# "Thoughts" about TLOTR



## Samweis (Jan 26, 2003)

First of all I have to say, that it is very difficult to explain my thoughts in a foreign language.

I think it is very interesting, that the ONE RING would have been never destroyed in the fires of Orodruin, if four Hobbits are not it´s final ringbearers.

Hobbits grow up in the very peaceful, unhurried and a little bit solitary Shire. They never came in touch of the evil in Middle-Earth.

SMEAGOL is the Hobbit , who was the ringbearer for a very long time (it is very interesting, that he claimed the ring at his 33 birthday - Frodo got the Ring at his 33 birthday, too). Under the terrible force of the ONE RING he became GOLLUM. A split creature, who follows sometimes his good and sometimes his bad side.

BILBO is the Hobbit, who was the ringbearer for a long time, but not as long as Smeagol. Under the force of the ONE RING he doesn´t grow old and he esteem the ring as his ring. That is the pre-stage to the split identity - this is wonderful shown in PJ´s movie TFOTR (the incident in Rivendell, when Bilbo sees the Ring on the necklace of Frodo).

FRODO is the Hobbit, who knows the danger of the ONE RING and wants to destroy it into the fires of Mount Doom. The force of the ring gets slowly control over Frodo. The character of Frodo is changing dramatically in TTT and TROTK.

SAM is the Hobbit, who knows - like Frodo - the danger of the ONE RING, but he is in the situation, that he doesn´t need to take responsibility about it. He is so loyal to Frodo, that he protects him on the voyage to Mordor (f.e. in the Prancing Pony). The situation for him changes, when Frodo is incapacitated by Shelob, then he has the courage to adopt the responisbility for whole Middle-Earth. Then he has the power to give the ring back to Frodo!!

For me represent SMEAGOL/GOLLUM, BILBO, FRODO and SAM in "reality" one person not four. There are in different "stages" of influences of the ONE RING, only.

I hope you understand my thoughts and I´m really interested in your opinion.


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 26, 2003)

I never thought of it that way, but I see what your saying. They are all at a different stage of what power the ring holds over them. I tend to think though each hobbit would be different during each stage. So they are not really representing one hobbit but just the different stages. I also think that it would take longer for the the power of the one ring to take hold of Sam and Bilbo than it would for Smeagol and Frodo. Although all hobbits seem to be able to carrie the burden.


----------



## Samweis (Jan 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *I never thought of it that way, but I see what your saying. They are all at a different stage of what power the ring holds over them. I tend to think though each hobbit would be different during each stage. So they are not really representing one hobbit but just the different stages. I also think that it would take longer for the the power of the one ring to take hold of Sam and Bilbo than it would for Smeagol and Frodo. Although all hobbits seem to be able to carrie the burden. *





> They are all at a different stage of what power the ring hold over him. I tend to think though each hobbit would be different during each stage



Yes, I agree totally.




> So they are not really representing one hobbit but just the different stages.



Yes, I agree.

But you can also go a step further:

Authors use split persons very often to express their intentions - especially in fantasy or fairy-tales. For example Sleeping Beauty is a coming of age fairy-tale. The queen and the "bad" fairy are one person. The queen represents the side of a loving-mother, who wants to keep her child small. The "bad" fairy represents the side of a loving-mother, who wants that her child grow up. She says in "reality": "If you don´t grow up, you have to sleep and to mature!" After Sleeping Beauty had matured, the right one will come (Prince) and the hedge of thorns will dissapear. 

I use this example to show that authors often use very, very different characters to express one person.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Jan 26, 2003)

Never really thought about that fact that the hobbits throughout the story are the only ones carrying it (other than Isildur) while, the WISE avoid it and the EVIL power hungry people covet it. I think Tolkien really did invent the hobbits as innocent persons, similar to children, who have never developed or desired power or control over others. Since the ring gives power in relation to how powerful the holder already is, then the hobbits are the logical holders of it. And the least dangerous with it. If someone else had it, the LOTRs would be an entirely different story. 

It reminds me of drug dealers who use children to do their dirty work for them, so that they themselves can avoid jail, and know the innocent ones cannot get a heavy penalty.

Gandalf and the other wise folk let the hobbits be the vehicles of the ring, so they themselves do not have to be affected by it -- Knowing that the 'innocents' will be less seriously affected by it and less dangerous with it.


----------



## Samweis (Jan 26, 2003)

Yes, Mindy_O_Lluin,

and don´t forget Galadriel, when Frodo offers the ONE RING to her, the most noble character. She said:" No, I will become the ALLMIGHTY QUEEN OF GOOD. I would use the ring to be loved and drown the others with my Love." (I know she doesn´t say this word by word, but she meant this).


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Jan 26, 2003)

True. Tolkien shows not only the degree of power but the STYLE of power. I guess he recognises that the feminine side of the universe considers 'Love' as their preferred kind of power.


----------



## Samweis (Jan 26, 2003)

Yes, the ONE RING augments the traits of the bearer!

Isildur, the human being, overestimated his power to withstand the force of the ring, because his mind was easy to manipulate by the ONE RING - and was betrayed by the ring and died!


----------



## ltas (Jan 28, 2003)

Interesting idea, Samweis. I'm not sure if this fits with your theory, but here it goes.

I just noticed another aspect of how the hobbits represent the different sides of the same person. The key word is ''ambition''.

Smeagol always desired to discover forbidden secrets, to find treasures and to be influencial. It took only an instant for the Ring to take over his mind and he was its slave for ever.

Frodo - the Shire had obviously becomed too small for him. He was anxious, dreaming of leaving, of going to adventures and, most importantly, of *achieving more*. Couldn't it be that his dreams made him more vulnerable to the influence of the Ring? Its burden was always very heavy on him.

Bilbo never wanted anything more than to spend his days in the comfort of his own hobbit-hole. He managed to keep the ring for decades without it changing his mind very much. He gave the Ring away out of his own free will.

Sam - he was humble and wished for nothing more than he already had - his job as a gardener at Bag End. He was able to resist the temptation of the Ring even in the heart of Mordor and still was able to return it to Frodo. 

There does seem to be a connection, doesn't it? (Just a theory, not more.)


----------



## Samweis (Jan 28, 2003)

That is really interesting, Itas,

your theory would explain, why someone is very easy to manipulate and someone not (it would fit with Isildur, too). Of course is the factor of time very important, too.


 


P.S.: I hope you have a remedy, otherwise it would be very dangerous to live in a Toxic City, Itas!


----------



## Lantarion (Jan 29, 2003)

Welcome to the forum, Samweis! 
I hadn't seen the four hobbits as different stages of the Ring's influence, that is very interesting!


----------



## ltas (Jan 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Samweis _
> *your theory would explain, why someone is very easy to manipulate and someone not (it would fit with Isildur, too).*


I'm glad you agree. Another idea: it would also give one of the explanations why those who are aware of the destructive effect of the Ring (i.e. Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel...) refuse to take it - the Ring begins the corrupting of its bearer from exploiting his/her dreams. 

I suppose that one could even theorize that the Real Enemy is not Sauron, but the greed and ambitions hidden inside every person. The Ring is only a tool that triggers those desires and by distorting that person's sense of reality, makes him/her follow his darker instincts.


> _Originally posted by Samweis _
> *P.S.: I hope you have a remedy, otherwise it would be very dangerous to live in a Toxic City, Itas! *


Regular sessions of TTF therapy work too :.)


----------



## Samweis (Jan 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ltas _
> *I'm glad you agree. Another idea: it would also give one of the explanations why those who are aware of the destructive effect of the Ring (i.e. Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel...) refuse to take it - the Ring begins the corrupting of its bearer from exploiting his/her dreams.
> 
> I suppose that one could even theorize that the Real Enemy is not Sauron, but the greed and ambitions hidden inside every person. The Ring is only a tool that triggers those desires and by distorting that person's sense of reality, makes him/her follow his darker instincts.
> ...




I think you are right, if you take the TLOTR as an image of the "real world". People with unfulfilled dreams are very manipulable!

It is very astonishing, that the villain SAURON doesn´t exist as a real person, that is very unusual for a fantasy book. He is "just" a force, which uses servants (Nazgûl, etc. etc.) for it´s purpose. 

The relationship between Sauron and Saruman is also very interesting. f.e.: Is the dependency one-sided or double-sided? Why admit Sauron, that Saruman creats the Uruk-hai, which outmatch the normal orks? Wanted Saruman really "work" for Sauron or wanted Saruman outdo Sauron? etc. etc.




What is a TTF therapy?


----------



## ltas (Jan 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Samweis _
> *It is very astonishing, that the villain SAURON doesn´t exist as a real person*


Well, I think that has a symbolic meaning... Sauron represents Evil, and Evil in general has no physical form, it can be everywhere, is difficult to identify and almost impossible to destroy. And still, it's the force that can move armies and change lands.


> The relationship between Sauron and Saruman is also very interesting. f.e.: Is the dependency one-sided or double-sided?


That's an intriguing question in many ways - was Saruman just a useful tool that Sauron used for achieving his goals or did Sauron actually depend on Saruman's wisdom and knowledge? Hmmm...
I guess it's pretty appearant that Saruman had no wish to serve Sauron and only joined him for his own advantage. He just wanted the Ring for himself... 


> Why admit Sauron, that Saruman creats the Uruk-hai, which outmatch the normal orks?


I'm sorry, I must be pretty tired, I'm not sure what you mean  *scratches head* Do you mean that Saruman should have kept it a secret that he has bred the Uruk-hai? 


ltas

P.S. ''TTF Therapy'' = ''The Tolkien Forum therapy'': ''log in tolkienforum, spend hours discussing matters of Middle-earth, come out clean and relaxed''


----------



## Samweis (Jan 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ltas _
> *Well, I think that has a symbolic meaning... Sauron represents Evil, and Evil in general has no physical form, it can be everywhere, is difficult to identify and almost impossible to destroy. And still, it's the force that can move armies and change lands.*



Yeah, I agree



> _Originally posted by Itas_
> *That's an intriguing question in many ways - was Saruman just a useful tool that Sauron used for achieving his goals or did Sauron actually depend on Saruman's wisdom and knowledge? Hmmm...
> I guess it's pretty appearant that Saruman had no wish to serve Sauron and only joined him for his own advantage. He just wanted the Ring for himself... *



I think Tolkien wanted to show that evil requires willingly aides and on the other hand he requires for the readers a tangible villain, who is able to be punished by the good.



> _Originally posted by Itas_
> *I'm sorry, I must be pretty tired, I'm not sure what you mean  *scratches head* Do you mean that Saruman should have kept it a secret that he has bred the Uruk-hai? *



No, if Sauron is the absolute evil, why he didn´t create a super-army (like the uruk-hai are) himself? It is astonishing, that Saruman did it.



> _Originally posted by Itas_
> *P.S. ''TTF Therapy'' = ''The Tolkien Forum therapy'': ''log in tolkienforum, spend hours discussing matters of Middle-earth, come out clean and relaxed''  *



Yes, the TTF Therapy works.


----------



## ltas (Feb 1, 2003)

Good point about the literary role of Saruman.



> _Originally posted by Samweis _
> *No, if Sauron is the absolute evil, why he didn´t create a super-army (like the uruk-hai are) himself? It is astonishing, that Saruman did it.
> *


Hmm. Indeed. Never thought about that before. Why didn't he? That thought of yours might be considered a thread material . (I wonder if this has ever been discussed before or if anyone else is curious about the same thing?)


----------



## Samweis (Feb 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ltas _
> *Good point about the literary role of Saruman.
> 
> 
> Hmm. Indeed. Never thought about that before. Why didn't he? That thought of yours might be considered a thread material . (I wonder if this has ever been discussed before or if anyone else is curious about the same thing?) *



Another thing, why chose Tolkien an "ablepharous eye" as symbol for the evil? That is very astonishing, because in the christian painting an "ablepharous eye" in a corona of sunbeams is the symbol of God.


----------



## jallan (Feb 2, 2003)

Saruon does have a physical form.

From _Letter of J.R.R. Tolkien_, letter 346:


> Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance.


In the chapter "The Black Gate is Closed", we find:


> Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough,' said Gollum shuddering.


But what partly makes Sauron so ominous is that we never do see him or his form. He remains a presence, at the edge of the tale, only experienced through the pressure of the Eye of Sauron, though Gollum's single statement about the Black Hand, and by Pippin when he looks into the Palantir.

A single lidless eye is not, however, an especially normal symbol of God.

But if it is sometimes so used, and seems blasphemous, then that suits Sauron as well.

Note in the quotation above of Gollum's words and in some other places in Golllum's speech the word _his_ is captilzied as _His_ when applied to Sauron, for to Gollum and to Sauron's servants Sauron is a God.

Similarly, only one Black Hand is ever referred to, which might remind one of the expression "the hand of God".


----------



## ltas (Feb 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Samweis _
> *Another thing, why chose Tolkien an "ablepharous eye" as symbol for the evil? That is very astonishing, because in the christian painting an "ablepharous eye" in a corona of sunbeams is the symbol of God. *


Indeed. In most mythologies an eye is a symbol of sun and represents creative forces. In Ancient Egypt, for example, the Eye of Horus was a symbol of protection. 

In LOTR, instead, the Red Eye is a symbol of darkness, destruction and evil.

---
jallan, thank you for the quotes, aspecially that description from ''The Letters''. About the form of Sauron - the impression I have is that Sauron can take a physical shape, if he chooses to, but he's not bound to it. There's no way to recognise him, he doesn't have a body that could destroyed with fire and blade. He's an enemy that doesn't exist un a level where we could reach or affect him or, as you said, ''we never see him''. I agree with you, that's what makes him so feared.


> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *To Gollum and to Sauron's servants Sauron is a God.*


 The Gods of primitive creatures are often cruel and merciless.


----------



## Samweis (Feb 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ltas _
> * The Gods of primitive creatures are often cruel and merciless. *



I don´t think that Gollum is really a "primitive creature", for me he is a "fallen" creature, who can´t identify Sauron has evil, anymore.


----------



## jallan (Feb 8, 2003)

Itas posted:


> About the form of Sauron - the impression I have is that Sauron can take a physical shape, if he chooses to, but he's not bound to it. There's no way to recognise him, he doesn't have a body that could destroyed with fire and blade.


Tolkien would say the same about Elves, Men, and Dwarves, that is, that their spirits do not die if their bodies are destroyed.

What happens to those spirits is another matter.

From "Ósanwe-kenta" by J.R.R Tolkien, published in _Vinya Tengwar_ 39 (July 1998), Note 5:


> Here Pengolodh adds a long note on the use of hröar by the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a "self-arraying", it may tend to approach the state of "incarnation", especially with the lesser members of that order (the Maiar). "It is said that the longer and the more the same _hröa_ is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it. As raiment may soon cease to be adornment, and becomes (as is said in the tongues of both Elves and Men) a 'habit', a customary garb. Or if among Elves and Men it be worn to mitigate heat or cold, it soon makes the clad body less able to endure these things when naked". Pengolodh also cites the opinion that if a "spirit" (that is, one of those not embodied by creation) uses a _hröa_ for the furtherance of its personal purposes, or (still more) for the enjoyment of bodily faculties, it finds it increasingly difficult to operate without the _hröa_. The things that are most binding are those that in the Incarnate have to do with the life of the _hröa_ itself, its sustenance and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking are binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound or form. Most binding is begetting or conceiving.
> "We do not know the _axani_ (laws, rules, as primarily proceeding from Eru) that were laid down upon the Valar with particular reference to their state, but it seems clear that there was no _axan_ against these things. Nonetheless it appears to be an _axan_, or maybe necessary consequence, that if they are done, then the spirit must dwell in the body that it used, and be under the same necessities as the Incarnate. The only case that is known in the histories of the Eldar is that of Melian who became the spouse of King Elu-thingol. This certainly was not evil or against the will of Eru, and though it led to sorrow, both Elves and Men were enriched.
> 'The great Valar do not do these things: they beget not, neither do they eat and drink, save at the high _asari_, in token of their lordship and indwelling of Arda, and for the blessing of the sustenance of the Children. Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind. So it was also with even some of his greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed". (Pengolodh here evidently refers to Sauron in particular, from whose arising he fled at last from Middle-earth. But the first destruction of the bodily form of Sauron was recorded in the histories of the Elder Days, in the _Lay of Leithian_.)



There are some less complete statement of the same kind in _Morgoth's Ring_ (HoME 10), indicating that both Morgoth and Sauron became dependant on having a physical form.

Tolkien also there speculates that possibly rebel Maiar who had incarnated in powerful Orc forms might, upon the death of their bodies become poltergeists. He also suggests that some houseless spirits may be able to gain a new home by possessing another existing living body, enslaving its rightful spirit.

So, for Tolkien, Sauron was indeed bound to his rebuilt physical form, as he had originally been bound to the body destoryed in the fall of Númenor, and to the subsequent body destroyed when Isildur seized the One Ring.


----------



## jallan (Feb 8, 2003)

Itas posted:


> About the form of Sauron - the impression I have is that Sauron can take a physical shape, if he chooses to, but he's not bound to it. There's no way to recognise him, he doesn't have a body that could destroyed with fire and blade.


Tolkien would say the same about Elves, Men, and Dwarves, that is, that their spirits do not die if their bodies are destroyed.

What happens to those spirits is another matter.

From "Ósanwe-kenta" by J.R.R Tolkien, published in _Vinya Tengwar_ 39 (July 1998), Note 5:


> Here Pengolodh adds a long note on the use of hröar by the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a "self-arraying", it may tend to approach the state of "incarnation", especially with the lesser members of that order (the Maiar). "It is said that the longer and the more the same _hröa_ is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it. As raiment may soon cease to be adornment, and becomes (as is said in the tongues of both Elves and Men) a 'habit', a customary garb. Or if among Elves and Men it be worn to mitigate heat or cold, it soon makes the clad body less able to endure these things when naked". Pengolodh also cites the opinion that if a "spirit" (that is, one of those not embodied by creation) uses a _hröa_ for the furtherance of its personal purposes, or (still more) for the enjoyment of bodily faculties, it finds it increasingly difficult to operate without the _hröa_. The things that are most binding are those that in the Incarnate have to do with the life of the _hröa_ itself, its sustenance and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking are binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound or form. Most binding is begetting or conceiving.
> "We do not know the _axani_ (laws, rules, as primarily proceeding from Eru) that were laid down upon the Valar with particular reference to their state, but it seems clear that there was no _axan_ against these things. Nonetheless it appears to be an _axan_, or maybe necessary consequence, that if they are done, then the spirit must dwell in the body that it used, and be under the same necessities as the Incarnate. The only case that is known in the histories of the Eldar is that of Melian who became the spouse of King Elu-thingol. This certainly was not evil or against the will of Eru, and though it led to sorrow, both Elves and Men were enriched.
> 'The great Valar do not do these things: they beget not, neither do they eat and drink, save at the high _asari_, in token of their lordship and indwelling of Arda, and for the blessing of the sustenance of the Children. Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind. So it was also with even some of his greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed". (Pengolodh here evidently refers to Sauron in particular, from whose arising he fled at last from Middle-earth. But the first destruction of the bodily form of Sauron was recorded in the histories of the Elder Days, in the _Lay of Leithian_.)



There are some less complete statements of the same kind in _Morgoth's Ring_ (HoME 10), indicating that both Morgoth and Sauron became dependant on their physical forms.

Tolkien indicates that Morgoth eventually may be expected to draw back into himself some of his former dissapated power, "even if Sauron could not". But this will take long ages.

Tolkien also there speculates that rebel Maiar who had incarnated in powerful Orc forms, upon the death of their bodies, might possibly become poltergeists. He also suggests that some houseless spirits may be able to gain a new home by possessing another existing living body, enslaving its rightful spirit.

So, for Tolkien, Sauron was indeed bound to his rebuilt physical form, as he had originally been bound to the body destroyed in the fall of Númenor, and to the subsequent body destroyed when Isildur seized the One Ring.


----------



## ltas (Feb 13, 2003)

jallan, I'm convinced. That piece of writing was truly interesting. It actually re-formed many of my former conceptions about the nature of Morgoth and Sauron.



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Tolkien also there speculates that possibly rebel Maiar who had incarnated in powerful Orc forms might, upon the death of their bodies become poltergeists. He also suggests that some houseless spirits may be able to gain a new home by possessing another existing living body, enslaving its rightful spirit.
> *


So theoretically, since no-one knows the faith of Saruman after he was murdered by Wormtongue, Saruman could have, after some time, possesed a new body?...


----------



## jallan (Feb 14, 2003)

Melkor's spirit was banished from Arda.

What happened to Sauron’s (or Saruman’s) we are not told.

Tolkien's comments on houseless spirits refer entirely to Elves whose spirits have refused the summons of Mandos. But then continues:


> To call on them is folly. To attempt to master them and to make them servants of one own’s will is wickedness. Such practices are of Morgoth;  and the necromancers are of the host of Sauron his servant.
> <snip>
> Or the Houseless may please for shelter, and if it is admitted, then it will seek to enslave its host and use both his will and his body for its own purposes. It is said that Suaron did these things, and taught his followers how to achieve them.


So if the spirits of Elves might possess the bodies of others, how much more the spirit of Sauron who was reputedly knowledgeable and expert in such lore?

As far as I tell this thought did not occur to Tolkien, who imagines Sauron’s spirt to be mostly helpless until the End.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *What happened to Sauron’s (or Saruman’s) we are not told.
> *



Aren't we told what happens to Sauron?

From _The Valaquenta_:



> Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron, or Gorthaur the Cruel. In his beginning he was of the Maiar of Aulë, and he remained mighty in the lore of that people. In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and in the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself. But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and *walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void*.


----------



## ltas (Feb 17, 2003)

_''... walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.''_
I don't know... This could be interpreted in the way that Sauron followed Morgoth's example in his attempts to become the Lord of the ME, but it doesn't necessarily explain Sauron's final faith (in my opinion).

_''Melkor's spirit was banished from Arda.

What happened to Sauron’s (or Saruman’s) we are not told.''_

In my view the finale of the ROTK leaves an impression that Sauron's spirit was destroyed too? That the Ring was such a vital part of his existence, he had put a part of his soul in it, that when it was destroyed it took its master with it?

Hmm.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 17, 2003)

I don't see why the quote should not be taken literally. Sauron did great sins against the Children (the greatest being the Downfall of Numenor I believe), and he would be cast into the Void because of them.
Sauron's fall was so deep that his rise could not be foretold ever again (Gandalf says something to that effect). I myself would banish Sauron to the Void.


----------



## Confusticated (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *I don't see why the quote should not be taken literally. Sauron did great sins against the Children (the greatest being the Downfall of Numenor I believe), and he would be cast into the Void because of them.
> Sauron's fall was so deep that his rise could not be foretold ever again (Gandalf says something to that effect). I myself would banish Sauron to the Void. *


Could Morgoth have been thrown to the void, or out of Arda, because it was thought that he could eventually rebuild his spirit?

If this was the primary reason for throwing him out, it might be that there was no reason to throw Sauron out. He is not expected to build himself up again.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nóm _
> *Could Morgoth have been thrown to the void, or out of Arda, because it was thought that he could eventually rebuild his spirit?
> 
> If this was the primary reason for throwing him out, it might be that there was no reason to throw Sauron out. He is not expected to build himself up again. *



I agree. But I still would not allow him to have the freedom of roaming the lands freely and enjoying this freedom (even though without a bodily form). I would ban him to the utter blackness and timelessness of the Void.


----------



## ltas (Feb 20, 2003)

Interesting idea, Nym. 

Couldn't it be that the main difference between Morgoth's and Sauron's final destiny was the way they were defeated? I mean that the empire of Morgoth was conquered under the guidance of the Valar and he was to judged to ''imprisonment'', whereas Sauron was destroyed (I mean literally _destroyed_) by almost a mere lucky chance. The difference between Morgoth and Sauron would then be that Morgoth, though banished, is still present _somewhere_, but Sauron has ceased to *exist*, both physically and spiritually.


----------



## jallan (Feb 22, 2003)

But it is part of Tolkien's philosphical underpining that spirits, once created, _cannot_ be destroyed.

Tolkien does say in a note given by Christopher Tolkien as note 11 in _Morgoth’s Ring_ (HoME 10), “Myths Transformed” VII, _Notes on the motives in the Silmarillion_, an addendum to the discussion of disembodied spirits regaining power:


> If they do not sink below a certain level. Since no _fëa_ can be annihilated, reduced to zero or not-existing, it is no[t] clear what is meant. Thus Sauron was _said_ to have fallen below the point of ever recovering, though he had previously recovered. What is probably meant is that a ‘wicked’ spirit becomes fixed in a certain desire or ambition, and if it cannot repent then this desire becomes virtually its whole being. But the desire may be wholly beyond the weakness it has fallen to, and it will then be unable to withdraw its attention from the unobtainable desire, even to attend to itself. It will then remain for ever in impotent desire or memory of desire.


Tolkien is himself only speculating here, and probably would not have claimed to _know_ the final fates of the spirits of Sauron or Saruman.


----------



## Confusticated (Feb 23, 2003)

The elves believe that a spirit can grow and rebuild it's self and this is said of Morgoth in HoMe X, Notes on Motives in The Silmarillion:


> The dark spirit of Melkor's 'remainder' might be expected therefore, eventually and after long ages to increase again, even (as some held) to draw back into itself some of it's formerly dissipated power. It would do this because of it's relative greatness. It did not repent, or turn finallt awat from it's obsession, but retained still relics of wisdom, so that it could still seek to heal itself, distract itself by other thoughts and desires amd devices - but all simply to recover enough strength to return to the attack on the Valar, and to its old obsession. As it grew again in would become, as it were, a sark shadow, brooding on te confines of Arda, and yearning towards it.


So there seems to be 2 reasons that Morgoth can rebuild - relative greatness, and a wisdom to heal himself.

From jallan's quote from the same essay:


> But the desire may be wholly beyond the weakness it has fallen to, and it will then be unable to withdraw its attention from the unobtainable desire, even to attend to itself.


That in combination with Morgoth's spirit being greater, seems to me the major reason that Sauron can not rebuild but Morgoth can.

I am not clear about the idea that Morgoth has retained a wisdom which would allow him to turn his thoughts to other things in order that he can rebuild. What wisdom does he have that Sauron does not? Surely Morgoth wants things that are beyond his means. Why suppose that Sauron would dwell on things beyond his means but Morgoth wouldn't? 
Any ideas?


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Oct 3, 2005)

Wasn't there like the 7 prophecies of Mandos or something? one of them was that Morgoth would escape the void and all and then the final battle of Illuvatar or something like that before the final judgement. I heard something like that. Anyways, anyone have info on the seven prophs. of Mandos or whatever it was? thanks!


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 3, 2005)

Seven? I know of only two, the doom of the noldor and the second one about Turin and Melkor (which doesn't appear in the Sil, only briefly in UT and then in HoME 11, Commentary on the second section of the Annals of Aman.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Oct 3, 2005)

Yeah I could have sworn I read some where there were 7, but then Tolkien, as the translator of the stories, said something like, "to tell of all of these prophesies would take many books" or something like that, but Im pretty sure they're listed somewhere, i just cant remember where


----------

