, be it Valinor, Mithlond, Lorien or Amon Thranduil, they are under no illusions as to the composition of the Heavens, and who is responsible for their world's creation. They have an indelible link to the Valar, even the Moriquendi, since while not all of them undertook the journey into the West, they still are aware of their true place and role within the greater scheme of the world. It's hard to convince such beings to bow down to the will of a creature they know for a fact to be only a middleman in the celestial hierarchy which was established to service their creation. Sauron could lie to them about his intentions or his identity, and indeed he did so, but not about his stature within the make-up of the cosmos, because they simply know better, collectively. Instead, all he could offer them was assistance in creating nice toys, which is how he managed to fool Celembrimbor (but NOT the others, it should be remembered, who rejected his wiles).

Dwarves are slightly different. Not immortal, but not technically Children of Iluvatar either. They were created directly by Aule, and are reflective of his tastes. The Dwarves are also fully aware of this creation, and while they might not understand or credit the wider celestial drama unfolding across the history of the world, they know darn well that their 'god' created them with love, and all other gods are false. Again, it's tough to try and cow or impress such creatures with magical powers, because they know that whatever you are, you are NOT rightful authority to them. Again, all he can offer them is assistance in achieving their heart's desires, which is why the Dwarven Rings ended up mostly inspiring greed and arrogance in their wearers but this did not translate to a relationship of dominion.

You may by this point be wondering why I am bringing this up, but please bear with me, because now we get to Men, who are quite different. Because of the gift of Death, Men are not bound to the world as Elves are, and they have no direct link or knowledge of their creator, such as Dwarves do. Men live short lives, generally fearing the unknowns of death, and are therefore prone to inventing lots of systems of gods and myths to explain their world and make promises of an afterlife. In Tolkien's universe it is Men (and Orcs, but that's a different story) who are prone to worshiping powerful beings as gods and masters, and several described human societies do so, in direct contrast to the established, known lore held by the other races. It's easy to promise Men great power or threaten them with divine wrath, since unless they were raised in the traditions of Wesrnesse they simply don't know better, and even then they can be manipulated into believing false claims such as when he lulled Numenor into catastrophe. 

That's why Sauron always had more success with Men, even before the Rings were made. In fact, I would argue that the Rings were actually tailored, from the beginning, to try and regain some influence among the Elves. Men, especially the 'lesser' men of Middle-Earth were of small concern to him, whereas the great loremasters and lords of the Eldar were direct rivals to his power and skill. It was still Celebrimbor who fashioned the Rings for Men and Dwarves, even though we know the extent of Sauron's involvement, and it was the Elves who gifted them to the various Dwarven houses/clans. The Nine were kept in Eregion, while Celebrimbor worked privately on the Three. In the meantime Sauron left to create the One, specifically to control all the others, and it's not until the Elves perceived him and took theirs off that Sauron attacked Eregion and claimed the Nine, before distributing them to kings and lords of Edain stock, which as we know turned into the Nazgul over the next few centuries as Sauron slowly took over and dominated their wills into submission with the One; the exact fate that the Elves sought to escape themselves. After all, it's easier to do that to Men in general, since Men have so little grasp of their place within the grand scheme of things, and live short lives often seeking an escape from death.

That's why I don't think it was part of Sauron's intention to make the Rings specifically tailored to work on Men, and rather this is just coincidence because Men are the ones Sauron got the chance to actually work on the longest, plus their native susceptibility to power and magic. 

Just a couple of pennies.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 22, 2020)

Northman said:


> ...
> Dwarves are slightly different. Not immortal, but not technically Children of Iluvatar either. They were created directly by Aule, and are reflective of his tastes. The Dwarves are also fully aware of this creation, and while they might not understand or credit the wider celestial drama unfolding across the history of the world, they know darn well that *their 'god'* created them with love, and *all other gods* are false.
> ...
> Men live short lives, generally fearing the unknowns of death, and are therefore prone to *inventing* lots of systems of gods and myths to explain their world and make promises of an afterlife.


As I stated, it *raised a question* (hypothesis) in my mind about Sauron having targeted Men, followed by what I found to be plausible for such a hypothesis. But a hypothesis it remains, as I am not aware of any writings by JRRT himself which would raise it to the (far higher) level of "theory" - or debunk it as wild-and-wooly speculation. Your deductions leading to the "accident" side are as plausible as mine (though I find myself, to my consternation, on the wrong side of a "conspiracy theory" divide! 😲 )

You comments about the Dwarves gave me a bit of a pause. Calling Aulë their 'god' smacked a bit of what would pass, in Middle-earth, for idolatry, pretty much uniformly associated with Melkor and Sauron. And specifically the scene (in The Sil, part "Quenta Silmarillion", chapter 2 "Of Aulë and Yavanna"), where Ilúvatar granted the Dwarves an existence independent of Aulë, he was "in the presence" of the Dwarves. But then the visible bodily form that the Ainur assumed in Arda were like clothes are to us. The Ainur / Valar / Maiar did not need this visible form to be aware of and interact with each other, and never mind Eru Ilúvatar. I certainly can't imagine any visible form Eru might have taken in Arda. So the Dwarves, besides not being able to see Eru, would probably also not have been able to hear him (and in a humorous vein, might have been wondering why Aulë was talking to himself). But besides this "theological" aspect of their only accepting Aulë as their 'god' and no others (the Ainur were able to "change their clothes" at least to a degree and might have been able to delude the Dwarves with this trick), I think Aulë's having been aware of Melkor's dissonances in the Music of the Ainur, and having created the Dwarves to be specifically resistent to this (as stated explicitly in The Sil) had at least as much to do with their (mainly) immunity to Sauron's rings.

As to Men *inventing* lots of systems of gods and myths, my feeling is that Melkor (having apparently also been among the Elves before their explicit discovery by Oromë, or at least some of his (Melkor's) servants may have been) also had a head start on the Valar and Maiar with Men. Sauron's disappearance from the "action" of The Sil after almost having his incarnate form destroyed by Huan in the late 460s First Age seems far too short a time period to corrupt the Easterlings of the First Age, whose treachery may have decided the Battle of Unnumbered Tears perhaps five years later, 473 FA. But Finrod had met the first Edain in Ossiriand in 310 FA, and they must have spent a lot of time getting there (when one considers the time it took the Elves to get to the western shores of Beleriand during the First Age part of the Two Trees). But then: when the Valar made war on Melkor and captured him prior to leading the Elves ultimately to Valinor, they did an awfully sloppy job. While they completely destroyed Utumno (apparently), they definitely did not do the same with Angband, and never mind that they did not even remotely rid Middle-earth of Melkor's servants. The Three Ages of the Two Trees that Melkor was held captive in Valinor may be, by some calculation, have been around 10 000 sun years each, or 30 000 years total. That's a lot of time for Melkor's servants (and I'm guessing Sauron to be among them) to concoct a lot of mischief in Middle-earth, which was at least for the second time totally abandoned by the Valar (with the exception of Ulmo, probably).


----------



## Northman (Feb 22, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> As I stated, it *raised a question* (hypothesis) in my mind about Sauron having targeted Men, followed by what I found to be plausible for such a hypothesis. But a hypothesis it remains, as I am not aware of any writings by JRRT himself which would raise it to the (far higher) level of "theory" - or debunk it as wild-and-wooly speculation. Your deductions leading to the "accident" side are as plausible as mine (though I find myself, to my consternation, on the wrong side of a "conspiracy theory" divide! 😲 )



Oh hey, I hope I didn't come across as being critical; I wasn't intending that. I just found the discussion you guys were having very interesting, so I thought I'd offer my own take. I'm approaching just from the point of view of a nerd who likes having incredibly pedantic chats with other Tolkien nerds. I'm new here, but I'm hoping I'm in good company! 



> You comments about the Dwarves gave me a bit of a pause. Calling Aulë their 'god' smacked a bit of what would pass, in Middle-earth, for idolatry, pretty much uniformly associated with Melkor and Sauron. And specifically the scene (in The Sil, part "Quenta Silmarillion", chapter 2 "Of Aulë and Yavanna"), where Ilúvatar granted the Dwarves an existence independent of Aulë, he was "in the presence" of the Dwarves. But then the visible bodily form that the Ainur assumed in Arda were like clothes are to us. The Ainur / Valar / Maiar did not need this visible form to be aware of and interact with each other, and never mind Eru Ilúvatar. I certainly can't imagine any visible form Eru might have taken in Arda. So the Dwarves, besides not being able to see Eru, would probably also not have been able to hear him (and in a humorous vein, might have been wondering why Aulë was talking to himself). But besides this "theological" aspect of their only accepting Aulë as their 'god' and no others (the Ainur were able to "change their clothes" at least to a degree and might have been able to delude the Dwarves with this trick), I think Aulë's having been aware of Melkor's dissonances in the Music of the Ainur, and having created the Dwarves to be specifically resistent to this (as stated explicitly in The Sil) had at least as much to do with their (mainly) immunity to Sauron's rings.



I can agree with that, certainly, but then the question is begged, would Sauron even know about Aule's crafting making them so resistant? He was a Maiar of Aule originally, but I was under the impression he had switched to Melkor long before the Dwarves were created, although I could be wrong. Now, when I said that Aule is their 'god', I was simplifying for the sake of brevity. But even so, they do call him Mahal in Khuzdul, which translates as "The Maker", so regardless of their knowledge of Eru's existence (and I agree that they probably have no clue of him, hence me referring to Aule not Eru as their 'god'), I can't help but assume they revere Aule at least as a Divine Creator figure for their race. You're right in that calling him their 'god' was an over-simplification, but I was concerned more with conveying the link they have to the knowledge of where they came from, and who might or might not be a divine authority to them. It's that relationship that I'm highlighting, to point to the lack of it for Men (save for the Elf-wise). But, I've had another thought on that which I'll explain in the next part.



> As to Men *inventing* lots of systems of gods and myths, my feeling is that Melkor (having apparently also been among the Elves before their explicit discovery by Oromë, or at least some of his (Melkor's) servants may have been) also had a head start on the Valar and Maiar with Men. Sauron's disappearance from the "action" of The Sil after almost having his incarnate form destroyed by Huan in the late 460s First Age seems far too short a time period to corrupt the Easterlings of the First Age, whose treachery may have decided the Battle of Unnumbered Tears perhaps five years later, 473 FA. But Finrod had met the first Edain in Ossiriand in 310 FA, and they must have spent a lot of time getting there (when one considers the time it took the Elves to get to the western shores of Beleriand during the First Age part of the Two Trees). But then: when the Valar made war on Melkor and captured him prior to leading the Elves ultimately to Valinor, they did an awfully sloppy job. While they completely destroyed Utumno (apparently), they definitely did not do the same with Angband, and never mind that they did not even remotely rid Middle-earth of Melkor's servants. The Three Ages of the Two Trees that Melkor was held captive in Valinor may be, by some calculation, have been around 10 000 sun years each, or 30 000 years total. That's a lot of time for Melkor's servants (and I'm guessing Sauron to be among them) to concoct a lot of mischief in Middle-earth, which was at least for the second time totally abandoned by the Valar (with the exception of Ulmo, probably).



Okay, so here I do have some disagreement. Yes, Melkor did get the chance to influence Men before the Valar did, and his chief evil in that regard is described by Tolkien as having made them fear death, which was after all their greatest gift from Iluvatar (in the same way that his chief evil to the Elves was to corrupt them into Orcs). His malice comes in the desire to hinder and mar the fair works of the Valar and Eru, which he achieves. But still, his main concern was nearly always with destroying the kingdoms of the Eldar, to whom the Edain were merely friends who dwelt alongside them. I'm really not sure that he paid them much attention at all, for he neither enslaved, bred, nor even used them in his armies. That's why I struggle to accept the notion that this was something Sauron was taking into account when teaching the Elves the craft of Ring-making.

We know that the chief power of the Rings is to hold at bay decay. That's their primary purpose, and the reason why they were attractive as an idea to Men and Elves alike. The Elves of Middle-earth wished to preserve their kingdoms in the face of the inevitable rise of the dominion of Men, and indeed when the One was lost following the ambush of Isildur, they used their Rings for precisely that purpose. But, that desire to preserve their own dominance was the tool Sauron wished to use against them, and dominion over the Elves was ever his chief concern. The Men, however, have a different reason to find this attractive, since it allows them to escape death, which again they've been taught to fear from ancient times by Melkor, and it seems more likely to me that this was simply a happy accident which assisted Sauron in his ensnaring of the Nazgul.

Also, since posting my first comment, the thought has grown in my mind that in actual fact, it may be that Men are the only ones that Sauron actually got the chance to directly affect at all. Again, the Nine were not even distributed by the time Sauron seized them, whereas the Seven had already gone to the Dwarf lords. The instant Sauron put on the One, the Three were taken off, and not used until he had lost possession of the One. If the Dwarven resistance can be attributed, as you say, to Aule's design of them to resist Morgoth's wiles, which I don't dispute, then in fact it may be that the wearers of the Three would have turned into servants of the One in the exact way that the wearers of the Nine did, while Sauron still had it, and it was indeed the fact that the Three were removed during his possession which prevented it. from affecting them as potently as the Men.

What do you think?


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 22, 2020)

Northman said:


> Oh hey, I hope I didn't come across as being critical; I wasn't intending that. I just found the discussion you guys were having very interesting, so I thought I'd offer my own take. I'm approaching just from the point of view of a nerd who likes having incredibly pedantic chats with other Tolkien nerds. I'm new here, but I'm hoping I'm in good company!


Just wanted to reply to this part briefly. As it's close to 1 AM in Germany, I think I'll need some sleep before I tackle the rest of your lengthy post (shades of Alcuin! 😄 ).

I have no problem with you being critical. All opinions are open to criticism - with the old saw about it being "constructive". I'm also quite in favor of challenging assumptions, especially if they are of the silent type. Like if I think something is obvious, but someone points out that it is not nearly as obvious as I assumed, because …
The because is important. What strikes me as annoying about quite a few of JRRT's negative critics after LoTR was published is that they hardly seem to get beyond derisive snorts (often exceedingly pompous and arrogant) and hardly if ever seem to explain themselves. Something they have not gotten noticeably better at over the decades. I sometime view them as little Gollums, who hardly get beyond an "Augh! Dust and ashes, we don't eats that!" level. Criticism well explained is quite another matter, as it can shake one out of lazy, complacent thinking.

More after sunrise (probably quite a bit after; as I'm retired the clock has lost much of its significance for me). 😩


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Feb 23, 2020)

Welcome to the forum, Northman -- I hope you find much of interest here!

I'm curious about this:



Northman said:


> It was still Celebrimbor who fashioned the Rings for Men and Dwarves, even though we know the extent of Sauron's involvement, and it was the Elves who gifted them to the various Dwarven houses/clans.


I've never heard that before; is there a source for this? Aside from Gloin's recital of the words of the emissary from Mordor:

_"The Lord Sauron the Great, so he said, wished for our friendship. Rings he would give for it, such as he gave of old."_

There is the explicit statement in "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age":

_But Sauron gathered into his hands all the remaining Rings of Power.; and he dealt them out to the other peoples of Middle-earth, hoping thus to bring under his sway all those that desired secret power beyond the measure of their kind. Seven rings he gave to the Dwarves . . ._

Nor, I believe, were any of the rings intended by the Elves for other races; they would give power "beyond the measure of their kind", and therefore be a danger, not only to the Elves, but to those who received them. As Gandalf tells Frodo:

_'The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles--yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals.'_

I can't think the Elves would wish to endanger the world in this way. But I can accept correction, if there's a statement otherwise I don't know about.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 23, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> 'The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles--yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals.'


I mean, yeah, Talion had a real-go of it......



😏



CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Feb 23, 2020)

I had to look up "Talion".

All I can say is -- WTF?!


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 23, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I had to look up "Talion".
> 
> All I can say is -- WTF?!


_Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah._


CL


----------



## Northman (Feb 23, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I've never heard that before; is there a source for this?



Well, consider the known lore: the Nine were not distributed among the Men of the time, until Sauron seized them. Tolkien specifically states that the Three were removed, and there is no known text which details when the Dwarves received their Rings. Well, when and where did did they receive them, if not thanks to Celebrimbor and the smiths of Eregion gifting them to the seven established Dwarf clans? There is a line in the Silm suggesting Sauron distributed these Seven himself among Dwarven clans, but I would argue this seems extremely unlikely given the details of the way Dain Ironfoot treats with the emissaries of Mordor, and the conundrums whic this poses, that I am about to detail. The Dwarves have never been a ready ally to the wiles of Morgoth or Sauron, and any assistance they have ever rendered to such a cause has been accidental. In the time of Eregion, the Dwarves and the Elves were in close communion, marrying the crafts of the Noldor with that of the Khazad, so why would they not share these Rings with the Seven clans of the Khazad, since they were supposedly allies? Why would the Ring-makers fashion Seven rings for the Dwarves if NOT for the long-established number of Khazad clans?

I do not pretend to have unearthed a concrete reference which proves my words, but I appeal to your faculties of logical deduction. If there is friendship between seven clans of Dwarves and the Elves of Eregion, and the Three and Seven are both absent when Sauron comes looking for the Nine, and the number of absent Rings created for the Dwarves just-so-happens to match the number of accepted Dwarven kingdoms, whom we know for a fact received a Ring, can you think of any reason whatsoever not to assume that the Dwarven Rings, seven in number, were already distributed to the known seven clans before Sauron ransacked Eregion?

Like, can you honestly come up with a lore-based reason at all why that doesn't make sense? Is there any canonic explanation we can accept which explains the absence of these Seven rings when Sauron comes pillaging through Eregion, even when he takes pains to detail the capture of the Nine? I know that Occam's Razor is a very risky thing to invoke when dealing with a fantasy world, but I'm banking here upon you taking Tolkien's world seriously enough to wish to reconcile this inexplicable oversight. To me, it's perfectly clear: the Dwarves received their Rings thanks to the Elves who created them, back when they were enjoying a close, friendly relationship, or else Sauron inexplicably gained them during the events of a chapter in which the author takes pains to highlight the acquisition of the Nine but utterly ignores the potential theft of the Seven.

Do you see what I'm saying? If this logic endears itself to you, then consider its implications for the idea that Sauron is the one who gave out Dwarven Rings.



> At the time of Eregion All we are led to believe is that four of the Seven were lost to dragon-fire,



I disagree that this is true at the time of Eregion. Is there a reference for this information, or are you deducing it from the words of Gandalf, who stated this with regard to the Rings at the close of the Third Age? It was almost certainly not the case during the middle of the Second Age, unless I am overlooking something?

_



"The Lord Sauron the Great, so he said, wished for our friendship. Rings he would give for it, such as he gave of old."

Click to expand...

_
Well sure, but I'm going to assume that you're open to the possibility that Sauron in this instance is an unreliable narrator? Just because he claims to Dain that he is the one who used to gift Rings to people doesn't mean that he is, especially if his claims are just that he had a hand in the making. It is explicitly stated by Tolkien that Celebrimbor actually forged the Rings, but who exactly in Middle-earth could have gainsaid Sauron if he claimed that HE is the one who created them? All I'm saying is: there are multiple ways in which you can reconcile the distribution of the Seven occurring before Sauron sacked Eregion. but comparatively few ways to reconcile the known lore with the idea that Sauron seized them and distributed them himself, especially when the very passage which describes the capture of the Nine makes *precisely zero mention* of the capture of the Seven. That seems pretty convincing, to me.



> _But Sauron gathered into his hands all the remaining Rings of Power.; and he dealt them out to the other peoples of Middle-earth, hoping thus to bring under his sway all those that desired secret power beyond the measure of their kind. Seven rings he gave to the Dwarves_


And that verbiage raises multiple other questions. If Sauron gathered the 'remaining' Rings of Power, and distributed he Seven among the Dwarves, then why would he choose 7 of them to be for Dwarves in the first place, and 9 of them to be for Men? He had no clue as to how many clans or tribes there were. Either Celebrimbor created the orders of Rings for specific races, in which case the conundrum of the Seven's omission from the account of the sacking is opened up again, or else they were all designed to be low-level Elf traps, and it turned out this had some weird side-effect.[/quote]


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 23, 2020)

Northman said:


> Olorgando said:
> 
> 
> > Your comments about the Dwarves gave me a bit of a pause. Calling Aulë their 'god' smacked a bit of what would pass, in Middle-earth, for idolatry, pretty much uniformly associated with Melkor and Sauron. And specifically the scene (in The Sil, part "Quenta Silmarillion", chapter 2 "Of Aulë and Yavanna"), where Ilúvatar granted the Dwarves an existence independent of Aulë, he was "in the presence" of the Dwarves. But then the visible bodily form that the Ainur assumed in Arda were like clothes are to us. The Ainur / Valar / Maiar did not need this visible form to be aware of and interact with each other, and never mind Eru Ilúvatar. I certainly can't imagine any visible form Eru might have taken in Arda. So the Dwarves, besides not being able to see Eru, would probably also not have been able to hear him (and in a humorous vein, might have been wondering why Aulë was talking to himself). But besides this "theological" aspect of their only accepting Aulë as their 'god' and no others (the Ainur were able to "change their clothes" at least to a degree and might have been able to delude the Dwarves with this trick), I think Aulë's having been aware of Melkor's dissonances in the Music of the Ainur, and having created the Dwarves to be specifically resistent to this (as stated explicitly in The Sil) had at least as much to do with their (mainly) immunity to Sauron's rings.
> ...


Oh dear, oh dear me … I'm getting the uneasy feeling I'm going to have to make a list of what I've commented on to avoid repetition - and more to the point a kind of "to-do" list of what I still want to comment on. The latter is susceptible to the danger that when I've blathered on, especially excessively (I have an irrepressible urge to go flying off on tangents, aka OT) on item X, I may have forgotten the point I wanted to make on item Y ... I'm talking from personal experience here. 🤕

Anyway …
Sauron's knowing about Aulë's creation of the Dwarves? Unlikely, I would think, as in the chapter 2 of the QS I mentioned above, after Eru's having adopted the Dwarves, there's the statement "Now when Aulë laboured in the making of the Dwarves he kept this work hidden from the other Valar, but at last he opened his mind to [his "spouse"] Yavanna and told her of all that had come to pass." (This the led to the creation of the Ents)

Now the Aulë-Eru scene with the Dwarves has something of Moses on Mount Sinai - or from the timeline more accurately of Adam and Eve in Eden; though The Sil is noticeably silent on the seven Eves of the Dwarves, in contrast to some writing in HoMe. An imperfect comparison, as Aulë would be more comparable in a way to the archangels (Micha-El, Gabri-El etc), and we seem to agree that the Dwarves were ignorant of Eru's presence in the scene. But Moses was the last human as per the Old Testament to have "personally" seen YHWH, there having been a few between himself and Adam and Eve. After the scene above, I doubt that any mortal even had a "face-to-face" encounter with any of the Valar with the sole exception of Tuor, meeting Ulmo at Vinyamar. So for any Dwarves after the Seven Fathers, even Aulë is a being approaching myth. Now as they were very secretive of their native language Khuzdul, even to the point of not inscribing more than a tiny fraction of it on monuments and tombs (in script learned from the Elves), they must have had a strong oral tradition (which can be surprisingly strong even in non-literate human societies, at least from a standpoint of us memory-slugs used to being able to write down anything and everything - need I mention the Internet and "social media"?). With their normal life-spans apparently being about 250 years, they would also have had far more time to commit things to memory than we do. So there may have been far less corruption of far-back memories than is usual in human societies with the best memorizers. But at the time of the action of LoTR, we are talking about about *7000* years of the Sun (and Moon), plus unknown comparable millennia during the First Age part of the Two Trees (Aulë created the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves before the Elves had awakened!). Useful estimates of how long in Sun years that period was are scanty and perhaps ultimately inconclusive. At least in one sense my reaction of 'idolatry' above does not seem to be validated: for all their stone- and metal-working skill, the Dwarves do not seem to have indulged in creating sculptures, which would seem to be a necessity for true idolatry. Nor in building / carving out of 'temples' (that carving-out in our real world is most prominent in the archaeological site of Petra in the Jordan Valley, and in Ethiopian Christian churches, to my knowledge). The temples bit is prominent in Sauron's sojourn in Númenor - where, I find it interesting, for all of his obviously super-human (not super-natural, they were natural to him) abilities, he still put forward Melkor as the being to which homage was to be paid.

So my point is: what form could the Dwarves' "knowledge of where they came from, and who might or might not be a divine authority to them." have taken, especially at the end of the Third Age? Lacking any proven Dwarves in the membership of TTF (at least to my knowledge!), we're stuck with speculation once again (but that's fuel and a driving force behind all JRRT sites, isn't it? Tom Bombadil, Balrogs' wings, etc. … "whee" goes the imagination! 🤪 )


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Feb 23, 2020)

I'm about to go out of town, Northman, so will have to be brief -- sorry if my response seems overly terse.

1. The passage in the Silmarillion isn't a "suggestion", but a flat statement.

2. At the time of the making of the rings, the Elves of Eregion had friendly relations with the Dwarves of Moria, Durin's Folk, who had been joined by members of two other clans; I know of no evidence they were closely associated with the others, though again, would accept correction on this. It would seem strange to me that they would distribute rings of power to peoples with whom they had no relationship.



Northman said:


> Why would the Ring-makers fashion Seven rings for the Dwarves if NOT for the long-established number of Khazad clans?


That is the matter in question, isn't it? Whether they did, or not? My understanding is that they did not. "Many Elven-rings were made"; Seven were given to the Dwarves, one to the head of each clan. The question is, by whom? You believe it was the Elves; Tolkien says it was Sauron. The only suggestion otherwise is the tradition among the Dwarves that the Ring taken from Thrain was given to Durin III "by the Elven-smiths themselves and not by Sauron", clearly an attempt to avoid at least some of the "taint".

3. Again, I know of no statement that the Seven were absent at the time of Sauron's assault on Eregion, or that he came "looking for the Nine":

_. . .and he came against them with open war, demanding that all the rings should be delivered to him. . ._

It could be argued that Sauron was in ignorance about the locations of the various rings, but keep in mind that Sauron "made One Ring to rule all the others", and "while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them". I find it difficult to believe that, had these rings previously been distributed to widely scattered clans, none of them would have been in use at the time; in which case, he would know where , and with whom, they were.

4. I don't know who you're quoting in your second quote; not me, so I won't address it.

5. Sauron as "unreliable narrator". Sure, but Dwarves are "retentive of the memories of injuries (and of benefits)"; aside from the possible exception I noted above, Dwarves have long memories, and I doubt such a bald-faced lie would be allowed to pass without rebuttal.
6.


Northman said:


> He had no clue as to how many clans or tribes there were


Again, do you have a source for this? Sauron traveled all over Middle Earth, except for Lindon. It's hard to believe he somehow failed to notice the Dwarves.

Finally, the lesser rings would be "designed to be low-level Elf traps" only if they were intended for someone other than Elves; my contention, based on the actual texts, is that they were intended for what Tolkien said they were: to enhance the Elves' own powers.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 23, 2020)

Well, Northman, you have managed to throw my a/m "to-do" list into confusion (I mean, I don't really need outside help with this!  )

But the discussion "did the Dwarves receive their seven rings from Celebrimbor or from Sauron" just distracted me too much … 🤔

First, I am uneasy with what I _perceive_ (correct me if I'm wrong) as a tendency on your part to "disbelieve what JRRT himself wrote" (this has to do with a tendency of some critics generally, apparently those taking a viewpoint based on (Freudian) psychoanalysis which has to not a small degree been discarded by more recent research, that they know better than the author what he / she "meant", or even that the author may be - due to repression or whatever catchphrases are popular with this set - least able to discern his / her own "meaning"; pompousness / arrogance run amuck!).


Northman said:


> Squint-eyed Southerner said:
> 
> 
> > _"The Lord Sauron the Great, so he said, wished for our friendship. Rings he would give for it, such as he gave of old."_
> ...


Now I'm happy that I posted my previous blathering before getting to this post of yours.
Sauron (or more properly his messenger) being an unreliable narrator needs no discussion. But the Dwarves with, among else as I have argued, extremely long-range oral memories, would have seen though such a statement as a lie very easily, I propose. From the First Age to the Council of Elrond, the Dwarves have learned that Sauron is not to be trusted, period.

But my main disagreement with your argument


Northman said:


> In the time of Eregion, the Dwarves and the Elves were in close communion, marrying the crafts of the Noldor with that of the Khazâd, so why would they not share these Rings with the Seven clans of the Khazâd, since they were supposedly allies?


is geography.

The Elves of Eregion were in contact with exactly *one* of those Dwarven clans, that of the long-beards of Durin. Think about it. Dáin (II) Ironfoot, ruling the Iron Hills far to the north-east of Khazâd-dûm (Moria, and never mind the First Age Dwarven dwellings of Nogrod and Belegost), was accepted as king of Durin's folk after the death of Thorin Oakenshield in TH in Third Age 2941. True, in the War of Dwarves and Orcs from 2793 to 2799 TA, JRRT states that (some) of the other Dwarven clans sent troops to fight to avenge the murder of Thorin's grandfather Thrór, as descendant from Durin I considered a kind of High King of the Dwarves, in 2790 TA in Moria. But first, it took three years for that war to get started, and JRRT never explicitly states how many of the other six clans took part in the war, with how many troops, much less from where they came from.

How would, then, the other six Great Rings of the Dwarves have ever reached the kings of these clans, which must be assumed to be serious distances away from the part of Middle-earth that is ever mentioned in JRRT's legendarium? Areas, one must assume (or I do, anyway), which had fallen under Sauron's domination in the at least 1200 years of the Second Age that he was free to dupe all inhabitants so far away from the (north-) western shores of Middle-earth? Even the uproar of the War of Wrath by the Valinorean forces against Morgoth at the end of the First Age would probably have been no more than a distant - if frightening - rumor to the ancestors of the later Easterlings and Southrons (and the Dwarven clans perhaps living near them). This is before he had his bodily form destroyed in the wrack of Númenor, so he could still possibly delude "eastern" ans "southern" Dwarf rulers into accepting the six other Great Rings given to the Dwarves. I concede that I remain puzzled how he managed to give the seventh (or first?) of these rings to the ruler of Durin's folk under this scenario. Perhaps a combination of our views? Celebrimbor gave the first of The Seven to the ruler of Khazâd-dûm, but was, due to constraints of distance and hostile environment, unable to do so for the other six clans. Having the Durin Dwarves distribute the other six Great Rings to the other clan ruler strikes me as too implausible. So DGR 1 to the ruler of Khazâd-dûm by Celebrimbor, the other six to the other six Dwarven rulers by Sauron?

I just love these holes in the legendarium … 😁


----------



## Northman (Feb 23, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> 1. The passage in the Silmarillion isn't a "suggestion", but a flat statement.


But not necessarily binding. Again, where is the actual mention of this when Tolkien describes these events in detail? He takes pains to explain where the Three were, and pains to explain where the Nine were, when Sauron ransacks Eregion. He explicitly states that Sauron captured the Nine at this time, and distributed them. Well, why no mention of the Seven? Even Christopher Tolkien himself says that an exact continuity between the Silm and LotR is not to be sought, because he was compiling unpublished notes and essays, so if this line seems to contradict what we actually know from the more detailed sections, then I don't see this as an enormous problem.



> 2. At the time of the making of the rings, the Elves of Eregion had friendly relations with the Dwarves of Moria, Durin's Folk, who had been joined by members of two other clans; I know of no evidence they were closely associated with the others, though again, would accept correction on this. It would seem strange to me that they would distribute rings of power to peoples with whom they had no relationship.


Well, then how come they made Nine Rings for Men, considering the Elves of Eregion were not on close terms with most of the Edain either? That seems like a weak objection, to me.



> 3. Again, I know of no statement that the Seven were absent at the time of Sauron's assault on Eregion, or that he came "looking for the Nine":


That's not what I said. I said that he obtained the Nine when he came searching for the Rings. Ultimately his goal was to obtain the Three, but he failed, and there is literally no mention whatsoever of the Seven in this. Again, I'm appealing to your powers of deduction: where were they? How come they were not mentioned as having come into Sauron's possession when he sacked Eregion, even though Tolkien takes pains to explain that this is when he obtained the Nine, but not the Three? How else do you reconcile this?



> It could be argued that Sauron was in ignorance about the locations of the various rings, but keep in mind that Sauron "made One Ring to rule all the others", and "while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them". I find it difficult to believe that, had these rings previously been distributed to widely scattered clans, none of them would have been in use at the time; in which case, he would know where , and with whom, they were.


Again, that's not what I am arguing. I am saying that there is no actual text which states when and how the Dwarven Rings were distributed. The Rings of Power were made, and apparently kept, by Celebrmbor, or else Sauron wouldn't have had to sack Eregion to get them. Celebrimbor is the one who distributed the Three, and kept hold of the Nine, until Sauron took them. When exactly is Sauron supposed to have distributed these Seven? The absence of information creates an anomaly, and I'm not satisfied that one line from the Silm covers it, especially since we know that the possibility of a fallible author is on the cards here considering the very nature of the Silm itself.



> 5. Sauron as "unreliable narrator". Sure, but Dwarves are "retentive of the memories of injuries (and of benefits)"; aside from the possible exception I noted above, Dwarves have long memories, and I doubt such a bald-faced lie would be allowed to pass without rebuttal.


Well, I mean, the rebuttal was that Dain refused to give an answer. I'm not sure the lack of quibbling over semantic details in his exchange with the messenger is a very powerful objection. Just because Sauron is going around trying to resurrect the idea that he's a Giver of Gifts doesn't mean that he is, or that anyone is under any illusions about it. We don't have an actual transcript of that exchange, only Gloin's report of it.



> Again, do you have a source for this? Sauron traveled all over Middle Earth, except for Lindon. It's hard to believe he somehow failed to notice the Dwarves.


That's again not what I said. Sauron is definitely aware of the existence of Dwarves, but that's not the same as knowing how many they were or how many tribes. I don't feel like I need much of a source for that, when I can appeal of Occam's Razor. Is there a source which suggest that he DID know? If not, then the lack of contrary sources seems to me to bolster my suggestion.



> Finally, the lesser rings would be "designed to be low-level Elf traps" only if they were intended for someone other than Elves; my contention, based on the actual texts, is that they were intended for what Tolkien said they were: to enhance the Elves' own powers.


This doesn't seem to be based on anything I said, so I won't address it.



Olorgando said:


> First, I am uneasy with what I _perceive_ (correct me if I'm wrong) as a tendency on your part to "disbelieve what JRRT himself wrote"


I don't have that tendency at all. In fact, I typically cleave to his writing in the case of conundrum, but not to a fault. I think that there are acknowledged discrepancies between the Silm and LotR, for instance, which people pore over and attempt to reconcile, so I'm simply saying that in this case the line from the Silmarillion doesn't necessarily present the 'truth', only the legend. The idea that Sauron gave these Dwarven Rings himself could simply be a carryover of his successful marketing campaign as the Giver of Gifts, and is simply remembered that way in hazy lore as a result. My question stems from the complete lack of description of Sauron actually giving these Rings out, despite us having clear paper-trails for the Nine and the Three. Personally, I think it's just an oversight on the part of the Prof, and he himself has readily admitted that he can make mistakes, usually relying upon Christopher (whom he called his 'historian) to correct him.

That's the place I'm coming from, not one of habitual distrust of his text.



> Sauron (or more properly his messenger) being an unreliable narrator needs no discussion. But the Dwarves with, among else as I have argued, extremely long-range oral memories, would have seen though such a statement as a lie very easily,


Who says they didn't? Just because Gloin doesn't tell us that Dain argued with the messenger over semantic details doesn't mean that the Dwarves were bamboozled. In fact, Gloin explicitly states that they were not fooled by Sauron's overtures. That doesn't really impact what I'm saying, as far as I can see.



> The Elves of Eregion were in contact with exactly *one* of those Dwarven clans, that of the long-beards of Durin.


Then I want to ask you: why make_ seven_ Rings? If the Elves of Eregion were only concerned with their buddies in Khazad-dum, why would Celebrimbor choose to fashion seven Rings for the seven Dwarf lords? Are we considering the idea that Sauron himself is the one who counselled this?



> So DGR 1 to the ruler of Khazâd-dûm by Celebrimbor, the other six to the other six Dwarven rulers by Sauron?


That's what Squint-eyed Southener is stating is the account from the lore, but I remain unconvinced, and if this is the case, why did it not happen the same way with Men? Why did Sauron have to seize the Nine, if he was actively involved in the original gifting of Rings to the races? I have no problem imagining Sauron dishing them out AFTER he seized them, as he did with the Nine, but then why no mention of them in the accounts of his sacking of Eregion and his torture of Celebrimbor, wherein Tolkien takes pains to state that Sauron only got hold of the Nine, and that Celebrimbor refused to reveal the locations of the Three? The Seven are absent from this entire picture, which leads me to believe they were already distributed, and I can't see a way that this would have been done by Sauron himself, considering he had to steal all the Rings he had from Celebrimbor's hands. I put this whole idea that Sauron gave out the Rings on, basically, his own propaganda.

I agree, though, that these discussions are great!


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 23, 2020)

Northman said:


> … the lack of contrary sources seems to me to bolster my suggestion.


Ah, no, Northman, here I have to come down hard on you, as this is what I consider a very fundamental point of argumentation.
"Absence of proof …" meaning lack of contrary sources "... does not constitute proof of absence."
Not that you argued the second part; but you did much worse, in my opinion:
"Absence of proof constitutes proof of presence."
This is deepest conspiracy theory territory, and I meant the totally nutty kind. Here I go "Wolverine" in my reactions, take-no-prisoners territory.

You have mentioned Occam's Razor more than once. Here I come back to my mention in an earlier post about challenging (unthinking) assumptions. The best OR is useless if based on faulty assumptions. I'll give it a try as to where your harping on lacking "transcripts" about The Seven may be to a degree pointless.

Very true, the purpose of the One Ring was the domination of the Three Great Elven Rings, the three about which Sauron had the least information. Thus his pouring a major part of his native power (seriously weakening himself when *not* in possession of The One, again something he never considered possible, one of his not-so-rare blind spots) into The One, to make sue he would be able to dominate The Three - and their wearers. Here I agree to your assumption that the wearers of The Three, had they continued to wear them, would have come under Sauron's domination just like the wearers of The Nine. But they immediately (?) took them off, again seemingly a reaction Sauron had not reckoned with (another blind side). The nine "manifested" themselves in the Ring-wraiths around 2251 according to Appendix B in RoTK, so over 550 years after Sauron overran Eriador. Quite a long time. And I'd doubt that anyone except the nine bearers and Sauron himself (and the non-bearing hiders of The Three at the time, and perhaps a few survivors of Celebrimbor's realm) would have even guessed that this was due to the Nine Rings given to men.

One thing we may often forget, we are looking back, in JRRT's books, very far back, in fact, to a time when all sorts of information was hidden from all but a select few, specifically about probably all 20 rings. The Elves kept the bearers of The Three quite secret even after Sauron's first, temporary defeat at the end of the Second Age, even among themselves, when they were again able to wear their rings without peril. The Dwarves kept the secret of their seven even more closely even among themselves, basically only known to the king holding one at any given time, and his heir. No one beyond Sauron, the Nine wearers, and a few Elves ever knew about The Nine, for a long time.

Now why did JRRT mention The Three and The Nine, but neglect The Seven? Because The Nine, "creating" the Ring-wraiths, and The Three of the Elves (one having been given to Gandalf by Cirdan), were central to his story. The Seven were, first, the most conspicuous failures to have any effect that Sauron might have wished for, being practically useless to influence the Dwarves. They have their (very much off-stage) special history in the secretive kingdoms of the Dwarves, some being destroyed by dragons, some retrieved by Sauron, the last of them from Thráin in Dol Guldur in 2845 TA. Gandalf arrives in DG just in time before Thráin's death to recover the map and the key to the back gate of Erebor which were needed for TH. The Seven are simply too marginal to the story to merit too much thought compared to The Nine and The Three.

So I would specifically strongly reject your above comment about "... the possibility of a fallible author is on the cards here considering the very nature of the Silm itself."
Not fallible, is my reading, an author not caring much about very peripheral matters.
In a somewhat humorous vein, your "harping", as it appears to me, on lacking information, "transcripts" even, about The Seven remind me of the Beowulf critics who lamented the absence of more information about Ingeld and other semi-historical about fifth-century north German / south Scandinavian figures mentioned in passing. "Confound those dratted monsters and that dragon! Why didn't the Beowulf poet concentrate on really important things like Ingeld and Hrothgar and whatnot instead of those abominable creatures?!?"
He wasn't interested, was JRRT's answer, and if he didn't write a story you would have liked, that's your problem, not his (something echoed very much in some critical reception to LoTR: JRRT hadn't written about "incestuous Dukes in Tierra del Fuego", as one critic apparently would have preferred, as an example). JRRT did not write about The Seven because he wasn't interested in them for his story. While that leaves room for you to speculate of what might have been, trying to go in the face of explicit statements seems to be going a bit too far with speculation.


----------



## Northman (Feb 23, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Not that you argued the second part; but you did much worse, in my opinion:
> "Absence of proof constitutes proof of presence."


No, that's not a fair characterization of what I have said, and I am not going to be condescended to about it. I was extremely clear in what I said. I was saying to you that there is in fact no evidence that the Seven were present when Sauron obtained the Rings in order to distribute them, and that this absence was conspicuous enough to create doubt in the story, when set alongside the other evidence that Tolkien took pains to provide such an explanation for the others. So, I have asked people to help reconcile these discrepancies, in a bid to get to the bottom of the matter. I am not presenting a conspiracy theory, and I do not require lecturing about it, thank you very much.

Misrepresenting my words is something that happens to cause ME to go into Wolvie mode, just so you know.



> You have mentioned Occam's Razor more than once.


Yes indeed, because I am appealing to it. It seemed to me most likely, or requiring the least amount of explanation, that Sauron didn't actually give the Dwarves the Rings. If he did in fact do this, then this requires further explanation, which we are free to speculate upon, but that's also merely inventing details from our own imagination. Or, we could consider that it just doesn't make sense, and the easiest answer is that it was a continuity error, which we surely know to exist within Tolkien's works, and certainly between the Silm and LotR. That's all I'm saying. It's not a conspiracy theory, nor am I utilizing conspiratorial thought processes to present it. Please do not mischaracterize my argument in this way.



> The nine "manifested" themselves in the Ring-wraiths around 2251 according to Appendix B in RoTK, so over 550 years after Sauron overran Eriador. Quite a long time. And I'd doubt that anyone except the nine bearers and Sauron himself (and the non-bearing hiders of The Three at the time, and perhaps a few survivors of Celebrimbor's realm) would have even guessed that this was due to the Nine Rings given to men.


I think it's extremely well known among the Wise that the Nine were the Nazgul, and the Ring-lore is fully revealed to us even by Gandalf, and Tolkien clearly states that the Nine fell under his sway because he spent the 550 years showing them fantasies and lies in the shadow world to corrupt, mislead and ultimately dominate them. That's not a mystery, in the way that the distribution of the Seven is.



> So I would specifically strongly reject your above comment about "... the possibility of a fallible author is on the cards here considering the very nature of the Silm itself."


I don't know why, considering Christopher Tolkien himself admits that this is the case, and even outright states that perfect continuity between the Silm and LotR is impossible, and not even to be sought. If there are discrepancies, then these are ultimately due to the fact that even the Professor himself declared that he was piecing together an ancient history, and that _he could make mistakes_. That's all I'm referencing, and I don't need to be accused of whatever problems you have with critics of Beowulf. I think this exchange would go a lot better if you addressed what I actually say, instead of accusing me of saying things I haven't.



> He wasn't interested, was JRRT's answer,


Um, no, that's YOUR answer, and you are apparently projecting it onto the Professor. Please stop trying to lecture me. Tolkien wrote barely anything about the distribution of any of the Rings, which is why it's been so hard for people to track down the answers to this very question, so suggesting that this oversight is indicative of Tolkien 'not caring' is a supreme speculation on your part. As it happens, though, I believe I have gotten to the bottom of the matter, since I checked the section of the Silm again, and have found that Tolkien actually does address this after all: in _Of The Rings of Power and the Third Age_, the very paragraph Squint-eyed Southron was drawing from, it says that Sauron did indeed gather "all the remaining Rings of Power; and he dealt them out to the other peoples of Middle-earth" which accounts for the discrepancy after all, and I can quit worrying about it.

But, it also does draw the curtain on the idea that he tailored the Rings specifically to Men, since clearly Men were an afterthought here, and the main goal the entire time had been to dominate the Elves, as revealed by the same section. The Seven are not described as useless to him at all, either, in fact he states that Sauron got much profit from their effect upon the Dwarves, leading them into pride, greed and wrath, and this same passage tells that even the seven great Dwarf hoards were amassed specifically with the Rings, and that this is why 4 of them ended up being consumed by dragons, who were attracted to the hoards. The Elves would not have turned into wraiths, since the Elves are not mortal, but I see no reason at all now why the Three would not have led them to become just as evil, wretched and under the thralldom of Sauron as those who wore the Nine, especially since capituring their will had been his primary goal from the start.



> While that leaves room for you to speculate of what might have been, trying to go in the face of explicit statements seems to be going a bit too far with speculation.


Thankfully I'm not doing that, though. I was pointing out that a particular statement has zero corroborating evidence, creates a conundrum which is not readily solved by the text, and that given the known relationship between the Silm and LotR, the statement need not necessarily be considered sacrosanct if it cannot be reconciled.

Thankfully I have reconciled it, but I certainly do not appreciate the manner in which you have attempted to dress me down. Please don't try that again. If you feel something I have said is not correct, feel free to explain why, but do not accuse me of whatever issues you've had in the past with critics of other works, or of falling prey to conspiracy theory thinking. That sermon was insulting and incorrect.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 23, 2020)

Northman said:


> Olorgando said:
> 
> 
> > Northman said:
> ...


The lack of contrary sources does exactly nothing either way about your suggestion.
It does not bolster it in the least, nor does it weaken it in the least.
I'm not saying that *you're* presenting anything remotely in the way of conspiracy theories.
But I do see your above statement as coming perilously close to that kind of thinking, and I stand firmly by my criticism of it.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 23, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> … Beowulf critics who lamented the absence of more information about Ingeld and other semi-historical, approximately fifth-century north German / south Scandinavian, figures mentioned in passing. "Confound those dratted monsters and that dragon! Why didn't the Beowulf poet concentrate more on really important things like the doings of Ingeld and Hrothgar and whatnot instead of those abominable creatures?!?"
> He _[the Beowulf poet]_ wasn't interested, was JRRT's answer _[to those specific Beowulf critics]_, and if he _[the Beowulf poet]_ didn't write a story you _[those specific Beowulf critics]_ would have liked, that's your _[those specific Beowulf critics']_ problem, not his _[the Beowulf poet's]_ (something echoed very much in some critical reception to LoTR: JRRT hadn't written about "incestuous Dukes in Tierra del Fuego", as one LoTR critic apparently would have preferred, as an example).


From this, I deduced that the absence of JRRT's explicit description about the distribution of The Seven might very well also be because he was not (overly) interested in this topic, as his stories have been about mainly Elves (The Sil) or mainly Men (LoTR), Dwarves being peripheral characters in both cases. (The main exception is TH, but that was not in origin meant to be a story of the legendarium, which here is peripheral, actually creeping in on the periphery, so to speak.) Of course he may simply not have had time to reconcile or deal with the matter of The Seven, but I would think that at least in the revision for the second edition in 1966 he would have revised his (brief) statements about Sauron and The Seven if he felt them to be at odds with his own concept of Celebrimbor having distributed them to the Dwarves, had he had such a concept. Again, you could argue that this was a remaining inconsistency in the whole story, which might be the case. I'm just not convinced.

If he had a concept of the Elves distributing any of their rings (all are called Elven-rings) to any other "races" at all. "The Seven" and "The Nine" are ex post facto descriptions of whom they ended up with (if temporarily in the long run), not necessarily that they were intentionally created for their actual recipients in the intention of the Elves. Which to my mind makes the distribution of all sixteen to non-Elves more likely to be an action of Sauron's, with evil intent on his side. I seriously doubt that The Nine were ever intended by the Elves to be given to Men.


----------



## NicolausVI (Feb 27, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> NicolausIV, I accept without reservation that you are _applying_ what to you is what JRRT himself in the foreword to the second edition approved as what readers may find in the way of _applicability,_ found by any given reader. But I have the distinct impression that you have strayed too deep into what JRRT considered to be - I think - loose allegory (JRRT was not averse to allegory per se - he used it himself on many occasions, but he used it in a very strict way). Something equals something else (and *nothing* else, an _if-and-*only*-if_ term of logic).
> I have stated more than once here on TTF (and perhaps on other JRRT sites) that I view JRRT's "Letters" with deep suspicion when it comes to "canon". Another term highly disputed. With all the details we have received about Middle-earth from them (and only from them, if I recall correctly), the letters have one serious defect: written off-the-cuff, with none of the sometimes slowly grinding revisions so typical of JRRT. They were more like C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books (for which JRRT could never develop any sympathy). Some of the letters you quote are to Catholic clergy; JRRT would have been trying to explain away things not considered Catholic-canon (as he was aware at least as much as his letter correspondents). JRRT quite simply had a fascination with the heathen north (Norse) of Europe that he was ultimately not able to reconcile with his Roman Catholic beliefs.
> He basically left out everything explicit that you in your posts have found applicable - and by this *leaving out* wrote one of the greatest books of the 20th century.



It seems that most of your trouble about my responses come from your own opinion about what the _Letters_ are and if they are a reliable source material to answer questions about the _Lord of the Rings_. Now I admit, my second and third posts on this thread are very shoddy, and in fact I do not hold the view that they are very concrete or even intended by the author. However, my first response about Frodo being in the role of a priest, is very much grounded and I truly do believe he intended to use the trium hero of priest, prophet and king, with the three characters I mentioned.

The first reason I believe this is something that you may very well not be able to relate to. I am Roman Catholic, and not just any. But I am a traditionalist, who attends the Latin Mass exclusively, and follows almost all the laws and precepts from before the Second Vatican Council. Conveniently enough, Tolkien was also, and he raised his family to be so. This is obvious by the fact that one of his sons, John, became a Roman Catholic priest. That man in a BBC Documentary on Tolkien notes that his father never liked the changes of Vatican II (use of vernacular language and changes to prayers and positioning of the priest) and that he went on saying the responses in Latin because he saw no point in abandoning its use (as can be inferred by his love of language). As a devout Roman Catholic, we simply breathe the air of Christ, and everything we do, for good and for ill, is for the glory of God. _Everything_. We do nothing without praying first, and asking God to bless our endeavors. Would you be comfortable saying that J.R.R. Tolkien never prayed to God before writing sections of the Lord of the Rings? I most certainly would not. He would have asked Jesus, our King, Lord and Saviour, Victim and Priest, the Lamb of God, for guidance and inspiration, and to help make his work beautiful. Not only that, but to practice the worship of any God but the One Creator is against the very first commandment, which are the precepts every devout Christian must obey. He would not have written something which encouraged paganism, but something that gave glory to God, which is precisely why the realm of Middle Earth has one creator; Eru, Iluvatar, the All-father (we call God our Father also)(cf. all other pagan religions do not have one creator save for Judaism, and Islam was created six-hundred years after Christ). So just because it seems like he has pagan influences, which certainly are on the surface, does not mean he did not incorporate Christian virtues and beliefs into the work, beneath the surface. In fact, as a Christian he was obligated to, lest he be proclaimed a heretic of the Church!

To his wife Edith he wrote;



> I had an essay, as I told you, but I didn't get it finished as Shakespeare came up and then (Lieutenant) Thompson (very healthy and well in his new uniform) and prevented me doing work on the Sabbath, as I had proposed to do..... I went to St Aloysius for High Mass – and I rather enjoyed it – it is such ages since I heard one for Fr. F. wouldn't let me go when I was at the Oratory last week. _Letter no.1._



This very first letter indicates his participation at a Latin High Mass from a young age, this letter was written in 1914, and he had not been to one because he was at war.

Thirty years later (which proves continuity) to his son Christopher he wrote;



> If you don't do so already, make a habit of the 'praises'. I use them much (in Latin): the _Gloria Patri_, the _Gloria in Excelsis_, the _Laudate Dominum_; the _Laudate Pueri Dominum_ (of which I am specially fond), one of the Sunday psalms; and the _Magnificat_; also the Litany of Loretto (with the prayer _Sub tuum praesidium_). If you have these by heart you never need for words of joy. It is also a good and admirable thing to know by heart the Canon of the Mass, for you can say this in your heart if ever hard circumstance keeps you from hearing Mass. _Letter no.54._



Those prayers are of the Church, to be prayed in Latin (the titles are the first word appearing in their respective Latin prayers). He did not tell his son to pray to Odin or Thor, nor to Manwe or Elbereth. I bring just these two, though there are many more, to prove this point; J.R.R. Tolkien prayed to God, was a devout Roman Catholic, and encouraged his wife and children to follow suit. No matter how many pagan (very much Anglo-Saxon and Breton) things seem to be on the surface, if you dig deep, he puts the jewel of Christ between the lines.

You also bring up Lewis’ series and say Tolkien never developed any sympathy. I have no idea where this comes from! J.R.R. Tolkien actually converted Lewis to Christianity, and he became an Anglican! He managed to do this by making Lewis realize that Christianity was true, and that it actually happened, and that the apostles really recorded what they had seen. Why would he not have sympathy for his best friends work, which they shared in the group, the Inklings? I demand proof of this unemotional and cold response to his best friend. Compare that to myself; I have never successfully converted _anyone_ to Christianity! It is a miracle that he managed to do this at all to even one person!

Both the letters I used in my first response are to Father Robert Murray, Society of Jesus. This man actually appeared in the same documentary I mentioned before, and knew Tolkien personally (he may have been his confessor, which means he heard his confessions). He explicitly states that no, he was not trying to “persuade the world to be Christian, but that would _not _have been a crude allegory. He simply breathed that air”. And that, my friend is exactly the position I take. I am not saying that the Lord of the Rings is explicitly Christian, but I am saying it is indubitably implicitly Christian! It would be right to recognize his inspiration, and to understand how the author of the century made such an amazing book- namely with the help and grace of the One God, and the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist!



> Or more important, I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic. The latter 'fact' perhaps cannot be deduced; though one critic (by letter) asserted that the invocations of Elbereth, and the character of Galadriel as directly described (or through the words of Gimli and Sam) were clearly related to Catholic devotion to Mary. Another saw in waybread (lembas)= viaticum and the reference to its feeding the will (vol. III, p. 213) and being more potent when fasting, a derivation from the Eucharist. (That is: far greater things may colour the mind in dealing with the lesser things of a fairy-story.) _Letter no.213, to Deborah Webster_



And to his son, Michael;



> The only cure for sagging of fainting faith is Communion. Though always Itself, perfect and complete and inviolate, the Blessed Sacrament does not operate completely and once for all in any of us. Like the act of Faith it must be continuous and grow by exercise. Frequency is of the highest effect. Seven times a week is more nourishing than seven times at intervals. Also I can recommend this as an exercise (alas! only too easy to find opportunity for): make your communion in circumstances that affront your taste. Choose a snuffling or gabbling priest or a proud and vulgar friar; and a church full of the usual bourgeois crowd, ill-behaved children – from those who yell to those products of Catholic schools who the moment the tabernacle is opened sit back and yawn – open necked and dirty youths, women in trousers and often with hair both unkempt and uncovered. Go to Communion with them (and pray for them). It will be just the same (or better than that) as a mass said beautifully by a visibly holy man, and shared by a few devout and decorous people. (It could not be worse than the mess of the feeding of the Five Thousand – after which [Our] Lord propounded the feeding that was to come.) _Letter no.250._



Now on the validity and reliability of the Letters, since your opinion is that they are not reliable, you would have to show me some sort of proof of their unreliability. These documents contain also drafts, which suggests that Tolkien did indeed think these letters through, created drafts and final revisions. Have you ever written a letter? It is a very deep-thought provoking process, and much like this response to your objection, is calculative and purposeful. Just going down the list, over fifteen letters published in _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, are published as drafts. Why would a writer be so careful in a narrative work, and not follow the same process when writing letters? Even when I write emails, I review it, make changes, and make sure it flows and is smooth-sounding. Now maybe there is not as much flourishing and trills in an e-mail compared to poetry, but I still take the time to edit it and ensure I am communicating properly, namely answering the questions asked and defending objections proposed. I simply do not agree that Tolkien rushed all three-hundred and more letters, and even if he did that would not necessarily prove unreliability! I simply do not agree with your statement that the letters are rushed and unreliable as source material to understand Tolkien and the _Lord of the Rings_ more fully, on the grounds that they are “written-off-the-cuff” (what other way is there to write?!). Since you seek to remove them, you bear the burden of proof on the matter, and must show me hard evidence and good reason to not hold any of the letters as reliable (i.e. he lied, put something in the letters that contradicts the story, etc.)

Until you show me that, I must and will use the Letters as source material, especially because most of them answer the very same questions that we are asking in this forum. A man who uses Gandalf in his picture should be much more wise and learned about Tolkien’s religion, the one thing that kept him going through all his hardships of life and war.

The documentary mentioned can be found on YouTube under the title "JRR TOLKIEN '1892-1973' - A Study Of The Maker Of Middle-earth".


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 27, 2020)

NicolausVI said:


> It seems that most of your trouble about my responses come from your own opinion about what the _Letters_ are and if they are a reliable source material to answer questions about the _Lord of the Rings_. Now I admit, my second and third posts on this thread are very shoddy, and in fact I do not hold the view that they are very concrete or even intended by the author. However, my first response about Frodo being in the role of a priest, is very much grounded and I truly do believe he intended to use the trium hero of priest, prophet and king, with the three characters I mentioned.
> 
> The first reason I believe this is something that you may very well not be able to relate to. I am Roman Catholic, and not just any. But I am a traditionalist, who attends the Latin Mass exclusively, and follows almost all the laws and precepts from before the Second Vatican Council. Conveniently enough, Tolkien was also, and he raised his family to be so. This is obvious by the fact that one of his sons, John, became a Roman Catholic priest. That man in a BBC Documentary on Tolkien notes that his father never liked the changes of Vatican II (use of vernacular language and changes to prayers and positioning of the priest) and that he went on saying the responses in Latin because he saw no point in abandoning its use (as can be inferred by his love of language). As a devout Roman Catholic, we simply breathe the air of Christ, and everything we do, for good and for ill, is for the glory of God. _Everything_. We do nothing without praying first, and asking God to bless our endeavors. Would you be comfortable saying that J.R.R. Tolkien never prayed to God before writing sections of the Lord of the Rings? I most certainly would not. He would have asked Jesus, our King, Lord and Saviour, Victim and Priest, the Lamb of God, for guidance and inspiration, and to help make his work beautiful. Not only that, but to practice the worship of any God but the One Creator is against the very first commandment, which are the precepts every devout Christian must obey. He would not have written something which encouraged paganism, but something that gave glory to God, which is precisely why the realm of Middle Earth has one creator; Eru, Iluvatar, the All-father (we call God our Father also)(cf. all other pagan religions do not have one creator save for Judaism, and Islam was created six-hundred years after Christ). So just because it seems like he has pagan influences, which certainly are on the surface, does not mean he did not incorporate Christian virtues and beliefs into the work, beneath the surface. In fact, as a Christian he was obligated to, lest he be proclaimed a heretic of the Church!
> 
> ...




Also, in a letter to a close friend about the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien writes that the work is


> “of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision” (Letters 172)




CL


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 27, 2020)

NicolausVI said:


> It seems that most of your trouble about my responses come from your own opinion about what the _Letters_ are and if they are a reliable source material to answer questions about the _Lord of the Rings_. Now I admit, my second and third posts on this thread are very shoddy, and in fact I do not hold the view that they are very concrete or even intended by the author. However, my first response about Frodo being in the role of a priest, is very much grounded and I truly do believe he intended to use the trium hero of priest, prophet and king, with the three characters I mentioned.
> 
> The first reason I believe this is something that you may very well not be able to relate to. I am Roman Catholic, and not just any. But I am a traditionalist, who attends the Latin Mass exclusively, and follows almost all the laws and precepts from before the Second Vatican Council. Conveniently enough, Tolkien was also, and he raised his family to be so. This is obvious by the fact that one of his sons, John, became a Roman Catholic priest. That man in a BBC Documentary on Tolkien notes that his father never liked the changes of Vatican II (use of vernacular language and changes to prayers and positioning of the priest) and that he went on saying the responses in Latin because he saw no point in abandoning its use (as can be inferred by his love of language). As a devout Roman Catholic, we simply breathe the air of Christ, and everything we do, for good and for ill, is for the glory of God. _Everything_. We do nothing without praying first, and asking God to bless our endeavors. Would you be comfortable saying that J.R.R. Tolkien never prayed to God before writing sections of the Lord of the Rings? I most certainly would not. He would have asked Jesus, our King, Lord and Saviour, Victim and Priest, the Lamb of God, for guidance and inspiration, and to help make his work beautiful. Not only that, but to practice the worship of any God but the One Creator is against the very first commandment, which are the precepts every devout Christian must obey. He would not have written something which encouraged paganism, but something that gave glory to God, which is precisely why the realm of Middle Earth has one creator; Eru, Iluvatar, the All-father (we call God our Father also)(cf. all other pagan religions do not have one creator save for Judaism, and Islam was created six-hundred years after Christ). So just because it seems like he has pagan influences, which certainly are on the surface, does not mean he did not incorporate Christian virtues and beliefs into the work, beneath the surface. In fact, as a Christian he was obligated to, lest he be proclaimed a heretic of the Church!
> 
> ...


Also, Bravo, Brava, Brother in Christ.



CL


----------



## Aramarien (Feb 27, 2020)

One thing I've noticed from this discussion, is that Sauron wanted to gather all the rings to himself before he distributed them to the Nine. Where were they given in the first place? 
I am reminded of the what Gandalf said, " ...It is only two lines of a verse long known in Elven-lore:
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone......." [FOTR, The Shadow of the Past]
The poem that LOTR is all about. The main idea. 
Was this Elven-lore an oral/written tradition after the rings were distributed? And, of course, who was the person who distributed them? 

Olorgando said:
"The Seven were, first, the most conspicuous failures to have any effect that Sauron might have wished for, being practically useless to influence the Dwarves. They have their (very much off-stage) special history in the secretive kingdoms of the Dwarves, some being destroyed by dragons, some retrieved by Sauron, the last of them from Thráin in Dol Guldur in 2845 TA. "

Why would Sauron take the ring from Thrain, or even try to gather the seven again ( although dragons consumed many)? Did Sauron take Thrain's ring with the intention of punishing him or to make him suffer? Did Sauron feel he was going to give this ring to another? 
Of course, Sauron judges others by what he would do, as Gandalf had pointed out many times. To Sauron, Power was the main object to be attained.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Feb 27, 2020)

I had intended mentioning the verse in the exchange with Northman, to whom I owe a response, but since you brought it up, note Gandalf's words: "a verse long _known _in Elven-lore"; this does not mean it _originated _with the Elves -- not that you implied that. The original language of the verse is the _Black Speech; _otherwise, why would Gandalf have uttered the lines that way in Rivendell? The Elves would have been aghast at having "their" words turned into such foul language.

So, they were Sauron's words, Sauron's verse. It would therefore seem very strange for him to adopt an Elvish "distribution plan" into it -- to me at least.

As for his intentions with the rings, I think it is clear from the Nine: he gave out rings in order to enslave others to the One, and thus to himself. After that, he could "repossess" them -- the recipients would remain in his power. This policy failed with the Dwarves, so my conclusion is that he would use any recovered Dwarf-rings on other, more susceptible subjects.

And since Sauron established himself in Mordor as early as S.A. 1000, and "extended his power eastwards", we can assume he gave the Nine Rings to Men of those regions.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 28, 2020)

NicolausVI said:


> ... However, my first response about Frodo being in the role of a priest, is very much grounded and I truly do believe he intended to use the trium hero of priest, prophet and king, with the three characters I mentioned.


You find this to be applicable. I can follow you line of reasoning for it, but it would not be my applicability, nor that of millions of other readers of LoTR, even other Christians, even other Catholics. But as you do, as far as I can see, make the equations Frodo = priest, Gandalf = Prophet, and Aragorn = King, that does seem to be allegory territory, for which JRRT registered, in print in the foreword to the 1966 second edition, his "cordial dislike".

To Quote:
"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. …. Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

Now I'd guess that JRRT would also extend the freedom of the reader (yours, mine, the millions of others) towards finding allegory in LoTR. JRRT himself used it, certainly in his famed "Beowulf" lecture, very probably in "Leaf by Niggle" and "Smith of Wooten Major". But he was strict about its usage. Those equations, the "=" sign I mentioned above. And for Frodo, there is quite a bit that does not fit the priest allegory. For Gandalf (whom JRRT in one of his letters called an "Angelos", meaning messenger, angel, and even that breaks down due to Gandalf's all too many rather non-angelic characteristics) the prophet allegory, if meant as a prophet of the Old Testament, seems even shakier. Those prophets were continually trying to pull back the Israelites to the true belief in and worship of JHWH and away from idolatry (apparently mostly Baal-worship). Unless you equate Gandalf's unstinting effort to convince all manners of peoples (and not just humans) to the opposition of Sauron by all means possible as this kind of prophecy … he would have to have been trying to (re-) convert them to a worship of Eru, wouldn't he? He didn't.
Aragorn = King may come closest, but there is no anointment in the name of Eru, which would be a must for OT prophets.


NicolausVI said:


> The first reason I believe this is something that you may very well not be able to relate to. I am Roman Catholic, and not just any. But I am a traditionalist, who attends the Latin Mass exclusively, and follows almost all the laws and precepts from before the Second Vatican Council.


We have certainly trodden divergent paths, but we may have some early-life commonalities.
That early life (or actually up my age of 19) was spent outside of my native country Germany due to my father's being a young (not quite 30) German engineer who, with his German wife, opted for posts as an expatriate (as it is now called) with his German company. Which is why I was born in Karachi, Pakistan, where I was baptized Catholic in 1956 (my mother was Catholic, my father Lutheran). A few years later, definitely before 1966, I had first communion in Bombay, India (now called Mumbai). Some time between 1966 and 1969, I had confirmation in Queens, NY, where I attended a Catholic school from 6th to 8th grade. After that, I left pretty much all religious observation behind me, and all religious belief. No "Damascus" event to be found there (it would be an "anti"-Damascus, anyway, wouldn't it). But I certainly found too much unconvincing even back then. And all of it has become very much more unconvincing to me in the half-century since.
So very certainly I can not relate to your beliefs as far as their content go. I am not ignorant, I would say far from that, of the history of such beliefs; more about that shortly.


NicolausVI said:


> ... Would you be comfortable saying that J.R.R. Tolkien *never* prayed to God before writing sections of the Lord of the Rings? I most certainly would not.


I am not comfortable with usage of words of the class "never", "always", "none", "all" etc.; actually, my views on their usage outside a miniscule applicability are far more savage that just "not comfortable".
I would, to return to your question, be *very* comfortable saying that JRRT did *not always* pray before writing (LoTR or other writings.
This may be something you would do in such a case, but have you never entertained the hypothesis that your orthodoxy, traditionalism, piousness might be beyond JRRT's? I have no idea, and even less of an idea how something like this could be "proved". I do scratch my head at the thought of how such an observance could have focused his thoughts on what was writing about things very definitely taking place millennia before the "Christian Era."


NicolausVI said:


> You also bring up Lewis’ series and say Tolkien never developed any sympathy. I have no idea where this comes from! J.R.R. Tolkien actually converted Lewis to Christianity, and he became an Anglican! He managed to do this by making Lewis realize that Christianity was true, and that it actually happened, and that the apostles really recorded what they had seen. Why would he not have sympathy for his best friends work, which they shared in the group, the Inklings? I demand proof of this unemotional and cold response to his best friend. Compare that to myself; I have never successfully converted anyone to Christianity! It is a miracle that he managed to do this at all to even one person!


For JRRT's views on CSL's "Narnia" books there is letter 265 in Humphrey Carpenter's "Letters" book:
"From a letter to David Kolb, S.J. dated 11 November 1964
It is sad that 'Narnia' and all that part of C.S.L.'s work should remain outside the range of my sympathy, as much of my work was outside his."
What is unclear about this statement?

As to converting Lewis to Christianity, he did not convert him from belief in another religion, nor was Lewis the child of confirmed atheists. You may protest that that is not what you meant, and I'd believe that you didn't. But that's a very common problem about human conversation: you might be annoyed, even horrified, at the interpretation that others tell you that they've taken from your words (I have ben too often). "I didn't mean that!" must be one of the most uttered phases in human history. It could be that you did not explain yourself clearly enough. It could also be that you did not - often could not, due to many reasons - take a perspective natural to those people that would never have occurred to you (or me).
Lewis had, from his agnosticism or perhaps even atheism instilled in him by the private tutor who drilled him - very effectively, it would seem, as Lewis took three First Class examinations at Oxford in short order, including one after only one year at the English School, roaring through its syllabus in one year instead of the normal three - already arrived at at least theism when that discussion between Lewis, JRRT and Hugo Dyson occurred in 1931, converting Lewis, as you say.

But then, JRRT was also disappointed that Lewis did not become a Catholic. I'm quoting Humphrey Carpenter's 1977 "Biography" here, it may also be found in his book "Letters"
"When Lewis published a prose allegory (!) telling the story of his conversion under the title _The Pilgrim's Regress_, Tolkien thought the title ironical. 'Lewis would regress,' he said. 'He would not re-enter Christianity by a new door, but by the old one: at least in the sense that in taking it up again he would also take up again, or reawaken, the prejudices so sedulously planted in childhood and boyhood. He would become again a Northern Ireland protestant." Anything but unqualified joy at that conversion, as I see it.


NicolausVI said:


> ... And that, my friend is exactly the position I take. I am not saying that the Lord of the Rings is explicitly Christian, but I am saying it is indubitably implicitly Christian! It would be right to recognize his inspiration, and to understand how the author of the century made such an amazing book- namely with the help and grace of the One God, and the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist!


This may be your assumption, and not incorrect - but there has been the discussion on TTF and elsewhere before if JRRT's religious belief is fundamental for an understanding, and even more so an enjoyment of LoTR.
It is not.
I own two books on JRRT coming exactly from opposite poles on this questions:
Joseph Pearce's 1998 book "Tolkien - Man and Myth; a literary life" which stresses JRRT's religious faith - ignoring it probably robs you of some insight;
Patrick Curry's 1997 book "Defending Middle-earth; Tolkien: Myth & Modernity" which states (I agree emphatically) that understanding and enjoyment are not contingent on sharing JRRT's beliefs.
I have stated, and critically, that I do not look kindly on *any* religion claiming exclusivity, "copyright" almost, on what I view to be human fundamentals. Say the Decalogue. Purely Judeo-Christian?
No.
Much (not all) is also found in Muslim and Buddhist writings; and elsewhere. The exhibit A here is the Golden Rule, which appears to be almost universal. Ethics need religion? I'm afraid that's a myth too, as studies have cast into doubt (transfer a war of aggression as described in your holy book with approval to a neutral setting, and suddenly the justified / unjustified percentages among believers asked flips - when it does not concern their beliefs)


NicolausVI said:


> ... Since you seek to remove them, ...


Here I cannot help but get seriously angry with you. That is your interpretation, and totally unfounded and wrong. I said I view the letters with deep suspicion.
I do not take kindly in the least to being misquoted in this way, to put it mildly


NicolausVI said:


> … you bear the burden of proof on the matter, and must show me hard evidence and good reason to not hold any of the letters as reliable (i.e. he lied, put something in the letters that contradicts the story, etc.) Until you show me that, I must and will use the Letters as source material, especially because most of them answer the very same questions that we are asking in this forum.


Who elected / appointed you judge on anything? Neither can you lay any burdens on me, nor must I show you anything that you then reserve judgement on. I have formed my opinion about the letters in the perhaps 30 years since I first bought Carpenter's book. Read it, re-read it again and again, as I have done with several others, where there have been statements in many of the books taking issue with those in other books. Since before you were even born, as I just noted. Perhaps we can continue discussions when you have "come of age" by Hobbit standards, in three or four years...


NicolausVI said:


> A man who uses Gandalf in his picture should be much more wise and learned about Tolkien’s religion, the one thing that kept him going through all his hardships of life and war.


As to that, I own and have read 18 books by Swiss-born Catholic theologian Hans Küng, one of the best and most influential (in a positive was for specifically, but not solely the Catholic Church that specifically the Curia in Rome have been uniformly blind to) theologians of the second half of the 20th century, and a bit beyond. And something close to a dozen other books by other authors. There's an article in the English Wiki about him (seriously shorter than in the German Wiki, but he did publish all of his books originally in German, and was a professor at a German University). This may or may not be enlightening to you, the English Wike article seems rather abbreviated.


----------

