# Why did Gandalf have to be SO, SO sure (about the Ring)?



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 17, 2020)

When Bilbo disappears right after his long-expected party, and Gandalf's suspicion is roused, he goes off to find out some more... and does. Took him seventeen years to be certain. Well, he had a lot to do, of course. But when he speaks to Frodo in Bag End he says he knew right from the get-go that Bilbo clearly possessed a Great Ring. "The Three are accounted for, the Seven are destroyed or taken, the Nine the Nazgul keep..." (I'm quoting this from memory) 

Well, isn't it obvious, then, that Bilbo has got the One Ring? I mean, what else could it be? If they'd acted in 3001 (or better yet, 2941) it might have saved some time and trouble. And if ascertaining the Ring's identity was first and top priority, isn't the annals of Gondor the first place you'd look? As opposed to many years later?


----------



## Alice (Apr 17, 2020)

Well, I recall that there were some other rings, besides the twenty. Maybe he just needed to be sure that Bilbo's ring isn't one of the magic rings made before the One and the rest


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 17, 2020)

There were other "lesser" rings, although JRRT remained vague about whatever happened to them. Bilbo could posibly, maybe, have had one of those.

_In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles – yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous._​
The difference with the "greater" rings is that they would provide unnatural long life to their bearers; an aspect which Gandalf started to observe with Bilbo (among other things).

As regards the time it took Gandalf to understand that Bilbo held the One Ring, just read his own (long) tale at the Council of Elrond, which I don't think I should quote here in full length. Basically, alerted by the enemy's great interest in Bilbo's ring, he and Aragorn went chasing Gollum and eventually interrogated him; but Gandalf also managed to find old manuscripts in Minas Tirith which let him to perform the final fire test at Bag End.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 17, 2020)

There were indeed lesser rings, of course, but Gandalf says it was plain to him from the very beginning that Bilbo had a Great Ring. Again, there are twenty great rings, nineteen of which were accounted for. So... ?


----------



## Alice (Apr 17, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> There were indeed lesser rings, of course, but Gandalf says it was plain to him from the very beginning that Bilbo had a Great Ring. Again, there are twenty great rings, nineteen of which were accounted for. So... ?


 
Mm, you're right. It could be easier if Gandalf threw the Ring into the fire after Bilbo's departure from the Shire and didn't make Frodo wait for 17 years. But maybe he didn't know at that time that it should be done to reveal the truth? Or he supposed, that Bilbo somehow managed to have another ring (I don't really remember, was it exactly known that the rest were destroyed/in the hands of the enemy in the beginning of the LOTR). Or it just has no sense


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 17, 2020)

I'm not exactly complaining, because it's a very strange passage, to me---like a Tolkien signature. He was famously fastidious and endlessly concerned with details... think about it, can you really imagine any other writer suspending the timeline for 17 years while a wizard figures out if it's the Ring, when it was bleeding obvious already from the evidence? One of the beauties of art, to me, is when it doesn't make sense, when it's just some private quirk of the author.


----------



## Alice (Apr 17, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> I'm not exactly complaining, because it's a very strange passage, to me---like a Tolkien signature. He was famously fastidious and endlessly concerned with details... think about it, can you really imagine any other writer suspending the timeline for 17 years while a wizard figures out if it's the Ring, when it was bleeding obvious already from the evidence? One of the beauties of art, to me, is when it doesn't make sense, when it's just some private quirk of the author.



Maybe it is so. But regardless of Tolkien's detailed work, Lotr, especially in the beginning, has some strange moments. Like the situation when several nazgul can't find a hobbit with the Ring right near them. 
But maybe it made sense for him. Like Tom Bombadill - he didn't know, who and why is it, but considered this character very important for himself


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 17, 2020)

Perhaps the chapter "The Council of Elrond" provides a hint, or more than that, of why Gandalf wanted to be so extra special sure. There was no end of "yes-buttery", by participants, Elves among them, if this could really, really be the One Ring. Certainly its reappearance, after more than 2900 years since its disappearance, would have been (was) a matter of utterly singular importance, with the threat of doom. Now the "go-to-guy" in matters of the Elven Rings would have been Saruman, who made their study (and this much was known to the White Council, at any rate) his specialty. But my firm belief is that Gandalf no longer trusted Saruman after the meeting of the White Council in 2851, 150 years before the "Long-expected Party", when Gandalf urged an attack on Dol Guldur, after having been there and meeting Thrain just before the latter's death the year before, but being overruled by Saruman. Perhaps Thrain is also a pointer: yes, the fates of The Three and The Nine were known, but not necessarily of The Seven.

Appendix B seems to me to provide a clue as to what Gandalf wanted most urgently: to "talk" with Gollum, if possible:
3001 - Gandalf suspects [Bilbo's] ring to be the One Ring. … Gandalf seeks for news of Gollum and calls on the help of Aragorn.
3009 - Gandalf and Aragorn renew their hunt for Gollum at intervals during the next eight years, … At some time during these years, Gollum himself ventured into Mordor, and was captured by Sauron (note: Gollum had reached "the confines of Mordor" and became "acquainted with Shelob" (???) back around 2980!!!)
3017 - Gollum is released from Mordor. He is taken by Aragorn in the Dead Marshes, and brought to Thranduil in Mirkwood [where Gandalf at last managed to "talk" with him, as he describes in the Council of Elrond]. Gandalf visits Minas Tirith and reads the scroll of Isildur.

So if Gollum is the focal point in Gandalf's considerations (for whatever reason), that explains the time lag of about 17 years. I actually find the following more puzzling:

12 April 3018 - Gandalf reaches Hobbiton - and has that long talk with Frodo described in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past", which includes the fire-test of the One Ring, revealing its inscription. *That* would have been, is my feeling, the time for Frodo to head off for Rivendell. Instead, Gandalf, despite his doubts about Saruman that he clearly told Frodo about during their talk, heads of to see Saruman, of all people. Yes, there was the bit about Frodo's departure not being like Bilbo's in TH, but rather seeming natural (and Frodo only retiring to Crickhollow in the Buckland). Still, this seems to me to have been the time to *be* hasty, in contradiction to good old Treebeard.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 17, 2020)

Yeah, it seems to be the Gollum business that really slowed him up. I get it... he wanted to know where Gollum found the Ring, what he may have revealed to the Dark Lord, etc. All no doubt important, but not nearly as much as the crucial question: is it really the Ring at all? What it took him years and years to think of ("I wonder if Isildur left any note that might identify it, somewhere in the records room?") could have been thought of much sooner, and then Gollum, and word on what's reached Sauron, could have been handled after the fact by Aragorn or someone, while Gandalf himself escorts Frodo to Rivendell. 

Elrond, who was present at the battle of the Last Alliance, and who undoubtedly knew that the Seven were accounted for, might have quelled a bit of "yes-buttery," and possibly even known about the fire test. Here's the thing too: One Ring or not, isn't it wise to get it to Rivendell, lickity-split? Then they could ask all those questions after. Leaving a Great Ring, any Great Ring, in the Shire unguarded while you roam all over Middle-earth does strike me as incredibly reckless. 

Yes, let's say they'd brought it to Rivendell straightaway after Bilbo left---I know Bilbo went there himself, so it seems a bit absurd, but still, bear with me... let's say they wait a few months, enough time to deliberate, and then head there themselves. Convene the White Council. Saruman, however corrupt, could hardly have wrested it away from Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel combined. But then, it might have bred such strife it defeated the purpose... hmm. This is a tricky one. It does appear fated that all of them met in Imladris at once and then they had to deal with it. Still reads as incredibly strange, though. You're right, Olorgando... go to Saruman, at that time of all times? Couldn't have paid a visit to Galadriel, for example? But maybe he trusted her even less, with a Ring... and with good reason, it turns out. Noldor rebel, power-hungry. She passed the test, but how was he to know that?


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 17, 2020)

I just remembered something, from the Council of Elrond. Gandalf meeting Radagast just south of Bree, when Radagast told Gandalf that the Nazgûl had crossed the Anduin, and brought the message from Saruman that Gandalf should meet him immediately, or it could be too late. Then Gandalf leaving the letter with Butterbur to deliver to Frodo, and heading off to the meeting with Saruman.

I guess we need to be careful, having read the book several times, with our 20/20 hindsight. To what degree Gandalf mistrusted Saruman before being imprisoned by him is not clear, and perhaps against the Nazgûl at least he could still have been thought of as an ally. Obviously, the treachery of Saruman was a big eye-opener for all at the Council of Elrond.


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 18, 2020)

I think as well that we can forgive Gandalf for leaving the ring in the Shire for so long while he sought more information, precisely because it was in an out of the way place held by someone you wouldn't dream of having it; as far as anyone knew the Ring had washed into the Sea - wouldn't Gandalf have felt it quite secret and safe? The Hobbits were a totally unknown people, the Shire was a sleepy backwater which had never troubled the counsels of the Wise, as it were? Was there any great delay once events proved that the Shire was now no longer unknown to the various players?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 18, 2020)

Not really. Gandalf reached the Shire April 12 to make the "final test". He learned from Radagast at the end of June that the Nine were abroad. He would have returned, and likely left again soon after, accompanying Frodo, had he not decided to consult with Saruman, and then been imprisoned by him. A major mistake, as he himself admitted.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 18, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Not really. Gandalf reached the Shire April 12 to make the "final test". He learned from Radagast at the end of June that the Nine were abroad. He would have returned, and likely left again soon after, accompanying Frodo, had he not decided to consult with Saruman, and then been imprisoned by him. A major mistake, as he himself admitted.


Yes, Gandalf's doubts about Saruman impress me as more of a vague "gut feeling" than any specific suspicion. It did lead Gandalf to withholding all of his suspicions about Bilbo's ring, which began in 3001 TA, from Saruman (and Saruman was withholding massively more information from Gandalf, or for that matter the entire White Council). The hindsight of the tale Gandalf told of his imprisonment by Saruman at the Council of Elrond was, as is my guess, a big eye-opener for all at the council. It reinforces the point about the five Maiar sent to Middle-earth, in humanoid Istari guises, were severely limited in displaying their native powers (something that has always annoyed me, as Melkor and then Sauron never felt any such compunctions, but were never given the "butt-whipping" that they massively deserved - which would have to have been given by Eru "personally"), They had incarnations that, while long-lived on the scale of Elves, were still liable to destruction (as happened with Gandalf and, at the end, Saruman). And to many tribulations associated with such a potential mortality - including making mistakes. But my feeling is that not even a council of the Valar and Maiar, and never mind the White Council or that of Elrond, could have foreseen all that happened.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 18, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Gandalf says it was plain to him from the very beginning that Bilbo had a Great Ring



SirEowyn, I vaguely remember having read this too, so I am quite certain that you are right, however I cannot locate this bit.
With thanks, can you remind me where exactly you have this from?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 18, 2020)

It's from "The Shadow of the Past":


> 'Let me see---it was in the year that the White Council drove the dark power from Mirkwood, just before the Battle of Five Armies, that Bilbo found his ring. A shadow fell on my heart then, though I did not know yet what I feared. I wondered often how Gollum came by a Great Ring, as plainly it was---that at least was clear from the first.'


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 18, 2020)

Also in "The Shadow of the Past" is Gandalf's statement that The Seven have also "been accounted for". But this was April 3018 TA, so perhaps a definite "accounting for" had only become clear shortly before that. I know I'm grasping at straws, but as secretive as the seven peoples of the Dwarves (and where in Middle-earth did all of them live? This could have covered an immense territory!) were about their Great Rings might have made finding any information about them about as difficult as about The Three Great Elven Rings. Possibly for Gandalf much more difficult, as he held Narya himself, and had close contact with the holders of the other two, Vilya (held by Elrond), and Nenya (held by Galadriel).


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 18, 2020)

Ah, there you go... yeah, I suppose it's possible it took a little while to be sure it wasn't one of the Seven. He never mentions visiting the Dwarves and asking, but he could have.

As for the Ring being safe in the Shire, unsuspected... yes, but that window was dangerously narrow from the very beginning. Gandalf knew that Gollum was out there, enraged without his precious, and that the Enemy could get hold of him and find it all out (as later happened).


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 18, 2020)

Could there have been any doubt as to whether Bilbo's ring once belonged to one of the Nazgul? If the Seven were accounted for, and the Three well known to Gandalf, could he still have wondered whether one of the Nine had been lost?
I mean he obviously knew that the Nazgul were abroad, but was there a chance that he could think not all of their rings had been taken by Sauron?


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 19, 2020)

The Nazgûl first appeared in 2251 *Second* Age. That was 1190 years before the War of the Last Alliance led to Sauron's (temporary) downfall at the end of that Age in 3441. Or over 4200 years before the War of The Ring. I suppose by that time it was clear what had happened to The Nine, though I do wonder how it became known that Sauron had actually been able to take The Nine from the Nazgûl and still keep control over the latter, keeping their rings in Barad-dûr (perhaps in a vault in the foundations, which remained undestroyed when the rest of the tower fell at the end of the Second Age).


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 19, 2020)

Wow, I didn't even realize Sauron kept the Nine... I must have missed something, somewhere. I thought the Nazgul wore them, kept them on their person.


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 19, 2020)

I always kind of thought that the actual Rings didn't matter once the Nine Mortal Men had been completely enslaved and became the Ringwraiths. I suppose I thought that the Rings had been the device to ensnare them, and then once that was accomplished, it wouldn't really matter whether the actual Rings themselves were kept by Sauron, or the Wraiths, or even lost or stolen at some time.
Although I suppose there is a massive clue in them being called Ringwraiths!

And if the Nine Rings were so successful in enslaving Men, what does this mean about the Seven given to the Dwarfs? There are obviously no short, bad-tempered Nazgul around, so does this mean that the Rings were different in their intention for some reason, or more along the lines of the Dwarvish reaction being different because of their innate character?


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 19, 2020)

Yes, but do they actually hold the Rings (I mean the Nine), or does Sauron? Does anyone know?

From what I remember, the Seven were meant to enslave the Dwarves, but Sauron found that he couldn't. You can't do that to Dwarves, like you can with Men. Too stubborn.


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 19, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> From what I remember, the Seven were meant to enslave the Dwarves, but Sauron found that he couldn't. You can't do that to Dwarves, like you can with Men. Too stubborn.


This being the case, then the Rings could be resisted; Gollum shows this, as does Bilbo, to a lesser extent. Does this mean that Sauron would be rightly afraid that, if the right candidate turned up, the One Ring could be resisted, and perhaps even used against him? I'm not suggesting that this would be the case, just that it's perhaps what sauron actually believed?
If that is correct, then it would make sense that the Nine Rings would be carefully guarded by Sauron?


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 19, 2020)

I don't think any other ring could be used against him, apart from the One... but that one, you wouldn't need to resist it. Succumbing to it entirely would give you the power, dark as it is, to build enough strength to overthrow him. Bit of a risky thing to make, for Sauron, now that you think of it... I guess the moral is, if you ever make a One Ring to rule everything, keep your finger away from all swords when you're fighting any Last Alliance. It could disappear for millennia and then turn up to threaten you.


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 20, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> . Bit of a risky thing to make, for Sauron, now that you think of it...
> I suppose he made the One Ring to focus, or channel all his power; in the same way that Wizards used staffs perhaps? Possibly he felt so powerful that he never gave a thought to ever losing it? From his point of view, losing it to Isildur was a horrible accident! Perhaps made worse by the knowledge of just how weak Isildur proved to be?


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 20, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Yes, but do they actually hold the Rings (I mean the Nine), or does Sauron? Does anyone know?



I can't find the right tread about this, but I remember this was discussed in extenso some time ago. This aspect comes up from to time...

In "Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth", Part 3 "The Hunt for the Ring", we can read:
​_"At length he [= Sauron] resolved that no others would serve him in this case but his mightiest servants, the Ringwraiths, who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held."_​
A little further, in the same story:

_"They were by far the most powerful of his servants, and the most suitable for such a mission, since they were entirely enslaved to their Nine Rings, which he now himself held; [...]"_​


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 20, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Wow, I didn't even realize Sauron kept the Nine... I must have missed something, somewhere. I thought the Nazgul wore them, kept them on their person.


"Shadow of the Past" again:
"So it is now: the Nine he has gathered to himself; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed [three recovered, four destroyed by Dragons]".
Now when he "gathered" it from Thráin, whom Gandalf found dying in Dol Guldur in 2851 TA, he clearly took it away from him - driving Thráin mad (not the sole reason, I would assume, but definitely a "straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back" situation). Otherwise, the Great Rings given to the Dwarves had proven to be singularly *in*effective; those given to men singularly effective. Reducing them to such slavery as to eliminate the need for them to continue wearing their Great Rings. Even Hobbits - Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam - proved far more resilient to even the One Ring. Boy, were humans ever pushovers, just pathetic!

PS: OK, Merroe has dug out other sources. Not *quite* canon, perhaps ...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 20, 2020)

Is this the thread you were thinking of, Merroe?








What happened with the Ring of the King of the Nazgûl


After the ONE RING is dissapeared in the fires of the Orodruin, the eight rings of the Nazgûl were destroyed. But what happened with the ninth ring of the Witch-King? Does anybody know?




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 20, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Is this the thread you were thinking of, Merroe?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, that's right SES !


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 20, 2020)

Ah, thanks for that.


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 20, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> "Shadow of the Past" again:
> "So it is now: the Nine he has gathered to himself; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed [three recovered, four destroyed by Dragons]".
> Now when he "gathered" it from Thráin, whom Gandalf found dying in Dol Guldur in 2851 TA, he clearly took it away from him - driving Thráin mad (not the sole reason, I would assume, but definitely a "straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back" situation). Otherwise, the Great Rings given to the Dwarves had proven to be singularly *in*effective; those given to men singularly effective. Reducing them to such slavery as to eliminate the need for them to continue wearing their Great Rings. Even Hobbits - Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam - proved far more resilient to even the One Ring. Boy, were humans ever pushovers, just pathetic!
> 
> PS: OK, Merroe has dug out other sources. Not *quite* canon, perhaps ...


So is there ever a suggestion that the actual Rings were in any way different? Could the Dwarf Rings just have been less effective in themselves, or the Nine Rings more effective than any others (barring the One Ring of course)?


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 20, 2020)

Well, it actually seems, if you look at it, that the more of a kind of ring there is, the less powerful. The One of course is the mightiest, then the Three... so we can maybe assume that the Seven are more powerful than the Nine, and that Dwarves are just that tough. Nice bit of disparagement of human nature on Tolkien's part...


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 20, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Well, it actually seems, if you look at it, that the more of a kind of ring there is, the less powerful. The One of course is the mightiest, then the Three... so we can maybe assume that the Seven are more powerful than the Nine, and that Dwarves are just that tough. Nice bit of disparagement of human nature on Tolkien's part...


Well that's an intersting thought. So the Nine Rings, being more diluted, as it were, should actually have been the easiest to resist? Like you say, nice put down by Tolkien!


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 20, 2020)

Yeah, I just thought of that now, but what a burn! The Elves can wield great power with them, the Dwarves just get a bit greedier, but Men are reduced to shapeless, formless slaves to his will, through the weakest rings. Of course there's no strict proof for that, but it all adds up.


----------



## Barliman (Apr 21, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> When Bilbo disappears right after his long-expected party, and Gandalf's suspicion is roused, he goes off to find out some more... and does. Took him seventeen years to be certain. Well, he had a lot to do, of course. But when he speaks to Frodo in Bag End he says he knew right from the get-go that Bilbo clearly possessed a Great Ring.


It seems my reply never made it to the thread, probably got distracted and closed my tab before hitting submit.
Anyway, I'm too lazy to retype all the quote, but if you go back and read the relevant part, you'll see Gandalf said he didn't know, only suspected. That's why he left to do research.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 22, 2020)

Well, no, he does say it was obvious from the very beginning that Bilbo had a Great Ring. In "Shadow of the Past," as Squint-eyed kindly quoted.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 22, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Well, no, he does say it was obvious from the very beginning that Bilbo had a Great Ring. In "Shadow of the Past," as Squint-eyed kindly quoted.



Yes, he said that, and whilst supposing that a “Great Ring” has to be understood as a “Ring of Power” (which would normally be right), in what follows next he nonetheless confirms repeatedly that he had doubts and long felt uncertain about the true nature of Bilbo's ring:

_That was the first real warning I had that all was not well._​​_I might perhaps have consulted Saruman the White, but something always held me back._​​_I knew at last that something dark and deadly was at work._​
My preferred interpretation is that, whereas Gandalf could be certain that it was a magic ring made by the elves in Eregion, he was initially in the dark about the true nature of said ring.


----------



## Barliman (Apr 22, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Well, no, he does say it was obvious from the very beginning that Bilbo had a Great Ring. In "Shadow of the Past," as Squint-eyed kindly quoted.


My bad. I misread your post, thought you were saying he was sure it was the One, when in fact you were asking why didn't he know it was the One from the start.
I was going on the premise that one of the "taken" might have been lost and found by Gollum.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Apr 22, 2020)

But what if Bilbo's/Frodo's ring wasn't the One Ring, and even worse Gandalf made the mistake of thinking it was. That would mean mounting the expedition to destroy it in Mt Doom with all its dangers. Meanwhile Sauron could still get hold of the One Ring!


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 22, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> But what if Bilbo's/Frodo's ring wasn't the One Ring, and even worse Gandalf made the mistake of thinking it was. That would mean mounting the expedition to destroy it in Mt Doom with all its dangers. Meanwhile Sauron could still get hold of the One Ring!


Ah, no!  I think the Council of Elrond, and the test in "Shadow of the Past" revealing the inscription put any such doubts to rest permanently.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Apr 22, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Ah, no!  I think the Council of Elrond, and the test in "Shadow of the Past" revealing the inscription put any such doubts to rest permanently.


Hence the importance that Gandalf took the time to be sure - that's the point I'm making. Several years was not too long provided Sauron didn't know where it was.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 22, 2020)

That's actually a hilarious possible theory... suppose they had the wrong ring all along, and Sauron's downfall at the end was psychosomatic.


----------



## Aramarien (Apr 22, 2020)

After The Hobbit was published, it became very popular and readers were clamoring for more stories about hobbits. When Tolkien decided to write a "sequel" or another story, he tried to find a link between his published work and his new story and that link was The Ring. Indeed, the original story of finding the Ring and the meeting of Gollum is different in the original work. Tolkien rewrote it and referenced how it was different. Gandalf asked Frodo if he knew about The Ring. Frodo said that Bilbo told him the "real" story, not what Bilbo told the others initially.
The first chapter of LOTR was written not long after The Hobbit was published, and Tolkien left LOTR many times, even years before he picked up the story again. One can see the difference in the writing and tone of the first chapters to the later ones that became more "serious". 
I wonder, too, if Tolkien wanted that "magic age" of 50 for Frodo to leave as the same age Bilbo was when he first went on his adventure and that may be one explanation of waiting 17 years. Gandalf does say he knew it was one of the Great Rings, when Bilbo first found it. But at the time of the finding, he may have thought it was one of the dwarven rings. Gandalf held one of the three. Nothing was said if the Three could be aware of the nine and the seven, or even The One. 
The One Ring would be able to lay bare the Three. Could Gandalf sense, through his ring, that Bilbo's ring was a "great ring"? 
I think I'm asking too many questions and not answering, but thoughts to ponder.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 23, 2020)

Aramarien said:


> … The first chapter of LOTR was written not long after The Hobbit was published, and Tolkien left LOTR many times, even years before he picked up the story again. ...


True, but especially the first chapter was one he re-wrote multiple times, even at the beginning. And JRRT wrote back into earlier chapters, after he had finished in about 1949, to alleviate the most egregious discrepancies. But he still left much in a tone close to TH, if perhaps the later chapters (TH is also not uniform, not nearly so, across all chapters!). LoTR moves easily across all five of Northrop Frye's literary modes (Myth, Romance, High Mimesis, Low Mimesis, and Irony). I don't know of any other piece of literature by any other writer that has even attempted to *try* this, never mind pull it off as JRRT triumphantly did (another point those immensely obtuse critics were blind to - come to think of it, how did they, apparently terminally incompetent, ever get their jobs as critics in the first place?).


Sir Eowyn said:


> That's actually a hilarious possible theory... suppose they had the wrong ring all along, and Sauron's downfall at the end was psychosomatic.


Not theory - hypothesis is the applicable term; many "confuse" the two terms, and my opinion of 99% of the people who do so is PG-18 - if I feel relaxed and serene. If grumpy, my opinions belong to stuff needing to be regulated by SALT, START, INF and the like treaties.
The test in "Shadow of the Past" revealing the inscription makes any speculation obsolete and irrelevant.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Apr 23, 2020)

But the test in Shadow of the Past was done ****years**** after Gandalf first knew that Bilbo had found a ring. Why are you ignoring this point? My point is that Gandalf was correct to take time (years) to discover how to confirm the true nature of Bilbo's ring rather than rushing to a possibly wrong assumption that it was the One Ring when he first found out that Bilbo had it. Please engage with this point in your next post, Olorgando!


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 23, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> But what if Bilbo's/Frodo's ring wasn't the One Ring, and even worse Gandalf made the mistake of thinking it was. That would mean mounting the expedition to destroy it in Mt Doom with all its dangers. Meanwhile Sauron could still get hold of the One Ring!





Rivendell_librarian said:


> But the test in Shadow of the Past was done ****years**** after Gandalf first knew that Bilbo had found a ring. Why are you ignoring this point? My point is that Gandalf was correct to take time (years) to discover how to confirm the true nature of Bilbo's ring rather than rushing to a possibly wrong assumption that it was the One Ring when he first found out that Bilbo had it. Please engage with this point in your next post, Olorgando!


I have elaborated in several posts why I think Gandalf spent so much time verifying that this (probably) Great RIng of Bilbo's was (or might not have been) the One Ring. The search for Gollum, for which there were a lot of good reasons, pretty much coincides with those 17 years until Aragorn finally managed capture Gollum, for one. But after the fire test in "Shadow of the Past" and "The Council of Elrond", I do not see how Gandalf, and all those present at the Council of Elrond, could still be mistaken, and would have mounted an expedition to Mount Doom with a wrong ring. I would like to know what hypothetical reasons there could be for the CoE deciding to mount such an expedition having mistaken, say, a Dwarven Great Ring (meaning only three had been devoured by Dragons beside the three Sauron had collected, would have to be the reason) for the One Ring? No fire test, perhaps no Council?


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 24, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Not theory - hypothesis is the applicable term; many "confuse" the two terms, and my opinion of 99% of the people who do so is PG-18 - if I feel relaxed and serene. If grumpy, my opinions belong to stuff needing to be regulated by SALT, START, INF and the like treaties.
> The test in "Shadow of the Past" revealing the inscription makes any speculation obsolete and irrelevant.



Bit of a joke I'd made there... obviously it's the One Ring. Hope that helps to save me from the dustbin of 99 percent. Theory, hypothesis... bit of semantics. Whichever one sounds better goes in the pot.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Apr 24, 2020)

You still don't get it do you Olorgando!

I'm ***not*** discussing the possibility of a mistake at the time of the fire test in Shadow of the Past or the Council of Elrond i.e. thinking Bilbo's/Frodo's ring was the One Ring when it wasn't _at that time_

I'm thinking of Gandalf making the same mistake but *at a much earlier time* i.e. when he first discovers that Bilbo has found a ring. You have not addressed this point yet.

So your "But after the fire test in "Shadow of the Past" and "The Council of Elrond", I do not see how Gandalf, and all those present at the Council of Elrond, could still be mistaken, and would have mounted an expedition to Mount Doom with a wrong ring. " was irrelevant to the point I have been making. An expedition could have been mounted at that years earlier time if Gandalf thought then it was the One Ring.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 24, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> ... I'm thinking of Gandalf making the same mistake but *at a much earlier time* i.e. when he first discovers that Bilbo has found a ring. You have not addressed this point yet. ...


I simply don't consider it a point, never mind one that needs addressing.
Maybe it's just a failure of my imagination (plausible), but I just don't see Gandalf rushing off on what would have been a wild-goose chase at some time between Bilbo's return to Hobbiton in 2942 TA and the long-expected party in 3001. It certainly would have given an entirely different story, however one tries to "motivate" it - which I don't.



Sir Eowyn said:


> ... Theory, hypothesis... bit of semantics. ...


Ah, no. There you run afoul of my wide reading in non-fiction, specifically natural sciences.
Yes, an OED or Webster's would in all likelihood now give two definitions for "theory", one of them "preambled" "in common usage".
Common usage being a nice way of saying in the lazy, unthinking, sloppy way we all too often mutilate our languages.
There is a reason why I can't read either "Beowulf" or the "Nibelungenlied" in the original anymore ...
But "theory" and "hypothesis" in the much stricter usage of the sciences, where they originate, has no such ambiguity.
Not that there's a sharp dividing line between the earlier one, the hypothesis, and what it can develop into, the theory.
At any point this "construct" (being, IIRC, an abstract, as it tends to be a generalization) can be shot down by being falsified.
Some hypotheses get caught early, nipped in the bud. Even some theories long "established" can go down in flames; or at least some part, some assumption must be corrected.
If it were simply a matter of our lazy, unthinking, sloppy use of language, I would sigh and shrug.
But when I have the impression that obfuscation is intended, I quickly go for the jugular. One of those things where I have done the exact opposite of mellowing with age.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 24, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> An expedition could have been mounted at that years earlier time if Gandalf thought then it was the One Ring.



I think that what is at issue is the timeline:

2941 Bilbo finds the Ring.​3001 Bilbo’s farewell feast.​3018 Gandalf tests the Ring.​
In other words, if Gandalf undertook such intensive action of clarifying the nature of Bilbo's ring in the last 17 years, then why did he do nothing the preceding 60 years.

Gandalf related this 60-year period to Frodo in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past":

Bilbo's lie made him uncomfortable: _"That was the first real warning I had that all was not well"_ (It is not related when exactly Gandalf got the truth out of Bilbo!?).
At least, Gandalf must have been checking out regularly on Bilbo in this period: _"I told Bilbo often that such rings were better left unused"_.
Bilbo was unforthcoming then: _"he resented it, and soon got angry"_.
Gandalf concluded in that period: _"There was little else that I could do. I could not take it from him without doing greater harm; and I had no right to do so anyway. I could only watch and wait"._
Meanwhile, Saruman was less than helpful: _"all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears. So my doubt slept – but uneasily"._
Gandalf's continued observation of Bilbo's evolution rendered him suspicious again after a time: _"And the years passed. Yes, they passed, and they seemed not to touch him. He showed no signs of age. The shadow fell on me again"._
It was eventually Bilbo's irrational reactions that convinced Gandalf: _"He said and did things then that filled me with a fear that no words of Saruman could allay. I knew at last that something dark and deadly was at work"_.
In summary, I think that this 60-year inactivity was explained by Gandalf's uncertainty (not to say lack of knowledge) and doubt that made this period go by without real action to the core of the problem, as well as by Saruman's deceptive statements.

Moreover, and from the viewpoint of constructing the storyline, JRRT needed to create a minimal time space for Sauron to build up power in Mordor sufficiently much to become both dangerous and acquire knowledge about the finding of the Ring.


----------



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

Part of our problem may lie with our temporal perspective. 60 years seems a long time to us mortals, but we're relative mayflies, compared to Gandalf, who had been in ME for 2,000 years. And the Ring had been lost for 3,000.

Compared to that, 60 is barely time enough for afternoon tea.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 24, 2020)

And never mind that things have speeded up ever more since the Third Age.
Just during my lifetime, there have been 7 popes, 12 US presidents, 8 German chancellors, 12 (largely ceremonial) German presidents, 8 French presidents, 13 UK prime ministers … all serving the same queen … erm. (I gave the list of Italian prime ministers a pass, especially as there are several "repeat offenders" in that list, making it even more confusing …)
Or take travel speeds. Someone, somewhere (meaning I'm too lazy to try and look it up, especially as I'm lost as to the book to look in) once calculated that Shadowfax, on that ride of ultimate urgency to Minas Tirith with Gandalf and Pippin aboard, managed an average of 20 mph. Checking out the Wiki article on the US Pony Express of 1860/61, it seems that the riders (sized rather closer to Pippin than to Gandalf), changing horses on the average about every 10 miles, and going on for an average of about 75 miles, took 10 hours to do this (averages depended on terrain). Shadowfax was almost three times as fast. A Japanese bullet train compared to steam locomotives dragging freight.
At 20 mph in my (or any other) car, at least outside of city limits, the ticket I'm liable to be slapped with would probably be for illegal parking ...


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 24, 2020)

Well, a hypothesis is something you can test for an experiment... that isn't possible here, with the author long dead. So call it a... crazy thought, with no basis in seriousness. That does it. Though I don't think there was much doubt as to my meaning... and I'll always defend things like my family's Yorkshire dialect against the homogenizing known as "received pronunciation" (actually based on George V's slight German accent over the radio), and always will agree with Montaigne on not to combat usage with grammar. In Shakespeare's day it was much, much looser... his use of things like "more faster" would cause conniption fits now.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 24, 2020)

Theories get tested by experiments, too. It fine-tunes them, respectively it's a test on how close they, being abstractions, fit empirical evidence, being specifics that may be observed. The gathering empirical evidence also tests the predictive power of theories (and hypotheses). Experiments can also very well be an attempt to look for explanations other than those proposed by theories, the falsification bit ("couldn't it be otherwise?"). An extreme result could lead to a paradigm shift, the most famous one being the shift from Ptolemaic to Copernican astronomy. The more alternative explanation attempts fail, the more plausible a theory becomes - and make no mistake about it, sciences *always* deal in plausibilities (making them a challenge for what's been called the "discontinuous mind", whose main urge and weakness is an irrepressible urge to pigeonhole).
And as for dialects and the sort, they are exceptions from a received norm. But one needs a norm to know what one is diverging from, a baseline. Scientific terminology, however, needs to be precise. Perhaps here the most obvious is the taxonomic nomenclature in Latin, something of an exercise in the discontinuous mind, if a necessary one. Species do tend to fall into bell curves or the like, with all the attendant averages, medians, modes and whatnot, That's why species have been shunted about on diagrams of descent and relations within larger taxonomic groups. Anyway, something that always raises my hackles is when laypeople use scientific nomenclature in a way that makes it obvious that they don't know what they're talking about. My absolute favorite is the "quantum leap (or jump)" when used by politicians (and never mind the even more habitual liars, advertisers). Common usage stands the scientifically precise term on its head, meaning the first person to use it in its common usage form must have been an exceptionally dense moron (of course, sinister intent can never be ruled out).


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Apr 24, 2020)

In the interests of peace, I'll assume I'm not actually being called a moron. Spirited debate and different analyses are all I'm here for, concerning good old Tolkien.


----------



## Shadow (Feb 16, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Part of our problem may lie with our temporal perspective. 60 years seems a long time to us mortals, but we're relative mayflies, compared to Gandalf, who had been in ME for 2,000 years. And the Ring had been lost for 3,000.
> 
> Compared to that, 60 is barely time enough for afternoon tea.


And for the duration of Bilbo’s possession of the ring nothing had happened. It’s fair to assume Gandalf thought he had ample time to explore the ring’s origins. And he did. It’s when they determine it IS the one ring, and the enemy is looking, that things become more problematic. Frodo taking his sweet time leaving and formulating his excuse for doing so.


----------



## Alcuin (Feb 16, 2021)

I think the main thing Gandalf was worried about, the reason he had “to be SO, SO sure (about the Ring),” is the inordinate, existential danger of “*an untimely whisper, if it went astray.*” (_FotR_, “Council of Elrond”) Gandalf’s tale indicates he told no one other than Aragorn of his suspicions, not even Elrond or Galadriel. As it was, despite the assistance of Gildor and the wandering companies of Elves, Aragorn and the Dúnedain Rangers, and even Tom Bombadil, Frodo and the Ring barely made it to Rivendell. 

Moreover, Gandalf trusted Saruman. True, Saruman was testy and occasionally arrogant, but he was recognized as a _friend_, an ally, appointed chief of the Istari by Manwë himself, and the leader of the White Council. Saruman insisted the One Ring had “rolled down [Anduin] to the Sea.” (_Ibidem_) *We* know why Saruman told what he knew to be untrue, but Gandalf did not: Gandalf trusted Saruman. Moreover, Gandalf told Frodo (“Shadow of the Past”) that Saruman’s “knowledge is deep, but his pride has grown with it, and he takes ill any meddling.” So again, Gandalf had reason to be cautious: he had no desire to aggravate Saruman.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Feb 16, 2021)

Shadow said:


> And for the duration of Bilbo’s possession of the ring nothing had happened. It’s fair to assume Gandalf thought he had ample time to explore the ring’s origins. And he did. It’s when they determine it IS the one ring, and the enemy is looking, that things become more problematic. Frodo taking his sweet time leaving and formulating his excuse for doing so.



Yes, but 60 years is plenty for massing armies and garrisoning Mordor, as Sauron lost no time in doing.

I do see people's arguments about secrecy and tact and what have you, and I think they're valid. But yes, the unaccountable one is Frodo's sweet time in leaving. I think the one change from the book which even the most die-hard purist can understand (for the movie) is picking up urgency right around that point in the story. I mean, you wait six months to leave the Shire (late September at that, for weather)? I know, I know... "You shouldn't disappear suddenly. It would attract attention." But remember, it took no time at all to track "Baggins" to Hobbiton, and from there to find Crickhollow. The few days' delay in realizing he's gone, was it equal to having left for Rivendell six months sooner? I know that Gandalf didn't know that the Nine were abroad, but it seems that Sauron, unlike some, have an urgent sense and don't sit on things. It's almost like Gandalf fancied Sauron would take six months himself to send them!


----------



## Shadow (Feb 16, 2021)

Sir Eowyn said:


> I think the one change from the book which even the most die-hard purist can understand (for the movie) is picking up urgency right around that point in the story. I mean, you wait six months to leave the Shire (late September at that, for weather)? I know, I know... "You shouldn't disappear suddenly. It would attract attention." But remember, it took no time at all to track "Baggins" to Hobbiton, and from there to find Crickhollow. The few days' delay in realizing he's gone, was it equal to having left for Rivendell six months sooner? I know that Gandalf didn't know that the Nine were abroad, but it seems that Sauron, unlike some, have an urgent sense and don't sit on things. It's almost like Gandalf fancied Sauron would take six months himself to send them!


Agreed. But I guess it's like Frodo causing a commotion inside the Prancing Pony. He shouldn't have done it but he did, allowing the enemy to get closer than they deserved and thus serving the plot's drama. The delay in Frodo's departure lacks urgency but at the same time it gives the feeling such a walk is a daunting undertaking and there's a sense of reluctance in undertaking it. The Shire was their safe haven.


----------

