# Saruman's Ring!



## Úlairi (Mar 16, 2002)

I have posted this thread before, but it did not get the attention is deserved, so I am posting it again hoping to get the answers I want. Don't be afraid to post, an opinion is neither right nor wrong, so, post away! Now, we know that Saruman had quite an extensive knowledge on the Lore of the Rings. Gandalf said in the Council of Elrond that:


> "He ever goes deeper into the Lore of the Rings, finding the lost secrets of their making."



Gandalf says later in the chapter:


> "But I rode to the foot of Orthanc, and came to the stair of Saruman; and there he met me and led me up to his high chamber. He wore a ring on his finger."



Saruman says later in the chapter:


> "For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"



Now it says that Saruman wore a ring on his finger, that he was ever looking for the lost secrets of the making of the Rings of Power and he even said that he was a Ring-maker!!! This therefore brings me to the conclusion that Saruman made a Ring of Power for himself!!! Yet I do not remember nor believe that there is any reference to Saruman's Ring ever again! So, with these quotes, do you guys think that Saruman made a Ring of Power or not??? OPINIONS PLEASE!!!


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 16, 2002)

No.


----------



## Gothmog (Mar 16, 2002)

If Saruman made a ring of power, then it was probably on the same level as the Elven Rings either comprable to the Three, the Severn or the Nine, and therefore less powerful than the One Ring. Saruman wanted to get hold of the One, he would have been less worried about this if his Ring was as great and he would have probably been able to find the other ring quite easily if this was the case.

The Actual power of his ring is not told, but the Elves in their work started off with minor rings and worked up to the Great Rings. I know that Saruman was a Maia as was Sauron, but Saruman was lessened when he became an Istari and Sauron had once been a Maia of Alue and retained much of the lore of that people. So Saruman would knot have the knowledge to make a ring to match the One, and would have difficulty in making any ring of power without learning about them from elsewhere.


----------



## gimli_alvevenn (Mar 16, 2002)

If Gothmog's opinion is corect, then that can explain another side of Sarumans lure to the one ring, for Galadriel did tell Frodo that the ring of power makes the bearers of the three elven rings sad and miserable, that.

But then again, there is said nothing about Sauron making this ring, so I can not really agree with myself, but here is an opinion, Ulairi.


----------



## Grond (Mar 16, 2002)

Greenwood, Saruon came from the people of Aule. Saruman came from the people of Aule. Sauron was instrumental in forging the Great Rings and ultimately the One Ruling Ring. Why would you make a blanket statement of "No" on a Saruman created Ring of Power when you so adamantly insist that Saruman developed his own refined Orcs (Uruk-hai) which were exclusively his and his alone? 

A Ring of Power (albeit less powerful than the Ruling Ring) would do a lot in explaining how Saruman developed and maintained all that he did for so many years and kept it hidden from the White Council and his close neighbors Rohan and Gondor. And the fact that JRRT did not specifically point this out does not mean it wasn't so. He never fully defined Uruk-hai either and you have no problem in reading the Author's thoughts on that issue.


----------



## Turgon (Mar 16, 2002)

I always viewed Saruman's ring as being as symbol of his pretentions to the power of Sauron. Maybe it had power to a lesser or greater degree; but as a pretender to kingship may fashion himself a crown to legitimise his claim, so Saruman fashioned himself a ring. Just a thought, so don't quote me on that!


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 16, 2002)

Grond

Yes, Saruman made a ring in imitation of the elven rings, but there is no evidence that Saruman's ring (mentioned only once in LOTR) had any power at all and was anything more than a conceit on Saruman's part. If Saruman's ring actually had any power why didn't Saruman use it against the ents or anyone else? If Saruman's ring had any power why wouldn't Gandalf take it from him? Gandalf broke Saruman's staff as a symbol of breaking his power and casting him from the order of wizards. Why would he leave him with a ring of power? If Saruman's ring had a power of its own wouldn't it be the most powerful ring in Middle-earth after the destruction of the One Ring? Ther is no reason it should loose its power after the destruction of the One Ring, as the elven rings did. After all Sauron made the One Ring with knowledge of the existence of all the other rings and as a way of controlling them. Saruman's ring is made by Saruman over three thousand years later. Why would its power, if it had any, be bound to the power of Sauron's Ring? In short there is zero evidence from the story or, as far as I know, any of Tolkien's writings that the ring Saruman wore had any power invested in it whatsoever.

As for the Uruk-hai, if Tolkien had only used the term once in LOTR, with no further mention or indication of their nature, as he does with Saruman's ring, I would not base anything on that single instance. But, Tolkien uses Uruk-hai nine times in LOTR, plus once more in the Appendices. I think Tolkien makes it quite clear what he means by Uruk-hai, Saruman's elite orc troops. I would also point out that it was your own excellent research that turned up the quote from Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring that Saruman had indeed developed his own breed of orcs by crossing them with men. What I find hard to fathom is why it seems so hard to accept that this special orc strain might not have a name of its own?


----------



## Lantarion (Mar 16, 2002)

I don't think anybody could have made any more Rings of Power without Celebrimbor, and the original Elves who forged them. Without Celebrimbor, Sauron could not have made his own Elven Rings. Without Sauron, Celebrimbor could not have made the Rings as great as they were. Had Sauron been able to make his own magical Rings, he wouldn't have gone to all that trouble to wrench the specific Elven Rings from the Elves.
And yes, Saruman made *a* ring, but it was not a Ring of Power: if Sauron couldn't have made a ring as great as the Elven Rings (the One only dominated them because Sauron knew their weaknesses and their essenses), then Saruman certainly couldn't. He made a ring, to imitate Sauron and his quest for the One Ring, but it was not anywhere near as potent as the Elven Rings, nevermind the One. Saruman was the mightiest of the Istari in Middle-Earth, and had some amazing magical powers. He, like Sauron, probably transferred some of that power into his new ring to make his old works better, and so he would be able to make even deadlier and destructive machines and battleplans. Might the Ents have survived, if Saruman hadn't made his onw little ring? Hmmm..
And Greenwood, I think Saruman's power had already been made more potent through his staff (like with Gandalf), and Saruman just got greedy and wanted more. So the power of his ring was linked to his staff, which in turn was linked to his own 'energy' or magical power; so when Gandalf destroyed his staff, he destroyed his magical powers.


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 16, 2002)

*Good points!*

There are some good opinions here, but Pontifex, Saruman still had a little power left within him, his voice, the most deceitful voice in Middle-earth. He used that to corrupt the Shire-folk. Perhaps the Ring was somehow connected to his staff, and in a way lost most of his power. The Ring was definitely not a Ring of Power, but it could have been a powerful Ring, not subject to the One, not equal with the three or maybe the seven or the nine. But it is possible that the Ring that he made was a Ring with powers:



> "I am Saruman Ring-maker!"



He clearly states that he made the Ring, now in all the history of Middle-earth, whenever a Ring had been made it had some power within it, for good (The Elven Rings), or bad (the One). The ring Saruman made may have been another obsession with Gandalf. In UT, it says that Saruman was so jealous of Gandalf, he mimicked Gandlaf by buying weed from the Shire and in many other ways, Gandalf had one of the three, and it said that that made Saruman insanely jealous of Gandalf, so perhaps he forged a ring of his own due to his jealousy for Gandalf.


----------



## grishnak (Mar 18, 2002)

*or maybe*

Perhaps the ring gave saruman the power of speech. In LotR Saruman captivates his listeners, making them almost fully under his power. It may not have givin him the power to take over the world, but would surtenly aid him. He corrupted wormtounge, and that itself almost brought down rohan. Long before that Saruman had convinced the council that the ring was gone forever. 
his convincing speach maay have beeen something that he picked up n the way, or maybe the ring.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Mar 18, 2002)

*Re: or maybe*

If it did have power i think it would have been elaborated on. But then again it might not have. If it did have pwer then it wasn't great like the 3 or 1. But i think it probably had a little power in it. Where do you thin he forged it?


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 20, 2002)

He would have forged it in Orthanc, absoluely no disputes there, Beleg! That is an interesting concept about giving him the power of speech. Let's say your theory is correct, if someone else got hold of it, could they put you under control with your voice?


----------



## e.Blackstar (Sep 20, 2005)

*bumpity bump*

Ring of Power, sure. But only as much power as Saruman had in the first place...maybe it worked as a focuser or something, but he could only pour as much power into it as he already had.


----------



## Valandil (Sep 21, 2005)

I think Saruman had attempted to make a ring of power. I suspect it may not have been even as powerful as the Nine, the Seven or the Three - because while those were made by Elves and he was a Maia, he was not working under the tutelage of Sauron, I suspect. For I doubt Sauron would assist him - and imagine that Saruman tried to make it in secret - out of his pretension to copy Sauron, as Turgon says so well. OTOH - with their connection by Palantir, it's possible that Sauron learned of Saruman's attempts - but they probably only made him laugh, if he did. It is also possible that Saruman was able to shield his thoughts from Sauron.

As you say Blackstar, I suspect Saruman had to pour some of himself into it, so it may have done little more than whatever he could do without it. I HAVE wondered at times though if it perhaps gave him some measure of control over Orcs - and if it was from the creation of his own ring onward that he began to associate with Orcs.

I wonder what order some of those things went in: daring to use the Palantir, coming under Sauron's influence, making his own ring, his relationship with Orcs... and if they all sort of came almost together... or if spread out over centuries.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 21, 2005)

Note the comments of the three hunters about the will of Saruman driving the Orks on, and other such references about how Saruman exerted some sort of influence on them and their unusual weariness-not a physical one, but an emotional one. Tolkien also comments in his preface about how Saruman would eventually learn the secrets behind the making of the one ring-his ring was problably just a essay in craft, like the early efforts of the Mirdain, with limited powers.


----------



## Snaga (Sep 21, 2005)

I've always felt that this was a 'lesser' ring, as Inderjit says. Of course there is not a shred of evidence on this point, and there is no reason to suppose that Saruman couldn't, in time, make very powerful rings. But we might also judge that Saruman's great desire to gain the One Ring suggests that he could not match Sauron's craft (or why not make the Two Ring? ). I don't agree that Celebrimbor would have been uniquely skilled, necessarily. Indeed, what would Celebrimbor have achieved in ring-lore, without Sauron's instruction?


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Oct 6, 2005)

I always understood his ring to be a symbol of his power too, cause when he says:


> "For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"


 
I always understood it for Saruman was giving himself the title Ring-maker because that was what he desired for himself to become and what he wrongly foresaw himself becoming in the future.


----------



## barclay (Aug 2, 2018)

My assumption after reading the books- and I've also listened to many audio versions- was always that Saruman did make a new Ring of Power, which had some use. His boast to Gandalf of being a 'ring maker' would never have occurred if it were merely a token. But surely it was weaker than the Three, or it would have been discussed much more. It likely however was greater than any of the Nine- especially considering Gandalf's musing at some point that Saruman could trap and subject a Nazgul.

Saruman first discovered the Palantir in Orthanc, which inevitably through his own curiousity led him to converse with and become ensnared by Sauron. That part is plain.
It seems also to be strongly suggested that quite a bit of double agency was going on at least at first. Both Sauron and Saruman feigned false friendship- but Sauron had the mastery. Saruman thought he wheedled critical information from Sauron he needed- in addition to his long ring lore study- to craft a ring- something he now greatly desired, through careful flattery. Gandalf had made references in the books that Saruman's desire to defeat Sauron as an 'evil' gradually turned to envy and even imitation, so all this makes sense.

But Sauron was aware of this- after all it was nothing he wasn't well accustomed to and dealt with many times before. Naturally then, just like he did to the Elves, he helped Saruman make a ring that indeed did work- but that also in some way made Saruman dependent upon himself or that further trapped Saruman into his service. Its not a great stretch of imagination to believe that the help he gave Saurman also bound his new ring to the One, which Sauron knew had reappeared and hoped, even expected to regain. In fact, its likely that there was no other way to make a real Ring of Power actually work than to bind it to the One.
Of course all bets were off if Saruman were to find the One first. Saruman could wield it, and possibly even defeat Sauron in battle though certainly never destroy him that way.

Its also easily conceivable that once the One was destroyed, Saruman's ring "shorted out", as we know the Three did and all the other Rings of Power. After all it was Sauron himself who taught everyone how to make them originally. Its possible that whatever part of himself Sauron sacrificed and put into the One Ring, could have been a sort of engine that was critical in order to make the other rings work at all.
Gandalf also seemed satisifed that this was true, and with the One destroyed, he paid no further heed to Saruman's ring- though he had clearly noted it earlier. Something Saruman most certainly would have taken with him leaving Isengard, and been wearing during his escape if it continued to have any use at all. And of course, Saruman himself seemed to confirm this again with the comment, "Its of some comfort to know you brought down your own house when you ruined mine".

So, by all this the assumptions are as follows 1) Saruman made a Ring of Power that did work in some way, probably magnifying his native powers somewhat, though lesser than the Three. But in actuality it also further ensnared him to Sauron, it was traitorous- just like the Seven, and the Nine; 2) This ring lost its potency after the One was destroyed, and became useless- freeing Saruman from Sauron but also diminishing his own abilities.


----------



## Ron Simpson (Aug 2, 2018)

Barclay: I enjoyed that post and concur with many of your points. Also very timely given that we were discussing the same thing in this thread (scroll to the end):
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/inde...weaknesss-or-inevitability.23609/#post-517432


----------



## barclay (Aug 2, 2018)

I'm glad to see people still alive! My reply sure was late lol
It seems logical to assume that one of the powers or benefits that Saruman's ring gave him was some kind of special abilities concerning the Nazgul. That would make sense given the fact that they were sometimes used as messengers between Orthanc and Mordor. 
It adds an interesting twist had he joined Gandalf and been with him at the siege of Minas Tirith, what would have happened. Could he have commanded the Witch King at the gates, even ordered him to turn around and "go back"? I think in that particular scene we would have found out what his ring could do. As it is we'll never know.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 2, 2018)

Excellent post barclay. It got me thinking about Saruman's Ring and I seem to recall reading somewhere where JRRT compared Saruman's study of ring lore with Germany during WWII. I'm not sure if I came across this in Tolkien or in my readings of WWII though it makes more sense it would be in _LOTR_, _The_ _Silmarillion_ or _UT_ (I'm excluding _The_ _HoME_ since I'm just now beginning reading them.) Perhaps someone will help me out where I came across this.

I thought the comparison implied that both Saruman and Germany if given enough time would have both realized their ultimate desire, total power over their worlds. Germany via their creation of the first atomic bomb, something they were concurrently striving towards as was Japan and the USA. Saruman by creating a ring with which *he *could have total control over Sauron and ME.

I could be reading too much into this but it is an interesting pov and might help shed more light on JRRT's thoughts here.

And btw barclay welcome! It's wonderful having new members join.


----------



## Barliman (Aug 3, 2018)

barclay said:


> I'm glad to see people still alive! My reply sure was late lol
> It seems logical to assume that one of the powers or benefits that Saruman's ring gave him was some kind of special abilities concerning the Nazgul. That would make sense given the fact that they were sometimes used as messengers between Orthanc and Mordor.


What sort of special ability are you thinking? Certainly no special ability was needed to talk to the Nazgul. Are you thinking he was actually able to summon them?

My impression is that Sauron sent them as needed, but that Saruman and Sauron primarily used the Palantír for communication.
I don't really recall any evidence in the book that Saruman had any special ability that might be attributed to a ring.



Úlairi said:


> Now, we know that Saruman had quite an extensive knowledge on the Lore of the Rings. Gandalf said in the Council of Elrond that:
> "He ever goes deeper into the Lore of the Rings, finding the lost secrets of their making."


Interesting. Which edition are you referencing?
I can't find that in my 50th Anniversary Edition. There is Gandalf's reference in The Shadow of the Past where he says:
_"The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is his province. He has long studied it, seeking lost secrets of their making..."_​I'll have to go look in my older editions. I'm not sure I have a newer edition.



Grond said:


> Why would you make a blanket statement of "No" on a Saruman created Ring of Power when you so adamantly insist that Saruman developed his own refined Orcs (Uruk-hai) which were exclusively his and his alone?


As I mentioned in another similar thread, linked a few posts up, his orcs could be easily explained by selective breeding. No special power needed.



grishnak said:


> Perhaps the ring gave saruman the power of speech. In LotR Saruman captivates his listeners, making them almost fully under his power. It may not have givin him the power to take over the world, but would surtenly aid him. He corrupted wormtounge, and that itself almost brought down rohan. Long before that Saruman had convinced the council that the ring was gone forever.
> his convincing speach maay have beeen something that he picked up n the way, or maybe the ring.


I would lean towards "along the way", if it wasn't innate. We've had in recent history people who're capable of the power of persuasion to very despicable ends without a magic ring. 1930's Germany springs to mind.



Inderjit S said:


> Tolkien also comments in his preface about how Saruman would eventually learn the secrets behind the making of the one ring-his ring was problably just a essay in craft, like the early efforts of the Mirdain, with limited powers.





Ithilethiel said:


> Excellent post barclay. It got me thinking about Saruman's Ring and I seem to recall reading somewhere where JRRT compared Saruman's study of ring lore with Germany during WWII. I'm not sure if I came across this in Tolkien or in my readings of WWII though it makes more sense it would be in LOTR, The Silmarillion or UT (I'm excluding The HoME since I'm just now beginning reading them.) Perhaps someone will help me out where I came across this.
> 
> I thought the comparison implied that both Saruman and Germany if given enough time would have both realized their ultimate desire, total power over their worlds. Germany via their creation of the first atomic bomb, something they were concurrently striving towards as was Japan and the USA. Saruman by creating a ring with which he could have total control over Sauron and ME.


In Forward to the Second Edition Tolkien is addressing the suggestions of allegory between WWII and The Lord of The Rings. He states:
_"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion."_​That's where he goes on to say *if* it was allegory Saruman would have gone on to make a Great Ring.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 3, 2018)

Thank you Barliman I knew I read it somewhere. Well I guess my idea flopped since we know Tolkien did not like allegory.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Aug 3, 2018)

My appreciation for all discussions and contributions! Excellent reading. Here are quite some elaborations and suppositions for that particular ring.

I must admit I'm a bit dizzy now (the totally unbearable heatwave here in Europe at the moment, no doubt, must be the cause mainly) when trying to read here and discern facts from deductions or suppositions, wise as they be. About the JRRT sources on that ring, my dizziness would be helped by just having these meager facts back into a nutshell again.

What I can see from canonic stuff is this:

Saruman was deeply involved in studying ring-lore.
Saruman lusted for the one Ring.
Saruman wore a ring of his own by the time he imprisoned Gandalf.
Saruman called himself a ring-maker.
(Probably, even my 2 first points are only marginally related).

Is this all that we know “for fact” about this ring of his, or did I skip something "canonic" in my bullet points?


----------



## Barliman (Aug 3, 2018)

5. Saruman called himself Saruman of Many Colours.

You may wonder about the significance of that:
Incomplete Victory of the Last Alliance: Weaknesss or Inevitability ?
I was mostly joking, but in actuality that would not be contradictory to your list of facts.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 3, 2018)

Barliman said:


> He also called himself Saruman of Many Colours.



Care to go into detail here Barliman?


----------



## Barliman (Aug 3, 2018)

Ithilethiel said:


> Care to go into detail here Barliman?


Not much detail to give.
It's what Gandalf reported to the the Council of Elrond, when describing Saruman imprisoning him at Orthanc,
_"'For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-Maker, Saruman of Many Colours!' I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered."_​


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Aug 3, 2018)

So all we have is that Saruman wore a ring by the time he imprisoned Gandalf and that he called himself ring-maker. Nothing else? Even when he died in the Shire no ring was mentioned to have been found.

Very few hard facts, in my personal view, to give much thought to...

JRRT may have had his reasons/intentions to expand the idea and then abandoned the lead as he went on. Happened on other occasions.

Hey- I'm now speculating about this too now!  I am really dizzy these hot days.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 3, 2018)

I'm dizzy over the, "many colors" claim...guess there are just many things only God and JRRT will ever know absolutely.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 7, 2018)

I mentioned one idea about the colours on another thread, but I don't know where, so I'll repeat it here: I suspect Tolkien may have modeled them, at least in part, on the various Catholic Orders. The connection of Radagast with St. Francis is clear enough, and the Dominicans (always considered an "intellectual" order), wear white. I'm not sure if Gandalf fits in here, as I haven't researched very deeply, but I'll look.

Of course, Gandalf is so associated with fire symbolism that it wouldn't surprise me if he were a special case. IIRC, in "The Istari" his cloak is described as "grey as ash", which continues the symbolism.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 7, 2018)

Interesting pov SES. Something to consider...thx for replying


----------



## darkG (Aug 10, 2018)

One wonders; the One ring obviously works for Bilbo and Frodo, invisibility. The wizard's staffs, on the other hand, are they tied to them or could they similarly be used by anyone? Forging magical artifacts may, or may not, imply putting something of yourself into the object.

Rings - jewelry - are possibly to be understood as more vain (symbols of vanity) than a staff, particularly of course Gandalf's crude one. So Rings are pride, and pride is opposite to wisdom, or at least benevolence..?

Saruman was white, became 'of many coulours', Gandalf was gray, became white. Surely there are connotations of purity here, being not-white, opting for "many coulours" does seem a bit desperate?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 10, 2018)

darkG said:


> Rings - jewelry - are possibly to be understood as more vain (symbols of vanity) than a staff, particularly of course Gandalf's crude one. So Rings are pride, and pride is opposite to wisdom, or at least benevolence..?



Great ideas on the contrast, DarkG -- and welcome to the forum!

Yes, rings in Tolkien seem always inseparable from pride, to a greater or lesser degree, beginning with the Silmarils, the concept of Arda as "Morgoth's Ring", up through the One.

And including the Elf-rings, great and small: Tolkien mentioned in more than one letter that, as well-intentioned as the desire of the Elves to preserve the good things of Middle Earth may have been, it was still, in important ways, an expression of selfishness and pride; that is, a desire to preserve _their _idea of what Middle Earth should be, rather than trust to the unfolding of Eru's plan.

This parallels the earlier intervention by the Valar, who wanted to "save" the Elves from Morgoth, something they later recognized as error.

But rings are so loaded with symbolic meaning, from their long association in myth, ritual, folktale, and literature, that it would take a lot of work to unpack all the implications of their appearances in Tolkien.

To your question about staffs, there's much to explore there, too, but I'll limit myself to saying that, as opposed to the rings, I don't think just anyone could use them; I can't see Frodo, for instance , picking up Gandalf's staff and saying "Now I command fire! Burn, you orcs!". Rather, they are both sigil _and _"device": they are the mark of wizards as Istari, "Messengers", in the same sense as the herald's banner, or the king's scepter; and they simultaneously act to focus and express their powers, as is repeatedly shown by Gandalf. It's a bit unfortunate that we don't get any clearly delineated demonstrations of their use by the other wizards; the contrast would be interesting to see. The only (possible) example I can think of is the undue weariness of the Three Hunters:

_'There is some will that lends speed to our foes and sets an unseen barrier before us: a weariness that is in the heart more than in the limb.'
"Truly!' said Legolas. 'That I have known since first we came down from the Emyn Muil. For the will is not behind us but before us.' He pointed away over the land of Rohan into the darkling West under the sickle moon.
'Saruman!' muttered Aragorn.
_
It has been suggested here that this is due to Saruman's ring; I lean towards Saruman's innate power, "projected", if you want to look at it that way, through his staff.


----------



## darkG (Aug 10, 2018)

I guess it boils down to a larger general issue of magic, the extent to how much of it is from the wizard, entirely from an Artifact, or a little of both, and also the nature of Words and Gestures used, and - again - artifacts such as rings and wands. I agree that not just anyone could use a wizard's staff. In the movie, Saruman uses his own and Gandalf's in tandem, to great effect. I find that rather plausible. Then, they were in the same Order, so they are likely to be familiar with each other's, eh, style, to some degree, and probably also share some common general wizard knowledge.

Edit Thanks, I feel welcome


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 10, 2018)

Let me state, as clearly as possible: I'm not talking about the movies. In fact, unless I somehow end up on a movie thread, I'm _never _talking about the movies! In short, I look on a statement starting with "In the movie. . ." as of exactly the same relevance to a discussion of Tolkien as one beginning "I read in this fan-fic once where. . ."

Sorry to be so blunt, but I want you to know where I stand on the subject.

Ahem. With that out of the way, let me ask: do you have the Letters? In some of those, Tolkien goes into his conceptions of "magic" in his works much more extensively than his somewhat ambiguous hints in LOTR. He also discusses the subject in "On Fairy Stories".

I ask before I go digging for quotes.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 10, 2018)

I don't see any real problem bringing in the movies as an example. The RP games, the movies and the books are all enjoyable and stress one thing or another to differing degrees.

It might not be the best choice to do so when talking strictly literature but everyone to his/her strengths. A new member especially should not be expected to fully see the big picture of the forum threads. Sometimes it's darn confusing. I've been here a few months and I still get turned around. People join from all over the world, in places where English isn't their first language. Allow a person a mistake or two before hitting them over the head. We all want new members especially one's like darkG who post and imo some pretty intelligent posts too.

'nuf said...


----------



## darkG (Aug 10, 2018)

Sure, the movies are not Tolkien works, I fully understand that they'd be of little interest to many here at a Tolkien forum 

I came here to look something up, saw something else interesting, and registered. However, I am not quite a die hard Tolkien fan at all, as it happens most of his works are of little Interest to me! Clearly, this is my problem and not yours, this being a, well, like... a Tolkien forum.

While the movies cannot be said to explain Tolkien, they can illustrate things, If one would want to. I find it proper that this might not be the place for wider, generalized ramblings. Thus, general ramblings being what I am all about, I bid you farewell. No hard feelings.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 10, 2018)

darkG said:


> Sure, the movies are not Tolkien works, I fully understand that they'd be of little interest to many here at a Tolkien forum
> 
> I came here to look something up, saw something else interesting, and registered. However, I am not quite a die hard Tolkien fan at all, as it happens most of his works are of little Interest to me! Clearly, this is my problem and not yours, this being a, well, like... a Tolkien forum.
> 
> While the movies cannot be said to explain Tolkien, they can illustrate things, If one would want to. I find it proper that this might not be the place for wider, generalized ramblings.



Ramble all you want darkG...others do including me. I have a friend who's never read Tolkien. I watched the movies with him and he pointed some things out that shed light on issues in the books. I didn't notice them but he did even though he didn't realize the scenes were in the books.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 10, 2018)

darkG said:


> Sure, the movies are not Tolkien works, I fully understand that they'd be of little interest to many here at a Tolkien forum
> 
> I came here to look something up, saw something else interesting, and registered. However, I am not quite a die hard Tolkien fan at all, as it happens most of his works are of little Interest to me! Clearly, this is my problem and not yours, this being a, well, like... a Tolkien forum.
> 
> While the movies cannot be said to explain Tolkien, they can illustrate things, If one would want to. I find it proper that this might not be the place for wider, generalized ramblings. Thus, general ramblings being what I am all about, I bid you farewell. No hard feelings.



Don't leave darkG. I'm sure SES didnt mean to come off as hard as he did. You are welcome here.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 10, 2018)

My personal Gemini Cricket having taken her umbrella to my, um, whatever (ouch!), let me rephrase my earlier post in nicer fashion:

Generally speaking, the discussions in the book forums are reserved for the books, as there are dedicated forums for the movies.

As Ithilethiel says, of course there can be some overlap, for comparison purposes, for instance, but it's usual to keep them separate.

There. As Captain Renault would say, that is a more pleasant way of putting it.

So sorry if I put you off, DarkG, and please stay on the site -- you've already raised some good points, as I said above. It would be our loss if you left.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 10, 2018)

Great. We whine about too few members then we get a new member and just bc he/she isn't some great Tolkien scholar we chase the person away.

Wouldn't it be better to encourage new members? How wonderful to help such a member discover Tolkien than to scold him/her till they feel unwelcome and leave. Great, just great!


----------



## darkG (Aug 10, 2018)

Thank you, however, I am simply not interested in a way that will make it comfortable for me to contribute in line with forum intentions. This is probably an excellent forum for those who are. I wouldn't join a car forum just to talk about bikes.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Aug 10, 2018)

darkG said:


> Thank you, however, I am simply not interested in a way that will make it comfortable for me to contribute in line with forum intentions. This is probably an excellent forum for those who are. I wouldn't join a car forum just to talk about bikes.



I love that! Lol There are plenty of threads where you can chat about movies, RP games etc. And you are always welcome to PM me to chat about anything. SES is correct, your leaving would be our loss. Pls reconsider.


----------



## Barliman (Aug 11, 2018)

On the subject of staffs, particularly Gandalf's, I find it exceedingly implausible that he would have retained his grip on it throughout his battle with the Balrog. But I've never thought about that before.

If he lost it in the depths of Moria, which seems likely, that raises the questions; from where they did come, how were they made, how did they get their power?
If just looking at Gandalf's I would think that he made his staff and in some private ceremony, focused some of his powers in it. Not placed them in it the way Sauron put his power in The Ring to his own detriment if he wasn't wearing it, but more like "trained" it to channel his power more easily than if he were doing it alone. For computer geeks, think of it as a macro for magic. 
This would also mean that, for anyone other than him, his staff was nothing more than a stick to lean upon.

For instance, in Gandalf's rescue of Faramir and his men;
_"a pale light was spread about it and the heavy shadows gave way before it...."_​Was this just Gandalf or did he leverage his staff to focus his power. I tend to think the latter. He *could* have done it himself, but by using his staff which he had trained, he was able to do something in seconds that might have taken him 5 or 10 minutes to summon the power to do, which certainly would have been too late to save Faramir and his men.

So, when he was sent back after battling the Balrog I envision him making a new staff from a suitable sapling or branch and spending several hours or a day training it to channel his powers.

But that brings up Saruman. Why didn't he just make a new staff?
My answer to that is that not only was his staff broken quite literally at Orthanc, it was also symbolic of him being cast from the order and hence unable to make a new staff with any power more than the one leaning in the corner by my front door.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Aug 11, 2018)

I quite concur to your view, Barliman, on wizard staffs. I understood your idea of it as being a tool they personally made to produce things (like "magic", abusing the word in this context) but crafted and usable only by themselves.

Naively put, no doubt: in popular understanding, it is hard to imagine a "true wizard" with no staff! And BTW, about JRRT: in Christianity, does a bishop not have a staff? It's symbolic somehow too, I think.

However, in JRRT's lore the perception of a wizard never departing from his staff at any moment might just be a bit much.

Gandalf held his staff but he also carried Glamdring around (apart from a leathern flask of miruvor at occasions, a ring and whichever other gear) yet does some active fighting here and there, including in narrow Goblin tunnels where such long objects might leave many scratches on the walls.

Ok we don't talk about movies, but yes, I remember a scene "illustrating" that, which I thought was rather pathetic!  

Right ... I was just trying to cut a hair in two. Ow, we started talking about rings here, didn't we? Too late, I pushed the button already.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 11, 2018)

Barliman said:


> I find it exceedingly implausible that he would have retained his grip on it throughout his battle with the Balrog.



He didn’t:

_At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand. A blinding sheet of white light sprang up._

Since he was "healed" in Lorien, after his return, I had always envisioned him receiving a new staff there, perhaps even of mallorn wood, but I wonder; when the Three Hunters see him in Fangorn, he

_. . .looked like an old beggar-man, walking wearily, leaning on a rough staff.
_
That makes it sound like something he could have picked up anywhere along the "strange roads" that led him to them, even Fangorn.

On the other hand, "_looked like_" seems significant -- a few moments later:

_. . .the old man sprang up the rough steps as nimbly as a goat. All weariness seemed to have left him._

He could have been "putting on an act" earlier; there are other instances of people perceiving him thus -- Frodo, at the end of "A long-Expected Party", for example -- but I wonder if this is something more. He was now "Gandalf Returned", given greater powers than he was allowed before; perhaps, in addition to the "shining light" qualities of Gandalf the White, both real and symbolic, his ability to dissemble, to hide those aspects, was also enhanced?

_He stepped down from the rock, and picking up his grey cloak wrapped it about him: it seemed as if the sun had been shining, but now was hid in cloud again. 'Yes, you may still call me Gandalf,' he said, and the voice was the voice of their old friend and guide.
_
In which case, the "rough staff" may have been other than what it appeared to be. I don't know the answer to that.

In any event, I get the impression that the staffs held import and significance only because of those who held them: the _angeloi,_ the "messengers". Saruman's may have been elaborate, which would be in accordance with his delusions of grandeur, but it didn't matter; Gandalf broke it anyway, symbolic, as Barley said above, of his casting out of the Order of Istari.

These things lead me to believe that the staff of the Wizard could be of any old piece of wood he picked up; and more importantly, was "magical" only insofar as its wielder was "magical". We have to be very careful using a term like "magic" in Middle Earth, as we are repeatedly warned:

_'Are these magic cloaks?' asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.
'I do know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves.

'And you? She said, turning to Sam. 'For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy.'
_
I would hesitate to apply the word "magic" to the wizard and his staff, except in a limited sense; romance shifts its fictional mode, from the unlimited freedom of action of myth, in the direction, not of "realism", but _plausibility. _We accept the unusual events as "magical", because they are inherent in the conventions of the mode, but we must keep in mind that their roots lie in myth: the staff of the wizard, in its radical mythical form, is the wonderful Tree of Life, just as, in a further displacement toward the plausible in the high mimetic mode, it is transformed into the royal banner.

Tolkien used all three modes, and more, shifting back and forth among them, but often coloring one mode with another. The wizards vary accordingly, but seem often to be pointing back in the direction of the mythical, and in a particular way: toward the "theological" frame, if that is the word, of his story. In that sense, for "magical", we could perhaps, if the term is not considered too loaded, substitute "holy". If we follow this line of thinking, we could see the piece of wood as becoming "sanctified" due solely to the wizard's possession of it.

Looked at this way, we might see things in a different light. For example, what does the "crying aloud" at the bridge in Moria signify? Just a shout of rage? Or is it like the mysterious "word of Command" given by Gandalf at the Chamber of Mazarbul? And what do these represent? "Magical" incantations? Invocations? Prayer? Tolkien doesn't say, leaving it for us to interpret. And the same can be said, not only for the staffs, but for the other artifacts in the story.

Including rings!


----------



## Barliman (Aug 12, 2018)

Merroe said:


> Gandalf held his staff but he also carried Glamdring around (apart from a leathern flask of miruvor at occasions, a ring and whichever other gear) yet does some active fighting here and there, including in narrow Goblin tunnels where such long objects might leave many scratches on the walls.


I guess it would depend on whether Glamdring (and Orcrist) were one handed or two handed swords. The fact he carried his staff would lead me to believe they were one handed.
I don't have at hand any authoritative description, even though they are portrayed in the movies as two handed. Obviously I don't put any stock in much of anything thing portrayed in the movies.
But a one handed sword would make also carrying his staff a reasonable mode of travel.



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> He didn’t:


See? I was right. 
Actually a proper reply would be, "Doh! How could I forget such a pivotal moment?"

As for my use of the term "magic" I should have elaborated and said I was using the term very loosely and as shorthand, for lack of a better single word term. Not at all like the magic Sam was worried about, Gandalf turning him in to something "unnatural" for snooping.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 12, 2018)

BTW-- I couldn't find any examples of Gandalf using his sword in Moria, except in the climactic confrontation with the Balrog, which written as the clash between two "flames" or "lights".

Anyone know of other instances in LOTR where he used, or even drew, Glamdring?

I can't think offhand of anywhere he used his staff for "hand-to-hand combat" either. (You know what I'm talking about! )


----------



## Barliman (Aug 12, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> BTW-- I couldn't find any examples of Gandalf using his sword in Moria, except in the climactic confrontation with the Balrog, which written as the clash between two "flames" or "lights".


Great. Thanks a lot. Now I'm going to be wondering how he managed to keep Glamdring.
It really implies that his battle scarred body really was healed of it's wounds.

Though not mentioned specifically I would assume he drew it in the battle at the Black Gates.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 12, 2018)

My impression was that he didn’t.


----------



## Barliman (Aug 12, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> My impression was that he didn’t.


yes, nothing in the narrative indicating he did. I just think he would have drawn it when ".._. the first assault crashed in to them."_


----------



## Ron Simpson (Aug 12, 2018)

Barliman said:


> I guess it would depend on whether Glamdring (and Orcrist) were one handed or two handed swords. The fact he carried his staff would lead me to believe they were one handed.
> I don't have at hand any authoritative description, even though they are portrayed in the movies as two handed. Obviously I don't put any stock in much of anything thing portrayed in the movies.
> But a one handed sword would make also carrying his staff a reasonable mode of travel.



Can't find the reference, but I recall Orcrist and Glamdring being referred to as 'mated blades'. I always took that to mean that they were made as a pair and used as a pair. In other words, I envisioned Turgon wielding them simultaneously in battle: one in each hand.

Some six thousand years after Turgon's death, Goblins still dreaded both blades recalling them by the uncouth titles of Goblin Cleaver and Foe-Hammer. So the stories of both blades in action must have been passed down through goblin history. Now, as King of Gondolin (where the blades were forged), Turgon only fought twice: at the Battle of Unnumbered Tears, and during the Fall of Gondolin. So either the goblins saw Turgon using both blades together in both battles, or he must have used Glamdring in one battle, and Orcrist in the other. The former seems more likely (based on nothing at all !) .

Ah, I love me a bit of good ole fashioned speculation (might try for a guest spot on CNN)


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 12, 2018)

If Thorin could wield one of them, makes me wonder how long they really were!


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Aug 13, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> If Thorin could wield one of them, makes me wonder how long they really were!



Well my impression was always that dwarves had a lot of upper body strength from mining in caves and mountains so much so Thorin wouldn't have had trouble with a large sword after using a pickax his entire life.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 13, 2018)

True, as far as strength goes. I'm just picturing a 4-foot dwarf dragging a 4-foot sword around.


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 14, 2018)

Just a few notes on this excellent thread; and for once, I shall try to be brief.

Welcome, *darkG*. Yes, many of us are “purists”. Yes, the Jackson movies are sometimes illustrative of various points. No, they are not the same as Tolkien’s story: they are Jackson’s story, or someone else’s story (in the case of the Hobbit movies), but not Tolkien’s stories. Stick around anyway: you made good points, as *Squint-eyed Southerner* said. People who hang around car shows might like a guy who rides bikes simply because they enjoy his company. (See this for instance.)

Mated swords: Yes, Glamdring and Orcrist were mated swords. It was not uncommon for a _wealthy_ ruler to commission two swords as nearly identical to one another as possible. Switching swords can be a pain: if you’re accustomed one, and it breaks (e.g. Narsil), and you’re a warlord who is actually expected to fight and lead in battle, you are at a severe disadvantage switching to a different weapon. Glamdring and Orcrist were apparently commissioned by _Turgon of Gondolin_ for his use. *I believe and assert* (as often as possible) *that Aranrúth, the sword of Elu Thingol that became the personal sword of the Kings of Númenor, was the mate of Narsil, the personal sword of the Lords of Andúnië.* It makes sense: Tar-Elendil recognized the seniority of the Line of Silmariën (Valandil of Andúnië) by giving either his daughter or his grandson the mate to his sword. The Lord of Andúnië was the senior nobleman of Númenor; which is why, late the history of Númenor, they were able to get away with defying the religious edicts of the kings by remaining Faithful: This is an analogy to the continued Catholicism of the Dukes of Norfolk, the senior peers of the Kingdom of England, despite the Crown’s demand that the rest of the peers embrace Protestantism. 

Yes, Gandalf fought using Glamdring in battles other than with the Balrog of Moria. He used it fighting the demonic wargs in Hollin (probably in the ruins of the House of the Mírdain), in the Battle of Five Armies, and in the tunnels of the goblins after he rescued Thorin & Co. 

Saruman, his ring, and Sauron. Saruman and Sauron were both Maiar of Aulë. Sauron, however, was one of the greatest and most powerful of all the Maiar: Olórin (Gandalf) told Manwë he was afraid of him. (That’s recounted in _Unfinished Tales_.) Saruman was sent to oppose Sauron because he understood his adversary well: I think that means we can assume they knew one another, and might have worked together – perhaps even been friendly with one another – in the deeps of time. Saruman was _uniquely_ situated to understand how the Rings of Power worked and how they were made. 

Saruman was apparently a very persuasive speaker by nature: this was a natural gift. He retained that power in its fullness even after his staff was broken, and much of his power apparently dissipated: Gandalf said so, Aragorn said so, and at the end of the story, Frodo said so. If you insist upon assigning a “power” to his ring, I would suggest that the power of persuasion is what was in the ring; but in any case, Saruman had not dedicated his mind and native to power to dominating the wills of others for several millennia, as Sauron had before he made his Ruling Ring, nor did he ever possess the degree of native power that Sauron did. So even if he put almost all his native power into his ring, which he clearly did not (he still relied upon his staff, whatever that might signify), he would never be able to make a ring anything nearly as powerful as Sauron’s One Ring. 

Was it like the Nine, the Seven, or the Three? The Three did not confer invisibility. Neither did the One – not for Sauron nor for Bombadil, though it did to Isildur and the Halflings. I suspect the Nine and the Seven did not confer invisibility to Elves, and the Seven are explicitly stated to have conferred neither invisibility nor longer lives to the Dwarves. The Seven and Nine were, however, in some way or another necromantic: that is, they drew upon the power of the “other side”, upon the world of spirits, for their effects. They lengthened the lives of Men (and Hobbits!), and made them invisible. At the Ford of Bruinen, Frodo saw Glorfindel “as he is upon the other side:” that is, as he appeared in the world normally invisible to mortals, but that the Ainur and some (or all?) of the Eldar could see. Bombadil could see Frodo when he wore the Ring, and he could tell that he was wearing it. My belief is that _the Rings of Power never made the Elves invisible_: they would find that undesirable, and so unlikely to include such a power in their manufacture. The rings were intended to trap the Elves, to capture them to Sauron’s will: if they included something the Elves found repugnant – _fading_ of the hröa, the physical body – then they would be unlikely to desire them, whatever other uses they might have. It is precisely the _prevention_ of the fading of the hröa that the Noldor of Eregion desired to achieve. But the effect of that upon Men? As Gandalf said, “Hobbits fade very reluctantly.” That’s why the Rings made Men and Hobbits invisible: they _faded_ from the same power that prevented the Eldar _fading_. Sauron is The Necromancer: this is a necromantic power that does something unnatural to both Elves and Men: prevents Elves from _fading_, causes Men to _fade_. 

The Three don’t have that necromantic connection: “they endure no evil.” So the necromantic power that Sauron imparted to the Seven and the Nine is not necessary to make a Ring of Power: it’s just his preference (and desire) (and aim!) to include it in his works. Celebrimbor had no desire to use necromancy in his work: whatever his faults, he found it _undesirable_. 

Saruman is a Maia. He doesn’t _fade_ as an Istar: he just gets older and older. Did he fall far enough to use necromancy like Sauron? I doubt it. That means his ring was probably more along the lines of the Three. He was adept at persuasion, and at discovering secrets. As a Maia of Aulë, he was good at making things. He studied Sauron’s methods and those of the Elven smiths of Eregion. He did make a ring. He clearly did _not_ put all his native power into it as Sauron had, or Gandalf’s breaking his staff would only have amused, then enraged him. As his militarized Orthanc was “only a little copy, a child’s model or a slave’s flattery,” of Barad-dûr, I suspect Saruman’s ring was a copy or model of the One Ring. Perhaps as *Inderjit S* noted, it permitted “the will of Saruman [to] dr[ive] the Orks on, and ... exerted some sort of influence on [the three hunters] and their unusual weariness”. Maybe it enhanced the power of his Voice. But it certainly inflated his ego.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 14, 2018)

_Very_ interesting ideas about Aranruth and Narsil, Alcuin!

I'm aware of Gandalf's use of Glamdring in The Hobbit; I was referring only to LOTR. It seems one of the examples of the evolving maturation of Tolkien's concepts from TH: Gandalf becomes a much more magisterial figure in the later work.



Alcuin said:


> He used it fighting the demonic wargs in Hollin



I could find no explicit statement that he did so. He told the _hobbits _to draw their swords; Aragorn and Boromir used theirs; and Gimli and Legolas had their usual weapons.

Gandalf, on the other hand, is described as using only two "weapons":

_Gandalf strode forward, holding his staff aloft.

Stooping like a cloud, he he lifted a burning branch and strode to meet the wolves.
_
It may seem a minor point, but as I say, the contrast with TH strikes me as significant, an additional indication of the growth of Gandalf from a fairytale "wizard":

_In the wavering firelight Gandalf seemed suddenly to grow: he rose up, a great menacing shape like the monument of some ancient king of stone set upon a hill.
_
BTW, it appears the hobbits didn't get a chance to use their blades, either. Probably for the best!

I'll have to look for other possible instances where Glamdring might have been drawn. If none actually exist, it would make the single episode with the Balrog all the more significant.

EDIT: An admittedly brief search of other episodes in which Glamdring might have been drawn has turned up none; in fact, from the text, it would appear that neither Gandalf nor Aragorn drew blade at the clash before the Black Gate:

_Aragorn stood beneath his banner, silent and stern. . .Upon the hill-top stood Gandalf, and he was white and cold and no shadow fell on him.

Then he lifted up his hands and cried in a loud voice. . .
_
Nor do I find any in other episodes. Even in the sortie from Minas Tirith:

_. . .one rider outran them all, swift as the wind in the grass: Shadowfax bore him, shining, unveiled once more, a light starting from his upraised hand.
_
If anywhere, one would expect it to appear in the confrontation with the Witch-King, where his own sword is emphasized:

_He halted and held up a long pale sword. And as he did so a great fear fell on all, defender and foe alike; and the hands of men drooped to their sides, and no bow sang. For a moment all was still.

'Old fool!' he said, 'This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.
_
Yet we get only:

_Gandalf did not move.
_
It's perhaps worth noting here that, whereas the Balrog is a powerful Maia from the First Age, the Witch-King, despite his terror as the Undead, is still but a Man, from the Second.


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 14, 2018)

Fair enough. But he was holding the sword as he passed through Moria:


> Gandalf walked in front… In his left hand he held up his glimmering staff, the light of which just showed the ground before his feet; in his right he held his sword Glamdring. Behind him came Gimli… Behind the dwarf walked Frodo, and he had drawn … Sting. No gleam came from the blades of Sting or of Glamdring; … being the work of Elvish smiths of the Elder Days these swords shone with a cold light, if any Orcs were near at hand.


It is not explicitly stated that Gandalf used his sword in the fight in the Chamber of Mazarbul, but it certainly seems a reasonable conclusion; nor is it specifically stated that he drew sword at Helm’s Deep; but if someone were to argue that he did use the sword in either case, and the only rebuttal was, “it isn’t specifically stated that he did,” it seems to me that there remains a sensible argument for the possibility, even likelihood, that he did. (This is related to _arguments from ignorance_, that happy little minefield of epistemological inference.)


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 14, 2018)

Ah yes, and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Thanks for the citation -- I'd forgotten that one. Although the circumstances seem to indicate that it, as well as Sting, are being used here as "orc-detectors" rather than weapons. Neither Aragorn nor Boromir appear to have drawn their swords.

Whatever the case, I'm finding it notable that in the whole of LOTR, he's shown using it only in the fight with the Balrog.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Aug 14, 2018)

Maybe this whole point about using or not using a sword has drifted away from the original subject... while I always wondered what the point has been for Aragorn and all of his forefathers to carry around a broken unusable sword in the wilderness anyway!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 14, 2018)

Oh, that's a whole other can o' worms! 

Here's an old thread:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php?threads/aragorns-weapon.2794/

Wasn't there a recent one?


----------



## Barliman (Aug 14, 2018)

On the drawing of swords at the Black Gate it just seems implausible they wouldn't draw them as the assault crashed in to the defenders.
While Aragorn and Gandalf were not in the very front line, not having their swords drawn would put them at a distinct disadvantage if an Orc or Troll suddenly broke through and gained the top of the mound.




Ron Simpson said:


> Can't find the reference, but I recall Orcrist and Glamdring being referred to as 'mated blades'. I always took that to mean that they were made as a pair and used as a pair. In other words, I envisioned Turgon wielding them simultaneously in battle: one in each hand.


It was the scene describing the fellowship departing from Rivendell and what "weapons of war" they each carried.

I don't know much sword terminology so I took "mated" to mean a matched pair, or a pair made at the same time with slight difference in details but made in the same style.
Since the both glowed when orcs were near perhaps that could even refer to the way in which they were "mated".
But Alcuin said it better than I.



Merroe said:


> Maybe this whole point about using or not using a sword has drifted away from the original subject... while I always wondered what the point has been for Aragorn and all of his forefathers to carry around a broken unusable sword in the wilderness anyway!


When Aragorn left Mirkwood to head for Bree it wouldn't have been far out of his way to stop in Rivendell to get his sword. While he wasn't necessarily aware that Gandalf would leave the note for the Hobbits about the sword that was broken, he knew the reference and may have assumed Gandalf would likely use it as "proof" of who he was.
Pure speculation of course, but it's one answer to the riddle.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Aug 17, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Here's an old thread:
> 
> http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php?threads/aragorns-weapon.2794/
> 
> Wasn't there a recent one?



I wasn't paying attention but found that link of yours (finally), SES. Thank you for that.

Most interesting. Many, many opinions and guessing. Might be that Barliman's suggestion in the previous post, quick and very short though it be, is the most logical of all.

Far out of context from the original thread, I do thank both nonetheless.


----------



## darkG (Sep 3, 2018)

Keeping with the side-track topic of magical objects such as staffs and rings, Gandalf explicitly says he needs something to work with, when they are hindered by snow at the pass of Caradhras (as I recall). He used pine-cones in The Hobbit, rather than creating fireworks from thin air. (Interestingly, I think he uses the staff to ignite the cones?) 

So at least his particular specialty of light and fire magic requires physical objects, at least some applications of it. So his staff could just be specially suitable to emit light and facilitate other tricks, rather than be inherently magical? However, at Moria, I get the impression he used energy present in the staff itself to brake the bridge. Then again it could be just a conduit? Breaking from overload.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 3, 2018)

Yes -- he says "I cannot burn snow"; it's like a fire lighter. I see the staff functioning more as in your second suggestion: the staff has power _in the hands of a wizard_, but not otherwise.

Glad to see you're still here, DarkG!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 5, 2018)

On the origins of Saruman's ring, I've found this, in a draft that Christopher Tolkien thought came between the fourth and fifth versions of "The Council of Elrond":

_'. . .but Saruman has long studied the works of the Enemy to defeat him, and the lore of rings was his especial knowledge. The last of the 19 rings he had. . .'
_
The Treason of Isengard, p. 132

In a note on this passage (p. 138, note 28) CT says:

_I cannot make out the two concluding words, though the first might be 'gathered'. But whatever the words are, the meaning is clearly that Saruman had acquired the last of the Rings --and wore it on his finger. . .
_
And it appears on the next page of the draft (p. 133):

_'Saruman was there but he had changed. He wore a ring on his finger.'
_
The conception of Saruman's ring as one of the Great Rings was dropped -- I'm guessing because Tolkien came to realize the many problems it would entail -- but the ring itself remained. Interestingly, Saruman's boast on the same page reads:

_'For I am Saruman: Saruman the Wise, Saruman of many colours.'
_
Note that "Ring-maker" is not present; I've not yet found the stage where it entered.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Sep 6, 2018)

Wow! My compliments SES, that you found that!

So, as an alternative "scenario", maybe this whole notion of that ring on Saruman's finger might just be a left-over from previous text versions!? Wouldn't be the first time this has been noticed.

Strangely, since 7+9+3 makes 19, of which 9 and 3 are accounted for in the tale, this ought to have been a Dwarf ring; not just one of the minor rings the Elves had made in Ost-in-Edhil.

But if so, it would still be of no consequence in the final text version.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 6, 2018)

Yes, it would have to be one of the Dwarf-rings -- their fates, at least, are left somewhat ambiguous.

I did think it possible that the ring was one of those "vestigial remnants"; as you point out; there are plenty of them scattered throughout LOTR. But then, how to explain the deliberate introduction of "Ring-maker" at some later point?

I'll have to keep looking.


----------

