# Did Ulmo know that the Ring was in the river?



## Erestor Arcamen (May 11, 2020)

This was brought up on Reddit and I wanted to see what TTF's thoughts were. Did Ulmo know that the Ruling Ring was in the river and if so, did he even possibly nudge Deagol in the right direction? It was said Ulmo never forsook the elves and humans and that his spirit ran through all the veins of the world. From the Valaquenta:



> Ulmo is the Lord of Waters. He is alone. He dwells nowhere long, but moves as he will in all the deep waters about the Earth or under the Earth. He is next in might to Manwë, and before Valinor was made he was closest to him in friendship; but thereafter he went seldom to the councils of the Valar, unless great matters were in debate. For he kept all Arda in thought, and he has no need of any resting-place. Moreover he does not love to walk upon land, and will seldom clothe himself in a body after the manner of his peers. If the Children of Eru beheld him they were filled with a great dread; for the arising of the King of the Sea was terrible, as a mounting wave that strides to the land, with dark helm foam-crested and raiment of mail shimmering from silver down into shadows of green. The trumpets of Manwë are loud, but Ulmo.s voice is deep as the deeps of the ocean which he only has seen.
> 
> Nonetheless Ulmo loves both Elves and Men, and never abandoned them, not even when they lay under the wrath of the Valar. At times he win come unseen to the shores of Middle-earth, or pass far inland up firths of the sea, and there make music upon his great horns, the Ulumúri, that are wrought of white shell; and those to whom that music comes hear it ever after in their hearts, and longing for the sea never leaves them again. But mostly Ulmo speaks to those who dwell in Middle-earth with voices that are heard only as the music of water. For all seas, lakes, rivers, fountains and springs are in his government; so that the Elves say that the spirit of Ulmo runs in all the veins of the world. Thus news comes to Ulmo, even in the deeps, of all the needs and griefs of Arda, which otherwise would be hidden from Manwë.



As I posted this, another thought came to me. What stopped Ulmo from retrieving the silmaril that was chucked into the sea?


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (May 11, 2020)

Maybe by providing conditions that encouraged fishing in the appropriate part of the river.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 11, 2020)

I suppose it depends a little on when that passage is taken to be from -- First, Second, or Third Age? Archetypally, the First Age is the age of myth, when the "gods" are actively and directly engaged with the earth and Man, and can appear as Ulmo did to Tuor. The Third Age is the age of romance, when, to use Frye's words, "the gods have retreated to the sky" -- or in this case, Valinor, and are not directly involved.

Or if so, in only exceptional circumstances, and even then, in a more indirect and "distanced" way, in story terms. Ulmo and his waters are admittedly something of a special case, but even here, I think of it as more of a "residual influence" than direct intervention, an example being the Nazguls' fear of water -- which Tolkien admitted was "difficult to sustain".

As to the Silmaril, no idea.


----------



## Olorgando (May 11, 2020)

I would think that the cataclysmic changes at the destruction of Númenor, making the world round, and removing Aman and the Lonely Isles "from the circles of the world" might have had a serious effect on the Valar being able to intervene directly in Middle-earth - which was all of the made-round world now. JRRT wrote nothing on this explicitly. I do vaguely remember that at least in the First Age, Ulmo did *not* have an abode in Valinor, in contrast to the other Valar, but lived in the "outer ocean", whatever that meant. And he was the only Vala to ever show himself, on the western shore of M-e - and Tuor was the only human to even see a Vala. It does seem a little inconsistent of the Vala, not clearing out all of their "kindred", which would have to include at least All Maiar - but there you have Sauron and at least the Balrog of Moria still active in the Third Age!


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (May 11, 2020)

Correct, he dwelled in Ekkaia, the outer ocean but that makes sense that with the "rounding" of the world he would not have been aware of the ring being there. Or maybe he was still aware to bring news to the Valar but obviously couldn't do anything about it since they were removed from Arda.

🌁


----------



## Elthir (May 11, 2020)

I think of Tolkien's World as always round, and its later "rounding" by Eru as a Mannish Myth.

Anyway, Ulmo basically did "save" a Silmaril from the sea, but nonetheless the Valar set it beyond the grasp of the Children of Middle-earth; and we know too that the Vanyar (somehow) knew that _"those Jewels could not be found or brought together again unless the world be broken and unmade."_

🐟


----------



## Sartr (May 21, 2020)

There's also the question of if Ulmo even wanted to do anything about it at that point. His great quest was to get Earendil to Valinor, using a Silmaril to do it, which he succeeded at. After that, there was one jewel in earth, air and water, which seemed like a nice cosmic balance.


----------



## Olorgando (May 21, 2020)

Sartr said:


> There's also the question of if Ulmo even wanted to do anything about it at that point. His great quest was to get Earendil to Valinor, using a Silmaril to do it, which he succeeded at. After that, there was one jewel in earth, air and water, which seemed like a nice cosmic balance.


Not just Ulmo, all of the Valar. One could say their one really big tsk was ridding Arda of Melkor / Morgoth, though they needed some extraordinary prodding - which Ulmo was centrally responsible for bringing about.
And as after the awakening of the Elves in the First Age of the Two Trees, at the end of the First Age (now become that of the moon and sun) they drew many Elves back to Valinor, or at least Tol Eressëa, which was also part of the Undying Lands. Not only that, they also drew the Elf-friend among men west, giving them Númenor. The rest of Middle-earth, or actually M-e proper, seems to have been of no interest to them as far as we can tell from any writing - even though they had left Sauron and at least one Balrog, never mind quite a few dragons, back there. "Help from the west" for M-e meant Númenor now.

As JRRT wrote in the "Akallabêth" part in "The Silmarillion", when Ar-Pharazôn had set foot on the shores of Aman:
"Then Manwë upon the Mountain called upon Ilúvatar, and for that time the Valar laid down the government of Arda."
I sometimes wonder to what degree, and in what form the ever took up that government again.
Five disguised Maiar, basically with both hands and one foot tied behind their backs, about 4,500 years after they neglected to take "dear old" Sauron back to Valinor at the end of the First Age, takes the guys two millennia to get the job done, barely - some government.


----------



## Alcuin (May 21, 2020)

The Ainur were not permitted to dominate the Children of Ilúvatar. That’s why the Istari had the restrictions they did, and his decision to do otherwise was the precipitant cause of Saruman’s fall to evil. 

Ulmo was in opposition to the rest of the Valar in his counsels: he aided Turgon and Finrod, and after Nirnaeth Arnoediad, sent Tuor to Gondolin. Then he helped Elwing and Eärendil, bringing the embassy of Elves and Men to Valinor. In this, he opposed his fellow Valar but pursued the will of Eru. 

In the Downfall of Númenor, the fiendish plan of Sauron was not only to turn the hearts of the Númenóreans against the Valar, but to pit the Númenóreans against the Valar and Maiar. While no force of Dúnedain could overcome a Vala, Dúnedain could and did overcome Maiar, both Balrogs (in Gondolin, in the early tales) and in the defeat of Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance. But because the Valar and Maiar were specifically prohibited from harming Elves or Men, Manwë was unable to react to the invasion of Valinor: once Ar-Pharazôn and his vanguard set foot upon the shores of Eldamar, Manwë’s only recourse was an appeal to Eru. Eru’s response was drastic and cataclysmic: Númenor was destroyed, Arda was changed, and Valinor was removed from the Circles of the World, making it unaccessible to Men. 

It is certainly possible that Ulmo was aware that the Ruling Ring had fallen into Anduin! That coupled with the rearising of Sauron in the Third Age may well have been the impetus for the Valar sending the Istari to Middle-earth with their aforementioned restrictions. But as the evil of Morgoth spread through Middle-earth, even the High Elves of the First Age had difficulty hearing the voice of Ulmo in the waters: Ulmo himself mentions this in his appearance to Tuor. 

As for Maiar and Umaiar left behind: After the War of Wrath, Sauron first presented himself to Eönwë, but faced with return to Valinor and long penance, he hid himself and fled into the East. The Balrog hid sometime during the War, and did not appear again for nearly two ages of Middle-earth, when the unfortunate Dwarves disturbed his hiding place. The nature of Tom Bombadil is long debated, but I would venture to say that, intentional enigmas aside, he and Goldberry fit well into descriptions of Maiar; and that would well explain Gandalf’s long visit he proposed as he left Frodo and his companions on their return to the Shire.


----------



## Olorgando (May 21, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> The *Ainur* were not permitted to dominate the Children of Ilúvatar. ...


The Ainur included Morgoth and every bleeping Maia who pledges his allegiance to him in Middle-earth, whatever form they took.
Morgoth and Sauron at least very much dominated any Eruhini the could get under their sway.
Morgoth personally killed Fingolfin, nothing that specific is written about Sauron.
And not just dominate, pervert (Sauron giving the Nine Rings to as many mortal Men, giving them a "life"-span of over 4,000 years - definitely not "as designed" by Eru), have tortured, wage war on with their perverted subject, committing mass murder.
Eru's response: zilch.
Logical rigorous consistency does not seem to be one of his strong points, quite the contrary ...


----------



## Alcuin (May 21, 2020)

Oh, yes! Morgoth Bauglir and the Umaiar all violated Eru’s prohibition! That’s what makes them Bad Guys. And Sauron was responsible for the deaths of Finrod and his Elven companions, as well as Gorlim the Unhappy, Celebrimbor, and who knows how many more Elves and Men. 

Eru’s response was not “not zilch”. His response, however, was always through intermediaries: Manwë, Varda, Tulkas, the Istari. Eru sent Gandalf back as Gandalf the White. According to Andreth, it was Eru Himself who warned the fathers of Men not to trust Morgoth, then allowed the curse to fall upon them when they did. Eru was active in Middle-earth, but not in ways that Men or even Elves could easily see. It was the Ainulindalë come to life.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 21, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> The Ainur included Morgoth and every bleeping Maia who pledges his allegiance to him in Middle-earth, whatever form they took.
> Morgoth and Sauron at least very much dominated any Eruhini the could get under their sway.
> Morgoth personally killed Fingolfin, nothing that specific is written about Sauron.
> And not just dominate, pervert (Sauron giving the Nine Rings to as many mortal Men, giving them a "life"-span of over 4,000 years - definitely not "as designed" by Eru), have tortured, wage war on with their perverted subject, committing mass murder.
> ...


Bro, Eru caused Gollum to take his fateful plunge that evening in Orodruin, like personally caused it.


Tolkien even confirmed as much.

CL


----------



## Olorgando (May 22, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Bro, Eru caused Gollum to take his fateful plunge that evening in Orodruin, like personally caused it.
> Tolkien even confirmed as much.
> CL


Except for the destruction of Númenor, it the books themselves, it is impossible to notice any intervention by Eru.
Part of the design, at least in LoTR, as JRRT himself also stated:
"That is why I have not put in, , *or have cut out [!]*, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."
Many of us have read the background literature, be it by Christopher, be it by Humphrey Carpenter, Tom Shippey, Verlyn Flieger et.al., Lexicons by Robert Foster, J.E.A. Tyler, and others. Suppose someone had only read LoTR. Would all that JRRT wrote in that Letter to Father John Murray SJ, printed in "Letters" be as clear as JRRT states to Murray? I have my serious doubts.
I could well imagine even adherents to various parts of Christianity, including Catholics, missing it on that sole information, LoTR. And never mind adherents of the other two Abrahamic religions. Those originating in India, China, elsewhere? Forget it. The non-religious? Forget it. What people of the most diverse backgrounds are responding to in JRRT's writings are human universals, which transcend any one creed. JRRT may have seen them as *fundamentally* Catholic, and very likely rightly so. But not *exclusively*, two concepts that seem to get confused all too often.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 22, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Except for the destruction of Númenor, it the books themselves, it is impossible to notice any intervention by Eru.
> Part of the design, at least in LoTR, as JRRT himself also stated:
> "That is why I have not put in, , *or have cut out [!]*, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."
> Many of us have read the background literature, be it by Christopher, be it by Humphrey Carpenter, Tom Shippey, Verlyn Flieger et.al., Lexicons by Robert Foster, J.E.A. Tyler, and others. Suppose someone had only read LoTR. Would all that JRRT wrote in that Letter to Father John Murray SJ, printed in "Letters" be as clear as JRRT states to Murray? I have my serious doubts.
> I could well imagine even adherents to various parts of Christianity, including Catholics, missing it on that sole information, LoTR. And never mind adherents of the other two Abrahamic religions. Those originating in India, China, elsewhere? Forget it. The non-religious? Forget it. What people of the most diverse backgrounds are responding to in JRRT's writings are human universals, which transcend any one creed. JRRT may have seen them as *fundamentally* Catholic, and very likely rightly so. But not *exclusively*, two concepts that seem to get confused all too often.


That being so, He STILL confirmed Eru caused Gollum's dip. -__-



CL



CirdanLinweilin said:


> That being so, He STILL confirmed Eru caused Gollum's dip. -__-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 22, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Except for the destruction of Númenor, it the books themselves, it is impossible to notice any intervention by Eru.
> Part of the design, at least in LoTR, as JRRT himself also stated:
> "That is why I have not put in, , *or have cut out [!]*, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."
> Many of us have read the background literature, be it by Christopher, be it by Humphrey Carpenter, Tom Shippey, Verlyn Flieger et.al., Lexicons by Robert Foster, J.E.A. Tyler, and others. Suppose someone had only read LoTR. Would all that JRRT wrote in that Letter to Father John Murray SJ, printed in "Letters" be as clear as JRRT states to Murray? I have my serious doubts.
> I could well imagine even adherents to various parts of Christianity, including Catholics, missing it on that sole information, LoTR. And never mind adherents of the other two Abrahamic religions. Those originating in India, China, elsewhere? Forget it. The non-religious? Forget it. What people of the most diverse backgrounds are responding to in JRRT's writings are human universals, which transcend any one creed. JRRT may have seen them as *fundamentally* Catholic, and very likely rightly so. But not *exclusively*, two concepts that seem to get confused all too often.


I'm someone who only reads TH, LoTR, and TS. I've never felt that there was any explicit references to Eru/God acting in a really direct way; there is a morality running right throughout the works, but I've never felt it was distinctly religious in any way.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 22, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> I'm someone who only reads TH, LoTR, and TS. I've never felt that there was any explicit references to Eru/God acting in a really direct way; there is a morality running right throughout the works, but I've never felt it was distinctly religious in any way.


Until he did when he caused Gollum's fall.


CL


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 22, 2020)

> Frodo:
> I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.
> 
> Gandalf:
> So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work, Frodo, than the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the ring. In which case you also were meant to have it, and that is an encouraging thought.




CL


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 22, 2020)

But in LoTR itself, there is no such confirmation; do we then say that the much-wider audience of the book as opposed to the smaller number of people who have read The Letters are actually worse off for not "knowing" this?
Surely if Tolkien expressly wanted this to be part of the book, he would have found a way to present it? As he didn't, don't we need to take a more distanced view of a comment written in a letter?
I suppose this is all part of the "what is Canon" debate, which I doubt will ever be resolved any time soon!


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 22, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> CL


But where does it say that the "other forces" have to be Eru, or a religious impulse? Couldn't we equally well say that it is "fate"? Whatever fate means to an individual?


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 22, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Until he did when he caused Gollum's fall.
> 
> 
> CL


But there's nothing in the book itself which tells us this?


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 22, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> But there's nothing in the book itself which tells us this?


Tolkien in his Letters confirms it himself.


CL


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 22, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Tolkien in his Letters confirms it himself.
> 
> 
> CL


As I said in my previous post, I think we are in the realms of The Canon debate, which to mmy mind will probably never be finished.
My take on these things is that LoTR itself has to be paramount; I think we need to give less weight to a private letter, even though the letter may contain fairly concrete profos of whatever the subject matter is.
I've always thought that Tolkien put whatever he wanted in the books, and left out anything he didn't want - he had ample time to revise and edit the works and I can only reiterate that if he wanted a direct example of divine intervention he would have written it in. That he didn't, to me speaks volumes.


----------



## Alcuin (May 22, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> That being so, He [Tolkien] STILL confirmed Eru caused Gollum's dip. -__-


Gollum had his chance at redemption and muffed it. I am going to be rude and cite two long passages from _Letters of JRR Tolkien_. First from _Letter_ 181:
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 … sanctification. … Frodo … “apostatized” – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he sh[oul]d have been executed as a traitor… I did not foresee that … we should enter a dark age in which the … disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and … present us with the … problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.

But at this point the “salvation” of the world and Frodo’s own “salvation” is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him… He did … injure him in the end – but by a “grace”, that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one c[oul]d have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his “forgiveness”, he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. … Into the ultimate judgment upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. … Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be “damnable”. … But we who are all “in the same boat” must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. … By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob’s lair. After that he was lost.​Then _Letter_ 192, the letter just after the one you cite, CL:
I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one’s power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not “arrange” the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) … But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the _Sammath Naur_, and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

…Frodo “failed”. … [T]he power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however “good”; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.​


TrackerOrc said:


> But where does it say that the "other forces" have to be Eru, or a religious impulse? Couldn't we equally well say that it is "fate"? Whatever fate means to an individual?


I think there is considerable and ancient confusion between the _omniscience_ of a Being outside Time, to whom all the events of Time are immediately visible and comprehensible, and _predestination_ for creatures under free will. To a creature passing through Time, the difference can seem almost a mockery: why would the Author of the story permit a situation in which a creature fails? Is that not predestination? To which Tolkien answers, the creature makes its own decisions, and “failure” or “success” depends upon other matters. In Frodo’s case, his failure was rectified by Gollum’s intervention. In Gollum’s case, his failure led to his literally overstepping his bounds. But Tolkien also surmises that, had Gollum remained faithful, when Frodo claimed the Ring, he would have seized it plunged into the Cracks to Doom anyway. (And I cannot find the citation tonight, though I believe it is also in _Letters_.) I suppose you can argue that Gollum was “destined” to die destroying the Ring; but with the Ring destroyed, Gollum would soon die, as he foresaw. 


Olorgando said:


> Except for the destruction of Númenor, it the books themselves, it is impossible to notice any intervention by Eru.
> 
> [That was p]art of the design, at least in LoTR, as JRRT himself also stated…
> 
> …What people of the most diverse backgrounds are responding to in JRRT's writings are human universals, which transcend any one creed. JRRT may have seen them as fundamentally Catholic, and very likely rightly so. But not exclusively, two concepts that seem to get confused all too often.


*Exactly!!* This may be the source of Tolkien’s declared dislike of _allegory_. The allegory in Lewis’ Space Trilogy and Narnia stories is all too apparent. The allegory, or rather _applicability_, in Tolkien’s stories is far more subtle and lends itself to a great many other interpretations. Tolkien’s _intent_ was to address “human universals, which transcend any one creed.”


TrackerOrc said:


> But in LoTR itself, there is no such confirmation; do we then say that the much-wider audience of the book as opposed to the smaller number of people who have read The Letters are actually worse off for not "knowing" this?
> 
> Surely if Tolkien expressly wanted this to be part of the book, he would have found a way to present it? As he didn't, don't we need to take a more distanced view of a comment written in a letter?
> 
> I suppose this is all part of the "what is Canon" debate, which I doubt will ever be resolved any time soon!


The books published during Tolkien’s lifetime are, I think, the “canon”. All the other material, including _Letters_, _HoMe_, the well named _Unfinished Tales_, and even _Silmarillion_ are non-canonical, though the stories make sense taken together. You can read _The Hobbit_, enjoy it on its own though you read nothing else; likewise _The Lord of the Rings_, never reading anything else. If you are then so inclined, and a little mad, you can plunge into the deeper material, as we do in this forum; but there is no requirement to do that to enjoy the “canon”, particularly the four main books. 

The stories Christopher Tolkien presents from his father’s trove of notes and tales do not always agree. Elthir (once Galin: I like and miss the moniker “Galin”, but it is not mine to choose his moniker) and I have often discussed the alterations in Tolkien’s telling of the history of Galadriel in this forum. CJRT also notes the changes in the main stories of the First Age: Beren and Lúthien, the Children of Húrin, and the Fall of Gondolin. Three separate tellings of the Downfall of Númenor are presented. And of course, there is the alteration in the characters that became Frodo and Aragorn as _The Lord of the Rings_ came to be. The stories published after his lifetime are not Tolkien’s canon, but additional materials from his mythology.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 22, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Gollum had his chance at redemption and muffed it. I am going to be rude and cite two long passages from _Letters of JRR Tolkien_. First from _Letter_ 181:
> ​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 … sanctification. … Frodo … “apostatized” – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he sh[oul]d have been executed as a traitor… I did not foresee that … we should enter a dark age in which the … disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and … present us with the … problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.​​But at this point the “salvation” of the world and Frodo’s own “salvation” is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him… He did … injure him in the end – but by a “grace”, that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one c[oul]d have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his “forgiveness”, he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. … Into the ultimate judgment upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. … Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be “damnable”. … But we who are all “in the same boat” must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. … By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob’s lair. After that he was lost.​​Then _Letter_ 192, the letter just after the one you cite, CL:
> ​I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one’s power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not “arrange” the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) … But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the _Sammath Naur_, and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.​​…Frodo “failed”. … [T]he power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however “good”; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.​​I think there is considerable and ancient confusion between the _omniscience_ of a Being outside Time, to whom all the events of Time are immediately visible and comprehensible, and _predestination_ for creatures under free will. To a creature passing through Time, the difference can seem almost a mockery: why would the Author of the story permit a situation in which a creature fails? Is that not predestination? To which Tolkien answers, the creature makes its own decisions, and “failure” or “success” depends upon other matters. In Frodo’s case, his failure was rectified by Gollum’s intervention. In Gollum’s case, his failure led to his literally overstepping his bounds. But Tolkien also surmises that, had Gollum remained faithful, when Frodo claimed the Ring, he would have seized it plunged into the Cracks to Doom anyway. (And I cannot find the citation tonight, though I believe it is also in _Letters_.) I suppose you can argue that Gollum was “destined” to die destroying the Ring; but with the Ring destroyed, Gollum would soon die, as he foresaw.
> *Exactly!!* This may be the source of Tolkien’s declared dislike of _allegory_. The allegory in Lewis’ Space Trilogy and Narnia stories is all too apparent. The allegory, or rather _applicability_, in Tolkien’s stories is far more subtle and lends itself to a great many other interpretations. Tolkien’s _intent_ was to address “human universals, which transcend any one creed.” The books published during Tolkien’s lifetime are, I think, the “canon”. All the other material, including _Letters_, _HoMe_, the well named _Unfinished Tales_, and even _Silmarillion_ are non-canonical, though the stories make sense taken together. You can read _The Hobbit_, enjoy it on its own though you read nothing else; likewise _The Lord of the Rings_, never reading anything else. If you are then so inclined, and a little mad, you can plunge into the deeper material, as we do in this forum; but there is no requirement to do that to enjoy the “canon”, particularly the four main books.
> ...


Well, sheesh I didn't need a lecture for something _*I KNOW I SAW AND READ.*_


SHEESH!

CL



CirdanLinweilin said:


> Well, sheesh I didn't need a lecture for something _*I KNOW I SAW AND READ.*_
> 
> 
> SHEESH!


Someone asked me to poke my head in the forums and now I regret it.

Thanks guys!





CL


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 22, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Gollum had his chance at redemption and muffed it. I am going to be rude and cite two long passages from _Letters of JRR Tolkien_. First from _Letter_ 181:
> ​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 … sanctification. … Frodo … “apostatized” – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he sh[oul]d have been executed as a traitor… I did not foresee that … we should enter a dark age in which the … disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and … present us with the … problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.​​But at this point the “salvation” of the world and Frodo’s own “salvation” is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him… He did … injure him in the end – but by a “grace”, that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one c[oul]d have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his “forgiveness”, he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. … Into the ultimate judgment upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. … Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be “damnable”. … But we who are all “in the same boat” must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. … By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob’s lair. After that he was lost.​​Then _Letter_ 192, the letter just after the one you cite, CL:
> ​I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one’s power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not “arrange” the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) … But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the _Sammath Naur_, and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.​​…Frodo “failed”. … [T]he power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however “good”; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.​​I think there is considerable and ancient confusion between the _omniscience_ of a Being outside Time, to whom all the events of Time are immediately visible and comprehensible, and _predestination_ for creatures under free will. To a creature passing through Time, the difference can seem almost a mockery: why would the Author of the story permit a situation in which a creature fails? Is that not predestination? To which Tolkien answers, the creature makes its own decisions, and “failure” or “success” depends upon other matters. In Frodo’s case, his failure was rectified by Gollum’s intervention. In Gollum’s case, his failure led to his literally overstepping his bounds. But Tolkien also surmises that, had Gollum remained faithful, when Frodo claimed the Ring, he would have seized it plunged into the Cracks to Doom anyway. (And I cannot find the citation tonight, though I believe it is also in _Letters_.) I suppose you can argue that Gollum was “destined” to die destroying the Ring; but with the Ring destroyed, Gollum would soon die, as he foresaw.
> *Exactly!!* This may be the source of Tolkien’s declared dislike of _allegory_. The allegory in Lewis’ Space Trilogy and Narnia stories is all too apparent. The allegory, or rather _applicability_, in Tolkien’s stories is far more subtle and lends itself to a great many other interpretations. Tolkien’s _intent_ was to address “human universals, which transcend any one creed.” The books published during Tolkien’s lifetime are, I think, the “canon”. All the other material, including _Letters_, _HoMe_, the well named _Unfinished Tales_, and even _Silmarillion_ are non-canonical, though the stories make sense taken together. You can read _The Hobbit_, enjoy it on its own though you read nothing else; likewise _The Lord of the Rings_, never reading anything else. If you are then so inclined, and a little mad, you can plunge into the deeper material, as we do in this forum; but there is no requirement to do that to enjoy the “canon”, particularly the four main books.
> ...


I agree with the Canon comprising works published in Tolkien's lifetime, but I've always regarded The Silmarillion as _almost_ canonical, seeing that it was published relatively quickly after his death, and was , though I may be mistaken, a fairly finished work needing only minor editing by Christopher Tolkien?
I'm aware that this is not consistent to a strict sense, but as I read LoTR much more than TH or TS, I'm happy with this.


----------



## Alcuin (May 22, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Well, sheesh I didn't need a lecture for something _*I KNOW I SAW AND READ.*_
> 
> 
> SHEESH!





CirdanLinweilin said:


> Someone asked me to poke my head in the forums and now I regret it.
> 
> Thanks guys!


_Ach!_ No offense intended, CL, and I’m sorry you took offense! Not everyone has _Letters_: I thought I was following up on your post.


----------



## Elthir (May 23, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> I agree with the Canon comprising works published in Tolkien's lifetime, but I've always regarded The Silmarillion as _almost_ canonical ( . . . ) and was , though I may be mistaken, a fairly finished work needing only minor editing by Christopher Tolkien?




This is a complex matter, but my take from _The History of Middle-Earth_ series is that the Silmarillion was far from completed/updated, although the characterization of "far" might differ from person to person.

There is, for example, a finished version of _Quenta Silmarillion_ dating to the 1930s, called _Qenta Noldorinwa_, but subsequent versions began expanding in content, and had to be updated with the later _The Lord of the Rings_ -- which updating Tolkien began to do, but never completed. Argh. That's my all too brief response!

And it appears that Christopher Tolkien did not initially set out to construct a one volume "internal" account, but something more like an abbreviated textual history -- abbreviated compared to _The History of Middle-Earth_ series, or compared to CJRT's personal history of the Silmarillion, which is even more detailed than _The History of Middle-Earth_ as published.

CJRT seems to have been influenced in part by Guy Kay, to rather go with a constructed version. And then of course, he ultimately gave us a nicely detailed textual history too!

🐾


----------



## Olorgando (May 23, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> TrackerOrc said:
> 
> 
> > But there's nothing in the book itself which tells us this?
> ...


You reply does nor address TrackerOrc's question. The letter was never incorporated into the text of any revised edition, so JRRT's statement in his letter remains outside the book.
If you mean to imply (as is my impression, which may be wrong) that JRRT's explicit statement in that letter should be clear in whatever form to someone who has only read LoTR, then I utterly disagree.


----------



## Alcuin (May 23, 2020)

I don’t think it’s clear to anyone, having read _Letters_ or not, that Gollum was “destined” to fall into the Gulf of Doom _within the story_. The letter is outside the book, although it seems to have been Tolkien’s intention from early in the making of the story that Gollum would fall into the volcano, destroying the Ring as he fell: That is also _outside_ the book, and to any but a textual critic, outside the scope of the story, IMO. So you can argue, I think, that Gollum was “destined” to fall into the lava so far as the story _telling_ is concerning, but it is far from clear (to me: I suppose I could be convinced to a contrary opinion) that he was “destined” to fall into the lava as a person living in Arda. 

We plunge into these other, “non-canonical” writings, mostly edited by Christopher Tolkien, but also from other sources – BBC, newspaper, and magazine interviews of Tolkien or his son; the journal _Vinyar Tengwar_, Tolkien Studies annuals, _Reader’s Companion_, Tom Shippey, and critical analysis using Northrop Frye, and so on and on – because we are trying to piece together a clearer picture of what Tolkien intended in _Lord of the Rings_, and a more coherent understanding of his greater legendarium, particularly the history of the First and Second Ages, and the earlier parts of the Third Age. We waste our time, if I may use that word, in these pursuits because we delight in the world he first envisioned over a century ago, and as he foresaw in “Leaf by Niggle”, we are working to complete the painting he began of his tree, as well as the surrounding countryside. 

But back to a more pertinent question: *Did Ulmo know that the Ring was in the river?* Have we come to any consensus?


----------



## Elthir (May 24, 2020)

Elthir said:


> ( . . . ) but my take from _The History of Middle-Earth_ series is that the Silmarillion was far from completed/updated, although the characterization of "far" might differ from person to person. (edit blather) . . . And then of course, he ultimately gave us a nicely detailed textual history too!




Sorry, off topic again. For Tracker Orc, there's something from Christopher Tolkien in _The History of Middle-Earth_ series volume 1 about why (I think) he went ahead with publishing HOME, after noting some references to the 1977 Silmarillion with respect to how much of it "was JRRT" so to speak.

But today, I can't find my HOME 1! And there _are_ Tolkien thieves, just ask John Howe.

Public PM Alert: for Alcuin's eyes only please!

Alcuin wrote: _"([Elthir] once Galin: I like and miss the moniker “Galin”, but it is not mine to choose his moniker)"_

I could go back to _Galin_ I suppose (if I remember how), but maybe I've caused enough confusion here already. I had a "reason" to change it, but it's boring and not a great reason. Anyway, now you've got me wondering how you pronounce it in your head -- there is no wrong answer to this by the way.

Similar to the Galen in the film _Dragonslayer, _for example? Or with Elvish vowels? And if _Galin_ is considered Sindarin, I imagine a Quenya form *Nalindo-- but I've yet to really check my own accuracy regarding any Elvish characterizations.

I know I know. Another post _about me!_ It's really PM stuff . . . and yet.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 24, 2020)

Of course, you _could _turn PM on. Just saying.

But you know betht, Meethter Elthir.

Yet thir.


----------



## Elthir (May 24, 2020)

Well, once (elsewhere) I had a PM sent to me asking if Elves had ever lived in Standelf.

And it distracted me from a good _orc versus goblin_ debate


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 25, 2020)

Elthir said:


> Sorry, off topic again. For Tracker Orc, there's something from Christopher Tolkien in _The History of Middle-Earth_ series volume 1 about why (I think) he went ahead with publishing HOME, after noting some references to the 1977 Silmarillion with respect to how much of it "was JRRT" so to speak.


Ah, which leads me once again to the conundrum I always face! I read HoME years and years ago, but have basically forgotten most of what I read. (I think there was an awful thing about Strider originally being a Hobbit called Trotter?).
Now I basically read LoTR a lot, with TS second place, and TH a distant third; not because I'm a serious purist but because there's an awful lot in LoTR on its own to keep me going, plus a rather vague belief that Tolkien had plenty of time to get what he wanted actually out there.
Though I do have to say that I've been increasingly tempted to delve into HoME again, especially those volumes about LoTR territory!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 25, 2020)

The HoLOTR books are the most read -- and thumbed -- in my set.


----------



## Alcuin (Jun 7, 2020)

I just remembered something tonight in this recent vein, _Did Eru cause Gollum’s fall into the Crack of Doom?_ I think we can conclusively answer this question, if you will grant me one idea that I think I can demonstrate: *Frodo used the Ruling Ring of Power.* Not once, but three times.

Both Gandalf and Galadriel told Frodo that the Ring gave power to its bearer according to his nature and abilities. In “Shadow of the Past”, Gandalf says:
​Sméagol ... became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The ring had given him power according to his stature.​​When Frodo offers him the Ring, he rejects it:
​No! … With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.​​In “Mirror of Galadriel”, when Frodo asks, “I am permitted to wear the One Ring: why cannot I see all the others and know the thoughts of those that wear them?” Galadriel answers,
​You have not tried. … Do not try! It would destroy you. Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor? … Yet … as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger?​​After this, Frodo’s comprehension of what he possesses becomes clearer. When first he meets Gollum, and Gollum offers to swear on the Precious, “Sam was startled by his words and his stern voice,” when Frodo says,
​On the Precious? How dare you? … Think!_One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them._​Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!​​Sam briefly sees Frodo as “a tall stern shadow, a mighty lord who hid his brightness in grey cloud.” Sméagol Gollum replies,
​Sméagol will swear never, never, to let Him have it. Never! Sméagol will save it.​​When Frodo proposes to enter Mordor by Black Gate, Gollum pleads,
​Don’t let Him have it. Or go away. go to nice places, and give it back to little Sméagol. … Master … says: I purpose to enter Mordor this way. So Sméagol is very afraid. He … promised, master made him promise, to save the Precious. But master is going to take it to Him, straight to the Black Hand, if master will go this way. So Sméagol must save them both…​​Sam and Gollum are both taken aback by Frodo’s response, and Gollum is momentarily reduced to a gibbering heap.
​You swore a promise by what you call the Precious. Remember that! It will hold you to it; but it will seek a way to twist it to your own undoing. Already you are being twisted. You revealed yourself to me just now, foolishly. _Give it back to Sméagol_ you said. Do not say that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Sméagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care, Sméagol!​​Twice Frodo has warned Gollum to beware the twisting, evil nature of the Ring. When Gollum jumps them on Sauron’s Road to Sammath Naur, Frodo fights him off and clutches the Ring beneath his leather shirt.
​Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.​​“Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.”​​Frodo is using the Ring. As Saruman observes when the Hobbits confront him at Bag End after he tries to murder Frodo, “You have grown, Halfling. … Yes, you have grown very much.” The Ring has given Frodo power according to his measure, and that measure outside the Chamber of Fire is great indeed.

Eru did not cause Gollum to fall into the chasm inside Orodruin. The Ring did. Frodo knowingly and intentionally twisted Sauron’s Ring-spell to his own purposes – an appropriate action given the Ring’s proclivity to twist and pervert purposes: it perverted Sauron’s purposes! Sméagol Gollum, who was already in the power of the Ring, willingly swore to “save” the Precious from Sauron. Frodo warned him that the Ring was pernicious and would twist his promise. He then warned Gollum that he would command Gollum “leap from a precipice or to cast [himself] into the fire.” And when Gollum persisted in his evil and tried to take the Ring, Frodo actually put his hand on the Ring (through the leather shirt) and cursed Gollum to fall into the Fire of Doom if he should touch him again. Gollum not only touched Frodo, he bit off his finger to take the Ring, and the Ring did precisely as Frodo had commanded using its power: Gollum was cast into the fire.

Gollum went into the Fire because of the Ring he coveted. It perverted the will of even its master, Sauron. As Théoden observed, _Oft evil will shall evil mar._

I think this is a tremendous irony in _Lord of the Rings_, one we have overlooked. And Théoden’s remark is a repeating theme within the story.


----------

