The source of Ring-powers

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » The source of Ring-powers

The source of Ring-powers [message #245948]

Mi, 05 April 2006 18:41

chornedsnorkack

Where did the powers of the Rings come from?

As for the One Ring, its powers of invisibility, immortality and
domination of others seem to have been put there by Sauron, out of his
native power. Sauron of later Second Age, wielding the One, was more
powerful than the Sauron of early Second Age. But even then, he was by
no means all-powerful or invincible. Sauron using the One was
overpowered by simple military attack in the first War of Rings, again
by Ar-Pharazon and again in the War of Last Alliance.

On the other hand, Sauron after the best part of his power was
deposited in One and then destroyed with One was diminished. His 3rd
Age body was a work of the One Ring, and automatically ceased to exist
when the One was destroyed, nor could he get a new one. Maiar normally
cannot reform after being bodily killed - Sauron was an exception
exactly thanks to Ring.

I suspect that if Sauron had been somehow vanquished before his Second
Age body was first destroyed in Numenor (and he lost his power to
assume a fair form) and forcibly deprived of One, but left alive in his
physical form, he would have suffered a major diminution of his powers,
but continued to be alive and immortal. Something like Saruman was
after Gandalf broke his staff. Still evil, still with ability to lie
and manipulate, but much less dangerous than before making the One.

Also I suspect that the original purpose of Three, Seven, Nine and the
lesser rings was to amplify the power of their makers. The Elves of
Eregion put parts of their selves into their Rings. If all worked out,
they were more powerful than berfore, able to hold out Time, as was the
case from 1200...1590 to 1600 when Sauron made One and thereby denied
Elven use of Rings.

The Elves of Eregion took off their Rings and hid them in various
manners. Sauron recovered some, including Nine and Seven, but none of
the Three.

We know that Celebrimbor was captured alive by Sauron, tormented and
executed. Some Elves of Eregion may have shared that fate; others may
have died in fighting.

But Legolas says that the Elves of Eregion sought the Havens long ago.

This implies that at least some, and possibly many or most, escaped
Sauron.

As Legolas said, they all left. This means that no surviving Elves of
Eregion lived with Elrond in Rivendell, or with Cirdan in Havens, or
elsewhere on Middle-Earth, at the time of speaking or in recent past.

Why?

I suspect that the Elven smiths had deposited much of their being into
their Rings. Once Sauron denied them the use of their Rings, they were
diminished - diminished in respect to what they were before, and
diminished relative to Elves who had refused to be involved in making
Rings, like Cirdan, Gil-Galad, Elrond or Galadriel.

This would explain why the Elves of Eregion were, compared to Elrond
and Gil-Galad, unsuccessful in forcibly defending themselves. And also
why, in the aftermath of the War, they did not tarry on Middle-Earth
like Elrond and Gil-Galad did: shorn of a best part of their being,
they could not enjoy Middle-Earth

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #245967 ]

Fr, 07 April 2006 15:34

eroot

chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> Where did the powers of the Rings come from?
>
> As for the One Ring, its powers of invisibility, immortality and
> domination of others seem to have been put there by Sauron, out of his
> native power. Sauron of later Second Age, wielding the One, was more
> powerful than the Sauron of early Second Age. But even then, he was by
> no means all-powerful or invincible. Sauron using the One was
> overpowered by simple military attack in the first War of Rings, again
> by Ar-Pharazon and again in the War of Last Alliance.
>
> On the other hand, Sauron after the best part of his power was
> deposited in One and then destroyed with One was diminished. His 3rd
> Age body was a work of the One Ring, and automatically ceased to exist
> when the One was destroyed, nor could he get a new one.

This is not my take at all. I think he generated his 3rd-Age body by
native power, because he was still en rapport with the Ring, but after
the Ring was destroyed, the power was dispersed permanently, and his
reduced spirit was no longer powerful enough to generate a body. On
yeah, I also think that Sauron's body was immediately killed when Barad
Dur collapsed like a mighty skyscraper, having been erected unnaturally
tall and quickly by the power of the Ring. This is a lot different
than the idea that Sauron's physical form was destroyed directly by the
destruction of the Ring.

> Maiar normally
> cannot reform after being bodily killed - Sauron was an exception
> exactly thanks to Ring.
>

I have always gotten the impression that Maiar in their full
manifestation (not the purposefully-hobbled Wizards) could generate new
bodies. At least that feels better to me, but I cannot "quote
Scripture) against your interpretation. <8^)

> I suspect that if Sauron had been somehow vanquished before his Second
> Age body was first destroyed in Numenor (and he lost his power to
> assume a fair form)

I imagine that this is a sort of "Dorian Gray" effect. We also see it
in Morgoth: as he continues living a life of evil, his essential
character becomes more stamped-onto his physical form for all to see.
So everytime Sauron has to make a new body, he loses more of his
ability to bullsh*t people into thinking he's anything other than evil.
Also, it only took him a year to get a new body after Numenor, and he
had been able to carry the Ring out of the depths by sheer spiritual
force. The second time his body was destoyed, it took him hundreds of
years to get a new body, and he sure didn't lift the Ring out of
Isildur's pocket as the latter was walking away!

> and forcibly deprived of One, but left alive in his
> physical form, he would have suffered a major diminution of his powers,
> but continued to be alive and immortal. Something like Saruman was
> after Gandalf broke his staff.

Maybe, but I bet he would have gotten the Ring back pretty soon; in
Tolkien's world, Sauron is the supreme spirit of domination for evil.

> Still evil, still with ability to lie
> and manipulate, but much less dangerous than before making the One.
>
> Also I suspect that the original purpose of Three, Seven, Nine and the
> lesser rings was to amplify the power of their makers.

That was the bait; mental domination by Sauron was the hook.

> The Elves of
> Eregion put parts of their selves into their Rings.

Maybe in some artistic sense, but, while more spiritual that humans,
Elves are still not essentially spirits the way Maiar are.

(snip)

Eric Root

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #245969 ]

Fr, 07 April 2006 17:36

chornedsnorkack

eroot [at] swva.net wrote:
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> > Where did the powers of the Rings come from?
> >
> > As for the One Ring, its powers of invisibility, immortality and
> > domination of others seem to have been put there by Sauron, out of his
> > native power. Sauron of later Second Age, wielding the One, was more
> > powerful than the Sauron of early Second Age. But even then, he was by
> > no means all-powerful or invincible. Sauron using the One was
> > overpowered by simple military attack in the first War of Rings, again
> > by Ar-Pharazon and again in the War of Last Alliance.
> >
> > On the other hand, Sauron after the best part of his power was
> > deposited in One and then destroyed with One was diminished. His 3rd
> > Age body was a work of the One Ring, and automatically ceased to exist
> > when the One was destroyed, nor could he get a new one.
>
> This is not my take at all. I think he generated his 3rd-Age body by
> native power, because he was still en rapport with the Ring, but after
> the Ring was destroyed, the power was dispersed permanently, and his
> reduced spirit was no longer powerful enough to generate a body. On
> yeah, I also think that Sauron's body was immediately killed when Barad
> Dur collapsed like a mighty skyscraper, having been erected unnaturally
> tall and quickly by the power of the Ring. This is a lot different
> than the idea that Sauron's physical form was destroyed directly by the
> destruction of the Ring.
>
> > Maiar normally
> > cannot reform after being bodily killed - Sauron was an exception
> > exactly thanks to Ring.
> >
>
> I have always gotten the impression that Maiar in their full
> manifestation (not the purposefully-hobbled Wizards) could generate new
> bodies. At least that feels better to me, but I cannot "quote
> Scripture) against your interpretation. <8^)
>
The 1st Age Sauron could not. This was emphasized in the scene at Minas
Tirith when he was seized by Huan and threatened with bodily killing.
He was told that his spiri would be sent back naked to his master to
suffer his scorn forever.

It would seem that the ability to recover from bodily destruction is
something Sauron did not possess in 1st Age and acquired in 2nd Age
precisely through One Ring. Once the One Ring was destroyed, Sauron was
back at where he would have been if he had been slain in Minas Tirith -
game over except for eternally gnawing himself.

> > I suspect that if Sauron had been somehow vanquished before his Second
> > Age body was first destroyed in Numenor (and he lost his power to
> > assume a fair form)
>
> I imagine that this is a sort of "Dorian Gray" effect. We also see it
> in Morgoth: as he continues living a life of evil, his essential
> character becomes more stamped-onto his physical form for all to see.
> So everytime Sauron has to make a new body, he loses more of his
> ability to bullsh*t people into thinking he's anything other than evil.
> Also, it only took him a year to get a new body after Numenor, and he
> had been able to carry the Ring out of the depths by sheer spiritual
> force. The second time his body was destoyed, it took him hundreds of
> years to get a new body, and he sure didn't lift the Ring out of
> Isildur's pocket as the latter was walking away!
>
> > and forcibly deprived of One, but left alive in his
> > physical form, he would have suffered a major diminution of his powers,
> > but continued to be alive and immortal. Something like Saruman was
> > after Gandalf broke his staff.
>
> Maybe, but I bet he would have gotten the Ring back pretty soon; in
> Tolkien's world, Sauron is the supreme spirit of domination for evil.
>
Melkor was. And he did not actually come back in 2nd and 3rd Age.

> > Still evil, still with ability to lie
> > and manipulate, but much less dangerous than before making the One.
> >
> > Also I suspect that the original purpose of Three, Seven, Nine and the
> > lesser rings was to amplify the power of their makers.
>
> That was the bait; mental domination by Sauron was the hook.
>
> > The Elves of
> > Eregion put parts of their selves into their Rings.
>
> Maybe in some artistic sense, but, while more spiritual that humans,
> Elves are still not essentially spirits the way Maiar are.
>
But the ability of Elves to put themselves into their works and thereby
diminishing themselves is there. E. g. Feanor=B4s inability to create
the Silmarilli again.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #246905 ]

Mo, 10 April 2006 04:58

eroot

chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> eroot [at] swva.net wrote:
> > chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> > > Where did the powers of the Rings come from?
> > >
> > > As for the One Ring, its powers of invisibility, immortality and
> > > domination of others seem to have been put there by Sauron, out of his
> > > native power. Sauron of later Second Age, wielding the One, was more
> > > powerful than the Sauron of early Second Age. But even then, he was by
> > > no means all-powerful or invincible. Sauron using the One was
> > > overpowered by simple military attack in the first War of Rings, again
> > > by Ar-Pharazon and again in the War of Last Alliance.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, Sauron after the best part of his power was
> > > deposited in One and then destroyed with One was diminished. His 3rd
> > > Age body was a work of the One Ring, and automatically ceased to exist
> > > when the One was destroyed, nor could he get a new one.
> >
> > This is not my take at all. I think he generated his 3rd-Age body by
> > native power, because he was still en rapport with the Ring, but after
> > the Ring was destroyed, the power was dispersed permanently, and his
> > reduced spirit was no longer powerful enough to generate a body. On
> > yeah, I also think that Sauron's body was immediately killed when Barad
> > Dur collapsed like a mighty skyscraper, having been erected unnaturally
> > tall and quickly by the power of the Ring. This is a lot different
> > than the idea that Sauron's physical form was destroyed directly by the
> > destruction of the Ring.
> >
> > > Maiar normally
> > > cannot reform after being bodily killed - Sauron was an exception
> > > exactly thanks to Ring.
> > >
> >
> > I have always gotten the impression that Maiar in their full
> > manifestation (not the purposefully-hobbled Wizards) could generate new
> > bodies. At least that feels better to me, but I cannot "quote
> > Scripture) against your interpretation. <8^)
> >
> The 1st Age Sauron could not. This was emphasized in the scene at Minas
> Tirith when he was seized by Huan and threatened with bodily killing.
> He was told that his spiri would be sent back naked to his master to
> suffer his scorn forever.
>

I don't think we can take the opinions of Luthien as gospel; whe is
trying to spook Sauron, and, being only half Maia and and not any sort
of necromancer, Luthien conceivably is no authority on who actually is
or isn't stuck without a body. Also, Morgoth, if sufficiently
disappointeded in Sauron's performance, very likely could _prevent_
him from regenerating.

> It would seem that the ability to recover from bodily destruction is
> something Sauron did not possess in 1st Age and acquired in 2nd Age
> precisely through One Ring. Once the One Ring was destroyed, Sauron was
> back at where he would have been if he had been slain in Minas Tirith -
> game over except for eternally gnawing himself.
>
> > > I suspect that if Sauron had been somehow vanquished before his Second
> > > Age body was first destroyed in Numenor (and he lost his power to
> > > assume a fair form)
> >
> > I imagine that this is a sort of "Dorian Gray" effect. We also see it
> > in Morgoth: as he continues living a life of evil, his essential
> > character becomes more stamped-onto his physical form for all to see.
> > So everytime Sauron has to make a new body, he loses more of his
> > ability to bullsh*t people into thinking he's anything other than evil.
> > Also, it only took him a year to get a new body after Numenor, and he
> > had been able to carry the Ring out of the depths by sheer spiritual
> > force. The second time his body was destoyed, it took him hundreds of
> > years to get a new body, and he sure didn't lift the Ring out of
> > Isildur's pocket as the latter was walking away!
> >
> > > and forcibly deprived of One, but left alive in his
> > > physical form, he would have suffered a major diminution of his power=
s,
> > > but continued to be alive and immortal. Something like Saruman was
> > > after Gandalf broke his staff.
> >
> > Maybe, but I bet he would have gotten the Ring back pretty soon; in
> > Tolkien's world, Sauron is the supreme spirit of domination for evil.
> >
> Melkor was. And he did not actually come back in 2nd and 3rd Age.

Melkor was more powerful, but Sauron was specifically an agent of
control and manipulation. Tolkien said that Melkor was more into
destruction, while Sauron was more into running things, which fits with
his being originally a follower of Aule.

>
> > > Still evil, still with ability to lie
> > > and manipulate, but much less dangerous than before making the One.
> > >
> > > Also I suspect that the original purpose of Three, Seven, Nine and the
> > > lesser rings was to amplify the power of their makers.
> >
> > That was the bait; mental domination by Sauron was the hook.
> >
> > > The Elves of
> > > Eregion put parts of their selves into their Rings.
> >
> > Maybe in some artistic sense, but, while more spiritual that humans,
> > Elves are still not essentially spirits the way Maiar are.
> >
> But the ability of Elves to put themselves into their works and thereby
> diminishing themselves is there. E. g. Feanor=B4s inability to create
> the Silmarilli again.

Agreed. I wish some of the biggies on rabt would weigh in on this.
Some might think it angels-and-pinheads, but I think it is important
to Tolkien's simulated theology.

Eric Root

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #246911 ]

Mo, 10 April 2006 22:41

Troels Forchhammer

In message
<news:1144416875.120210.306620 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
eroot [at] swva.net enriched us with:
>
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
>> Where did the powers of the Rings come from?
>>
>> As for the One Ring, its powers of invisibility, immortality and
>> domination of others seem to have been put there by Sauron, out
>> of his native power.

The powers for invisibility and 'immortality' were also present in,
at the very least, the Nine, and probably didn't originate in an
infusion of native power from Sauron, even if he was the source of
these powers.

The invisibility probably came from Sauron, as is also suggested in
the FAQ of the Rings[1]. With respect to the longevity (I prefer that
to 'immortality') of the wearer, that might be seen as deriving from
the primary power of all the Rings: to prevent or slow decay.[2]
Whether the longevity, the stretching of life, was part of the
original scheme (allowing the wearer to live, as it were, on a pre-
Sun-and-Moon time scale), or a perversion introduced by Sauron of the
power to staying the effects of Time, cannot, I think, be said with
certainty.

The power to dominate the other Rings of Power (and, in particular,
their wearers) was the one thing that necessitated that Sauron infuse
the One Ring with part of his own native power (or energy). The
general power for domination is possibly an offshoot of this.

>> Sauron of later Second Age, wielding the One, was more powerful
>> than the Sauron of early Second Age.

I am reminded of the statement in /Myths Transformed/ (part 5 of HoMe
X, /Morgoth's Ring/) that, "Sauron was 'greater', effectively, in the
Second Age than Morgoth at the end of the First."

But of course there's a very important passage in letter #131 about
Sauron's forging of the One:

But to achieve this he had been obliged to let a great
part of his own inherent power (a frequent and very
significant motive in myth and fairy-story) pass into the
One Ring. While he wore it, his power on earth was actually
enhanced. But even if he did not wear it, that power
existed and was in 'rapport' with himself: he was not
'diminished'. Unless some other seized it and became
possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could
(if sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge
Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done
since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and
usurp his place. This was the essential weakness he had
introduced into his situation in his effort (largely
unsuccessful) to enslave the Elves, and in his desire to
establish a control over the minds and wills of his
servants. There was another weakness: if the One Ring was
actually unmade, annihilated, then its power would be
dissolved, Sauron's own being would be diminished to
vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a shadow, a
mere memory of malicious will. But that he never
contemplated nor feared.
[Letter #131, To Milton Waldman, probably late 1951]

>> But even then, he was by no means all-powerful or invincible.

The obvious answer would of course be to say that none but Eru is
that. That, however, wouldn't, I think, address the point, which I
think should rightfully be whether Sauron was invincible to the
forces of Middle-earth.

>> Sauron using the One was overpowered by simple military attack
>> in the first War of Rings, again by Ar-Pharazon and again in
>> the War of Last Alliance.

The extent of his 'defeat' by Ar-Pharazôn is arguable, but he was
still defeated by the Last Alliance.

Part of the point made at the Council of Elrond, however, is that
even though Sauron, at that point, not enhanced as he was when
actually in possession of the One Ring, the forces of Men and Elves
were then even more declined from the Last Alliance, so that they now
had barely the force to withstand Sauron's initial attackes, and
would not be able to withstand him, should he regain the One.

It is an important point that though Sauron is not invincible as
such, a military victory is still impossible without using the One
Ring (subverting some of Sauron's allies and ensuring their fanatical
loyalty).

>> On the other hand, Sauron after the best part of his power was
>> deposited in One and then destroyed with One was diminished. His
>> 3rd Age body was a work of the One Ring, and automatically ceased
>> to exist when the One was destroyed, nor could he get a new one.
>
> This is not my take at all. I think he generated his 3rd-Age body
> by native power, because he was still en rapport with the Ring,
> but after the Ring was destroyed, the power was dispersed
> permanently, and his reduced spirit was no longer powerful enough
> to generate a body.

That's about how I see it as well. Personally I prefer to accept
Tolkien's explanation in letter #200:
After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a
long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the
Downfall of Númenor (I suppose because each building-up
used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit, which
might be called the 'will' or the effective link between
the indestructible mind and being and the realization of
its imagination).
[Letter #200, From a letter to Major R. Bowen, June 1957]

I don't think the power, or energy, that Sauron had infused in the
One Ring could be bound up in a new body, since he had already
externalised that, binding it to the One Ring, but he could
nevertheless draw upon it. I don't think the new body would be like
Barad-dûr, which was founded with the power of the Ring; the creation
of the new body would have to use up some of the inherent energy that
was not already placed outside Sauron, though doing so probably
required that he had access to the power in the One Ring (I suppose
that, to some extent, that could be seen as the body being made with
[the aid of] that power).

> On yeah, I also think that Sauron's body was immediately killed
> when Barad Dur collapsed like a mighty skyscraper, having been
> erected unnaturally tall and quickly by the power of the Ring.
> This is a lot different than the idea that Sauron's physical
> form was destroyed directly by the destruction of the Ring.

It is, yes.

I can't say I've given that particular question much thought, but
this would, I think, be the logical consequence of my statements
above about the construction of the body.

The counter-argument would be to cite Gandalf's opinion:

If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be
so low that none can foresee his arising ever again. For he
will lose the best part of the strength that was native to
him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with
that power will crumble, and he will be maimed for ever,
becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the
shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape.
[LotR V,9 'The Last Debate']

>> Maiar normally cannot reform after being bodily killed - Sauron
>> was an exception exactly thanks to Ring.
>
> I have always gotten the impression that Maiar in their full
> manifestation (not the purposefully-hobbled Wizards) could
> generate new bodies. At least that feels better to me, but I
> cannot "quote Scripture) against your interpretation. <8^)

I would quote the passage from letter #200, and perhaps even more the
last sentence in that paragraph, 'The impossibility of re-building
after the destruction of the Ring, is sufficiently clear
"mythologically" in the present book.'

My impression has always been that Sauron's inability to rebuild a
new body at the end of the Third Age was the exception to the rule,
and due to the dimishment of his Fëa that he had brought about
himself.

I don't recall if it is stated explicitly anywhere whether Saruman
would be able to construct a new body, but my impression from the
book (though without, I think, any actual evidence) is that he can't.
Saruman, however, was robbed of his powers (or most of them) when he
was cast out of the Order, so that would appear to be another special
case.

<snip>

>> Also I suspect that the original purpose of Three, Seven, Nine
>> and the lesser rings was to amplify the power of their makers.

They probably did possess that power, but it was not their primary
purpose nor their chief power. That was to stay the effects of time.

In order to do so, all the Rings alike probably gave their wearer
power according to his stature, just as they could also be used for
other purposes, though they weren't made for that.

> That was the bait; mental domination by Sauron was the hook.

As Sauron had it ;)

>> The Elves of Eregion put parts of their selves into their Rings.
>
> Maybe in some artistic sense, but, while more spiritual that
> humans, Elves are still not essentially spirits the way Maiar are.

Yes. It is important, I think, to keep in mind how Tolkien described
Elvish magic:
Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human
limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete
(product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its
object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and
tyrannous re-forming of Creation.
[Letter #131, To Milton Waldman, probably late 1951]

This applies, IMO, more than anything to their artefacts -- whether
rope and robes or Palantíri, Rings of Power or even Silmarils.

[1] <http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q0-InvWhy>
[2] Letter #131 To Milton Waldman, probably late 1951 -- see e.g.
<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q0-Powers>

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

The "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your
feeling of what reality "ought to be".
- Richard Feynman

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #246912 ]

Di, 11 April 2006 02:33

Stan Brown

10 Apr 2006 20:41:23 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
<Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> The powers for invisibility and 'immortality' were also present in,
> at the very least, the Nine,

Agreed -- and as far as we know, in the Seven as well.

> and probably didn't originate in an
> infusion of native power from Sauron, even if he was the source of
> these powers.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Sauron did _not_
build those powers into the Rings? If so, why do you think that? What
other source could have made those Rings confer invisibility and long
life? The Elves were not interested in creating such things, as we
know from the Three, so who would have given those powers to the
Sixteen if not Sauron?

If you mean something else, then I apologize for misunderstanding
you, and could you explain a bit please?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #247958 ]

Di, 11 April 2006 12:20

Troels Forchhammer

In message <news:MPG.1ea4c37aab314a8698a3d6 [at] news.individual.net>
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
> 10 Apr 2006 20:41:23 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
> <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>>
>> The powers for invisibility and 'immortality' were also present
>> in, at the very least, the Nine,
>
> Agreed -- and as far as we know, in the Seven as well.

Most likely -- how else would we know that Dwarves cannot be turned
into wraiths, or be given longer life?

>> and probably didn't originate in an infusion of native power
>> from Sauron, even if he was the source of these powers.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here.

Sorry.

I am making a distinction between the powers that are part of the basic
powers of a Ring -- and in particular the One Ring -- and those of the
One that can only be because Sauron externalised part of his native
power, or, in Gandalf's words, 'he let a great part of his own former
power pass into it'.

As I read it, the only purpose for Sauron to infuse the One Ring with
part of his native power was to turn it into the Master-ring, the One
Ring to rule them all.

> Are you saying Sauron did _not_ build those powers into the Rings?

I am saying that he didn't let any part of his native powers pass into
any Ring in order to provide them with these powers (invisibility and
'immortality').

> If so, why do you think that?
> What other source could have made those Rings confer invisibility
> and long life? The Elves were not interested in creating such
> things, as we know from the Three, so who would have given those
> powers to the Sixteen if not Sauron?

With respect to the invisibility, I agree entirely that it was built
into the Rings by Sauron, in the 'usual way' -- i.e. by the combination
of Art and Craft that also constitutes the Elvish magic.

I'm a bit more uncertain about the longevity -- it seems to follow as a
perversion of the chief power of all the Rings alike: that of staying
decay and change. The Elven motif here would be to allow the wearer to
experience Time as it were before the Sun and the Moon. I'm not sure
if there is more to the life-stretching effect of the Rings than that;
it would not surprise me if Sauron had taken a relatively harmless
power and perverted it into what we see in LotR.

> If you mean something else, then I apologize for misunderstanding
> you, and could you explain a bit please?

I hope the above is clearer ;)

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #247980 ]

Mo, 17 April 2006 17:50

chornedsnorkack

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> <news:1144416875.120210.306620 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> eroot [at] swva.net enriched us with:
> >
> > chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> >> Where did the powers of the Rings come from?
> >>
> >> As for the One Ring, its powers of invisibility, immortality and
> >> domination of others seem to have been put there by Sauron, out
> >> of his native power.
>
> The powers for invisibility and 'immortality' were also present in,
> at the very least, the Nine, and probably didn't originate in an
> infusion of native power from Sauron, even if he was the source of
> these powers.
>
> The invisibility probably came from Sauron, as is also suggested in
> the FAQ of the Rings[1]. With respect to the longevity (I prefer that
> to 'immortality') of the wearer, that might be seen as deriving from
> the primary power of all the Rings: to prevent or slow decay.[2]
> Whether the longevity, the stretching of life, was part of the
> original scheme (allowing the wearer to live, as it were, on a pre-
> Sun-and-Moon time scale), or a perversion introduced by Sauron of the
> power to staying the effects of Time, cannot, I think, be said with
> certainty.
>
> The power to dominate the other Rings of Power (and, in particular,
> their wearers) was the one thing that necessitated that Sauron infuse
> the One Ring with part of his own native power (or energy). The
> general power for domination is possibly an offshoot of this.
>
> >> Sauron of later Second Age, wielding the One, was more powerful
> >> than the Sauron of early Second Age.
>
> I am reminded of the statement in /Myths Transformed/ (part 5 of HoMe
> X, /Morgoth's Ring/) that, "Sauron was 'greater', effectively, in the
> Second Age than Morgoth at the end of the First."
>
> But of course there's a very important passage in letter #131 about
> Sauron's forging of the One:
>
> But to achieve this he had been obliged to let a great
> part of his own inherent power (a frequent and very
> significant motive in myth and fairy-story) pass into the
> One Ring. While he wore it, his power on earth was actually
> enhanced. But even if he did not wear it, that power
> existed and was in 'rapport' with himself: he was not
> 'diminished'. Unless some other seized it and became
> possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could
> (if sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge
> Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done
> since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and
> usurp his place. This was the essential weakness he had
> introduced into his situation in his effort (largely
> unsuccessful) to enslave the Elves, and in his desire to
> establish a control over the minds and wills of his
> servants. There was another weakness: if the One Ring was
> actually unmade, annihilated, then its power would be
> dissolved, Sauron's own being would be diminished to
> vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a shadow, a
> mere memory of malicious will. But that he never
> contemplated nor feared.
> [Letter #131, To Milton Waldman, probably late 1951]
>
> >> But even then, he was by no means all-powerful or invincible.
>
> The obvious answer would of course be to say that none but Eru is
> that. That, however, wouldn't, I think, address the point, which I
> think should rightfully be whether Sauron was invincible to the
> forces of Middle-earth.
>
> >> Sauron using the One was overpowered by simple military attack
> >> in the first War of Rings, again by Ar-Pharazon and again in
> >> the War of Last Alliance.
>
> The extent of his 'defeat' by Ar-Pharaz=F4n is arguable, but he was
> still defeated by the Last Alliance.
>
> Part of the point made at the Council of Elrond, however, is that
> even though Sauron, at that point, not enhanced as he was when
> actually in possession of the One Ring, the forces of Men and Elves
> were then even more declined from the Last Alliance, so that they now
> had barely the force to withstand Sauron's initial attackes, and
> would not be able to withstand him, should he regain the One.
>
> It is an important point that though Sauron is not invincible as
> such, a military victory is still impossible without using the One
> Ring (subverting some of Sauron's allies and ensuring their fanatical
> loyalty).
>
> >> On the other hand, Sauron after the best part of his power was
> >> deposited in One and then destroyed with One was diminished. His
> >> 3rd Age body was a work of the One Ring, and automatically ceased
> >> to exist when the One was destroyed, nor could he get a new one.
> >
> > This is not my take at all. I think he generated his 3rd-Age body
> > by native power, because he was still en rapport with the Ring,
> > but after the Ring was destroyed, the power was dispersed
> > permanently, and his reduced spirit was no longer powerful enough
> > to generate a body.
>
> That's about how I see it as well. Personally I prefer to accept
> Tolkien's explanation in letter #200:
> After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a
> long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the
> Downfall of N=FAmenor (I suppose because each building-up
> used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit, which
> might be called the 'will' or the effective link between
> the indestructible mind and being and the realization of
> its imagination).
> [Letter #200, From a letter to Major R. Bowen, June 1957]
>
> I don't think the power, or energy, that Sauron had infused in the
> One Ring could be bound up in a new body, since he had already
> externalised that, binding it to the One Ring, but he could
> nevertheless draw upon it. I don't think the new body would be like
> Barad-d=FBr, which was founded with the power of the Ring; the creation
> of the new body would have to use up some of the inherent energy that
> was not already placed outside Sauron, though doing so probably
> required that he had access to the power in the One Ring (I suppose
> that, to some extent, that could be seen as the body being made with
> [the aid of] that power).
>
> > On yeah, I also think that Sauron's body was immediately killed
> > when Barad Dur collapsed like a mighty skyscraper, having been
> > erected unnaturally tall and quickly by the power of the Ring.
> > This is a lot different than the idea that Sauron's physical
> > form was destroyed directly by the destruction of the Ring.
>
> It is, yes.
>
> I can't say I've given that particular question much thought, but
> this would, I think, be the logical consequence of my statements
> above about the construction of the body.
>
> The counter-argument would be to cite Gandalf's opinion:
>
> If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be
> so low that none can foresee his arising ever again. For he
> will lose the best part of the strength that was native to
> him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with
> that power will crumble, and he will be maimed for ever,
> becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the
> shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape.
> [LotR V,9 'The Last Debate']
>
Indeed.

Gandalf did not know whether Sauron, at the moment of the destruction
of One, would be present in the Dark Tower and killed in its collapse,
or out in the open. It was strongly implied that had Gollum not fallen
into the Fire with the Ring soon, Sauron in his physical form would
have travelled in a hurry to Mount Doom with the purpose of fighting
anyone bearing the One.

The Eight were travelling on their winged steeds when the One was
destroyed.

What happened to the physical and magical bodies of Ringwraiths when
the One was destroyed and the Nine became useless trinkets? Did the
Wraiths continue to live and age as Men should? Or did they turn into
normal human corpses?

Sauron as a Maia was not liable to aging. Therefore, is there any
reason Gandalf knew of that would have prevented Sauron from continuing
to occupy his physical body after the One was destroyed?

> >> Maiar normally cannot reform after being bodily killed - Sauron
> >> was an exception exactly thanks to Ring.
> >
> > I have always gotten the impression that Maiar in their full
> > manifestation (not the purposefully-hobbled Wizards) could
> > generate new bodies. At least that feels better to me, but I
> > cannot "quote Scripture) against your interpretation. <8^)
>
> I would quote the passage from letter #200, and perhaps even more the
> last sentence in that paragraph, 'The impossibility of re-building
> after the destruction of the Ring, is sufficiently clear
> "mythologically" in the present book.'
>
> My impression has always been that Sauron's inability to rebuild a
> new body at the end of the Third Age was the exception to the rule,
> and due to the dimishment of his F=EBa that he had brought about
> himself.
>
Recall how Sauron in the First Age was told what would happen if he
were killed bodily. He obviously believed it, too.

> I don't recall if it is stated explicitly anywhere whether Saruman
> would be able to construct a new body, but my impression from the
> book (though without, I think, any actual evidence) is that he can't.
> Saruman, however, was robbed of his powers (or most of them) when he
> was cast out of the Order, so that would appear to be another special
> case.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Also I suspect that the original purpose of Three, Seven, Nine
> >> and the lesser rings was to amplify the power of their makers.
>
> They probably did possess that power, but it was not their primary
> purpose nor their chief power. That was to stay the effects of time.
>
> In order to do so, all the Rings alike probably gave their wearer
> power according to his stature, just as they could also be used for
> other purposes, though they weren't made for that.
>
> > That was the bait; mental domination by Sauron was the hook.
>
> As Sauron had it ;)
>
> >> The Elves of Eregion put parts of their selves into their Rings.
> >
> > Maybe in some artistic sense, but, while more spiritual that
> > humans, Elves are still not essentially spirits the way Maiar are.
>
> Yes. It is important, I think, to keep in mind how Tolkien described
> Elvish magic:
> Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human
> limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete
> (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its
> object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and
> tyrannous re-forming of Creation.
> [Letter #131, To Milton Waldman, probably late 1951]
>
> This applies, IMO, more than anything to their artefacts -- whether
> rope and robes or Palant=EDri, Rings of Power or even Silmarils.
>
>
But humans are not subject to limitations like inability of Feanor to
make Silmarils more than once.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #247981 ]

Mo, 17 April 2006 20:49

eroot

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #247982 ]

Mo, 17 April 2006 21:15

eroot

chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>

(snip)

>
> The Eight were travelling on their winged steeds when the One was
> destroyed.
>
> What happened to the physical and magical bodies of Ringwraiths when
> the One was destroyed and the Nine became useless trinkets? Did the
> Wraiths continue to live and age as Men should? Or did they turn into
> normal human corpses?
>

They were extinguished almost instantly. Their existence _was_
directly based on the power of the RIng.

> Sauron as a Maia was not liable to aging. Therefore, is there any
> reason Gandalf knew of that would have prevented Sauron from continuing
> to occupy his physical body after the One was destroyed?

Probably not; he was not an expert on the powers of the Ring. He was
very wise, but he could only conjecture.

>
> > >> Maiar normally cannot reform after being bodily killed - Sauron
> > >> was an exception exactly thanks to Ring.
> > >
> > > I have always gotten the impression that Maiar in their full
> > > manifestation (not the purposefully-hobbled Wizards) could
> > > generate new bodies. At least that feels better to me, but I
> > > cannot "quote Scripture) against your interpretation. <8^)
> >
> > I would quote the passage from letter #200, and perhaps even more the
> > last sentence in that paragraph, 'The impossibility of re-building
> > after the destruction of the Ring, is sufficiently clear
> > "mythologically" in the present book.'

Not the same as the proposition that the destruction of the Ring would
directly kill him.

> >
> > My impression has always been that Sauron's inability to rebuild a
> > new body at the end of the Third Age was the exception to the rule,
> > and due to the dimishment of his F=EBa that he had brought about
> > himself.
> >
> Recall how Sauron in the First Age was told what would happen if he
> were killed bodily. He obviously believed it, too.
>

Maybe. I think he was just chicken, a certain underlying cowardice
being a side effect of choising evil.

> > I don't recall if it is stated explicitly anywhere whether Saruman
> > would be able to construct a new body, but my impression from the
> > book (though without, I think, any actual evidence) is that he can't.
> > Saruman, however, was robbed of his powers (or most of them) when he
> > was cast out of the Order, so that would appear to be another special
> > case.

Plus, the Wizard-bodies were deliberately limited compared to the
bodies Maiar could generate on their own. However, the instance of
Balrogs not regenerating is a datum on your side of the argument.

> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> Also I suspect that the original purpose of Three, Seven, Nine
> > >> and the lesser rings was to amplify the power of their makers.
> >
> > They probably did possess that power, but it was not their primary
> > purpose nor their chief power. That was to stay the effects of time.
> >
> > In order to do so, all the Rings alike probably gave their wearer
> > power according to his stature, just as they could also be used for
> > other purposes, though they weren't made for that.
> >
> > > That was the bait; mental domination by Sauron was the hook.
> >
> > As Sauron had it ;)
> >
> > >> The Elves of Eregion put parts of their selves into their Rings.
> > >
> > > Maybe in some artistic sense, but, while more spiritual that
> > > humans, Elves are still not essentially spirits the way Maiar are.
> >
> > Yes. It is important, I think, to keep in mind how Tolkien described
> > Elvish magic:
> > Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human
> > limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete
> > (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its
> > object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and
> > tyrannous re-forming of Creation.
> > [Letter #131, To Milton Waldman, probably late 1951]
> >
> > This applies, IMO, more than anything to their artefacts -- whether
> > rope and robes or Palant=EDri, Rings of Power or even Silmarils.
> >

That makes sense.

> >
> But humans are not subject to limitations like inability of Feanor to
> make Silmarils more than once.

Perhaps.

Eric Root

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #247983 ]

Mo, 17 April 2006 22:37

Troels Forchhammer

In message
<news:1145299766.184212.318020 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
eroot [at] swva.net enriched us with:
>
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
>> eroot [at] swva.net wrote:
>>>
>>> I have always gotten the impression that Maiar in their full
>>> manifestation (not the purposefully-hobbled Wizards) could
>>> generate new bodies.
[...]
>>
>> The 1st Age Sauron could not.
>
> In several places, Tolkien mentions that the Ainur put on bodies
> like clothing.

Yes, the normal self-arrayal is described in many places, and in some
detail in the Ósanwe-kenta. I think we need to distinguish sharply
between the ability for this kind of self-arrayal, as was commonly
practiced by the Ainur, and what happens when an Ainu became bound to
one particular body.

The way I've managed to make it work for me is to imagine that the
Ainu spends some innate energy on creating a body, but that this
energy can, normally, be retrieved when the body is left. When the
Ainu becomes bound to the body, however, the ability to retrieve the
energy is lost.

That did not happen to Sauron until the Akkalabêth (we are
specifically told that he lost his ability to assume a fair form at
that point). To Morgoth it happened at some point when he was with
Ungoliant.

I am not sure what happens when the body of an Ainu is killed in
general -- the energy might be lost in any case, but I am sure that
the energy is lost if the Ainu had become bound to it. Much of that
would depend on whether the Balrogs became bound to their bodies.

It might help to quote from Ósanwe-kenta; note 5 in specifically:

Here Penolodh adds a long note on the use of /hröar/ by
the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a
'self-arraying', it may tend to approach the state of
'incarnation', especially with the lesser members of that
order (the Maiar). [...] Thus eating and drinking are
binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound or form.
Most binding is begetting or conceiving.
'[...]. The only case that is known in the histories of
the Eldar is that of Melian who became the spouse of King
Elu-thingol. This certainly was not evil or against the
will of Eru, and though it led to sorrow, both Elves and
Men were enriched.'
'The great Valar do not do these things: [...]. Melkor
alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form;
but that was because of the use that he made of this in his
purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great
evils that he did in the visible body. [...].Even his
visible form he could no longer master, so that its
hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed
forth the evil of his mind. So it was also with even some
of his greatest servants, as in these later days we see:
they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if
these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were
nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their
former habitations, with which they could continue the evil
courses in which they had become fixed.' (Pengolodh here
evidently refers to Sauron in particular, [...].)
[/Ósanwe-kenta/, Vinyar Tengwar issue #39, /Note 5/]

The idea here is clearly that even if an Ainu was bound to the body,
they would in general be able to rebuild 'a semblance of their former
habitations.' Combined with the information from letter #200 that
each such rebuilding used op some of the Ainu's inherent energy, we
can see why e.g. the Balrog was permanently nullified: it didn't have
enough energy to start with to be able to rebuild a lost body.

Sauron rebuilding his body in the Second and the Third Ages probably
had to use the power that he had let pass into the One Ring (that was
his own and which is was still in 'rapport' with), but the energy
that was tied up in the body was not taken from the Ring. It might
qualify as being 'made or begun with that power' and thus susceptible
to the crumbling of all that was done with the One Ring, I couldn't
say for sure, but even that is still a far shot from the idea that it
was only the Ring that enabled the rebuilding: it was more likely the
reverse, the Ring, even had he been able to keep it, could very well
have limited the number of times he would be able to rebuild.

> Thus, I don't think that if Huan had killed Sauron at The Isle of
> Werewolves, he would have been _unable_ to get a new body,
[...]
> having to report back to his boss naked, but _not_ the case that
> he couldn't eventually "get dressed" again.

Precisely.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler.
- Albert Einstein

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #247984 ]

Di, 18 April 2006 00:10

Raven

<eroot [at] swva.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1145299766.184212.318020 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

> In several places, Tolkien mentions that the Ainur put on bodies like
> clothing. Thus, I don't think that if Huan had killed Sauron at The
> Isle of Werewolves, he would have been _unable_ to get a new body, but
> that he would be humiliated by having to show up back at Angband
> without a body. It would be like being stripped of clothes and having
> to report back to his boss naked, but _not_ the case that he couldn't
> eventually "get dressed" again.

It may have been more than that. An incarnated Ainu using his body
extensively would become increasingly bound to it, especially if he used it
for evil. Sauron and Morgoth in their latter days could not just cast away
their bodies like I can remove my clothes before showering, and put on a new
one when circumstances warranted, just as I can put on clean clothes after
the shower. Whenever such a bound Ainu had his body destroyed (was killed)
it was a traumatic experience for him, just as it was for the Elves whose
spirits also were bound to the World, and who could be reincarnated - though
in their case only with the aid of the Valar.
The prime example must be Melkor himself. In the Sil, chapter 8, "Of the
Darkening of Valinor", it is stated fairly explicitly that Melkor could walk
unclad when he willed, until he approached Ungoliant. Then he put on the
form that he had worn as the tyrant of Utumno: "a dark Lord, tall and
terrible. In that form he remained ever after". Presumably that was the
straw that broke the camel's back: at this last act of using his body for
dominance of another will (cowing Ungoliant, as well as he might) he became
finally bound to his body. Or perhaps it was the two great evils that he
did soon after while wearing the same body: striking the Two Trees, and
slaying Finwë. As for Sauron, he was in origin much weaker than his master,
and may be presumed to have lost his independence of his body much earlier.
I must admit that it puzzles me that although Sauron could not just
abandon his body during his fight with Huan like a lizard yielding its tail
to its attacker, he could change form as he pleased, both during the fight
and after. It is also puzzling that he had to yield mastery of his stolen
tower to Lúthien: if Huan had slain him, why couldn't Lúthien and Huan just
have waltzed in and searched it for prisoners? Could even the violently
uncarnated Sauron have kept the tower shut against the pair? Was there a
magic-like power, stronger than Lúthien's, that kept the gate shut, unless
Sauron lifted it, or transferred "ownership" of the power to her, or
furnished a sort of password or method? Or would it have crumbled with the
death of Sauron, crushing any prisoners within? Huan had just slain all
Sauron's werewolves and defeated Sauron personally. Therefore any lesser
servants of Sauron's remaining on the isle would in comparison surely have
been so many cockroaches to stamp out or chase into holes. Or had the pair
spent so much power defeating the werewolves and Sauron that until they
could recuperate they had little enough left with which to force an
entrance? Similarly a gladiator may use all his strength and skill to
defeat his opponent to the point of setting his sword to his prostrate
opponent's throat, and then trembling with fatigue and wounds need only a
small effort to thrust his sword-point into the fallen man's throat if the
Emperor frowns and points his thumb downwards.

Sauron was killed, as we might call it, thrice: when he was caught in the
ruin of Númenor, when he was defeated on the slopes of Orodruin, and when
the Ring was destroyed. Whether this third death was a direct result of the
destruction of the Ring, or indirect, when he was caught in the fall of
Barad-dûr like so many innocent people in the Twin Towers on 9/11, may be
debated until doomsday afternoon, perhaps. It is certain that he did die,
like twice before. But after his third death he could not recover, ie. he
had forever lost his ability to form a new body. He still existed within
the world, but without any power to manipulate it or those who dwelt in it,
remaining at most the spiritual equivalent of quiet flatulence.
After his first death he did lose one ability: to form a body of his
choice. The next two bodies that he formed were hideous to behold. Before
that he could disguise his evil, smelling of roses, and so deceive the
Mírdain and Ar-Pharazôn. Like during his fight with Huan, perhaps one of
his original abilities, peculiar to him and to few or none others of
Morgoth's servants, was to shapeshift at will, even after he became
compelled to have *a* body.
It is possible that he would have remained "dead" after the ruin of
Númenor but for the Ring, and that it was the existence of it, with much of
his power in it, which left him with the ability to reincarnate himself -
the first time swiftly, since he had it with him, the second time taking a
millennium or more, since it was not with him. But it seems very probable
to me that each death diminished Sauron, because he must have invested part
of his native power in his body whenever he formed one, and that "capital"
would be lost at its destruction - as it would not be if he had retained the
ability to cast away his body at will, and otherwise to operate efficiently
without a body. Then presumably whatever power he had invested in the
making of his body would return to him when he dissolved it.
If it was the existence of the Ring which enabled him to reincarnate
himself, then his death on the bank of Sirion next to Tol-in-Gaurhoth would
have left him unable to form a new body, precisely as the apparently weaker
Balrogs, when slain, remained slain.

As for Sauron merely being afraid of showing himself temporarily naked
before his master, surely he must also have been afraid of reporting that he
had lost this invaluable stronghold. If he could have sacrificed his body
temporarily but retained mastery of the tower, surely that would have been a
less perilous thing to report to such an unforgiving lord. Sauron must have
foreseen that remaining alive must have been at least as valuable to Morgoth
as retaining mastery of Tol-in-Gaurhoth.

Gavran.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254108 ]

Di, 18 April 2006 09:30

Troels Forchhammer

In message
<news:1145289004.568446.76550 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>> In message
>> <news:1144416875.120210.306620 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>> eroot [at] swva.net enriched us with:
>>>
>>> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
>>>> Where did the powers of the Rings come from?
>>>>

Please snip unnecessary history . . .

<snip>

>>> On yeah, I also think that Sauron's body was immediately killed
>>> when Barad Dur collapsed like a mighty skyscraper,
[...]
>>
>> The counter-argument would be to cite Gandalf's opinion:
>>
[...]
[Sauron, upon the destruction of the One Ring]
>> will be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of
>> malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot
>> again grow or take shape.
>> [LotR V,9 'The Last Debate']
>
> Indeed.

But please note that 'made or begun' with the power that Sauron let
pass into the One Ring is still a very far cry from the position you
advanced that '[Sauron's] 3rd Age body was a work of the One Ring'
(Message-ID: <1144255262.286687.42330 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>).
Sauron's Third Age body was no different from his bodies in the First
or Second Ages, except that he had become bound to it; he needed a
significant part of his native power to create any body, and, after his
construction of the One Ring, that would by necessity include the power
he had infused into the One Ring. There is no reason to assume that the
body is made /only/ with the power of the Ring, nor that Sauron would
have been unable to construct a new body without the Ring. The latter
would even be contradicted by the information I quoted from letter #131
that Sauron could still access, or use, the power he had himself poured
into the Ring, but not the additional powers of the One. Sauron, when
not wearing the Ring, was, in terms of power, exactly equal to Sauron
not having made the One Ring.

> Gandalf did not know whether Sauron, at the moment of the
> destruction of One, would be present in the Dark Tower and killed
> in its collapse, or out in the open.

Unless he was given a specific reason to leave Barad-dûr, it would be
unlikely in the extreme that he would not be there.

[...]
> Sauron in his physical form would have travelled in a hurry
> to Mount Doom with the purpose of fighting anyone bearing
> the One.

In which case the Ring could not have been destroyed, and the question
is void.

> The Eight were travelling on their winged steeds when the One was
> destroyed.
[...]

They were both mortals and incarnates -- you cannot compare the
relation between their bodies (shifted, apparently, to 'the other
side' -- the world of the Ringwraiths) and their spirits to the
corresponding relation between Sauron's. Sauron, though bound to his
body in a state that would 'approach the state of "incarnation"', was
/not/ incarnate, nor mortal.

> Sauron as a Maia was not liable to aging. Therefore, is there any
> reason Gandalf knew of that would have prevented Sauron from
> continuing to occupy his physical body after the One was
> destroyed?

You're going about it the wrong way. You ask whether there is evidence
that Sauron's embodiment was /not different/ from normal Ainu self-
arrayal. It is evident that you claim it was much different, and the
appropriate way is to ask for evidence of that.

Gandalf didn't /know/, but his guesses were usually quite close, so I
am inclined to accept that it was enough that Sauron had to use the
power that he had bound up in the One Ring in the construction of his
new bodies (late Second Age and Third Age) for those bodies to be tied
to the continued existence of that power. All that is saying is that he
made himself vulnerable in a special way by making the One Ring -- had
he not made that Ring, he could have made himself new bodies without
risking their destruction through any remote act (such as the
destruction of the Ring).

>> My impression has always been that Sauron's inability to rebuild
>> a new body at the end of the Third Age was the exception to the
>> rule, and due to the dimishment of his Fëa that he had brought
>> about himself.
>
> Recall how Sauron in the First Age was told what would happen if
> he were killed bodily. He obviously believed it, too.

Eric has already answered this in another post. All it says is that he
couldn't instantly construct a new body -- it would take time. Given
the general information about the self-arrayal of Ainur, that is the
only possible interpretation of that passage.

<snip>

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you
haven't understood it yet.
- Niels Bohr (1885-1962)

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254111 ]

Di, 18 April 2006 17:56

chornedsnorkack

Raven wrote:
> <eroot [at] swva.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1145299766.184212.318020 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In several places, Tolkien mentions that the Ainur put on bodies like
> > clothing. Thus, I don't think that if Huan had killed Sauron at The
> > Isle of Werewolves, he would have been _unable_ to get a new body, but
> > that he would be humiliated by having to show up back at Angband
> > without a body. It would be like being stripped of clothes and having
> > to report back to his boss naked, but _not_ the case that he couldn't
> > eventually "get dressed" again.
>
> It may have been more than that. An incarnated Ainu using his body
> extensively would become increasingly bound to it, especially if he used =
it
> for evil. Sauron and Morgoth in their latter days could not just cast aw=
ay
> their bodies like I can remove my clothes before showering, and put on a =
new
> one when circumstances warranted, just as I can put on clean clothes after
> the shower. Whenever such a bound Ainu had his body destroyed (was kille=
d)
> it was a traumatic experience for him, just as it was for the Elves whose
> spirits also were bound to the World, and who could be reincarnated - tho=
ugh
> in their case only with the aid of the Valar.
> The prime example must be Melkor himself. In the Sil, chapter 8, "Of =
the
> Darkening of Valinor", it is stated fairly explicitly that Melkor could w=
alk
> unclad when he willed, until he approached Ungoliant. Then he put on the
> form that he had worn as the tyrant of Utumno: "a dark Lord, tall and
> terrible. In that form he remained ever after". Presumably that was the
> straw that broke the camel's back: at this last act of using his body for
> dominance of another will (cowing Ungoliant, as well as he might) he beca=
me
> finally bound to his body. Or perhaps it was the two great evils that he
> did soon after while wearing the same body: striking the Two Trees, and
> slaying Finw=EB. As for Sauron, he was in origin much weaker than his ma=
ster,
> and may be presumed to have lost his independence of his body much earlie=
r=2E
> I must admit that it puzzles me that although Sauron could not just
> abandon his body during his fight with Huan like a lizard yielding its ta=
il
> to its attacker, he could change form as he pleased, both during the fight
> and after. It is also puzzling that he had to yield mastery of his stolen
> tower to L=FAthien: if Huan had slain him, why couldn't L=FAthien and Hua=
n just
> have waltzed in and searched it for prisoners? Could even the violently
> uncarnated Sauron have kept the tower shut against the pair? Was there a
> magic-like power, stronger than L=FAthien's, that kept the gate shut, unl=
ess
> Sauron lifted it, or transferred "ownership" of the power to her, or
> furnished a sort of password or method? Or would it have crumbled with t=
he
> death of Sauron, crushing any prisoners within? Huan had just slain all
> Sauron's werewolves and defeated Sauron personally. Therefore any lesser
> servants of Sauron's remaining on the isle would in comparison surely have
> been so many cockroaches to stamp out or chase into holes. Or had the pa=
ir
> spent so much power defeating the werewolves and Sauron that until they
> could recuperate they had little enough left with which to force an
> entrance? Similarly a gladiator may use all his strength and skill to
> defeat his opponent to the point of setting his sword to his prostrate
> opponent's throat, and then trembling with fatigue and wounds need only a
> small effort to thrust his sword-point into the fallen man's throat if the
> Emperor frowns and points his thumb downwards.
>
> Sauron was killed, as we might call it, thrice: when he was caught in =
the
> ruin of N=FAmenor, when he was defeated on the slopes of Orodruin, and wh=
en
> the Ring was destroyed. Whether this third death was a direct result of =
the
> destruction of the Ring, or indirect, when he was caught in the fall of
> Barad-d=FBr like so many innocent people in the Twin Towers on 9/11, may =
be
> debated until doomsday afternoon, perhaps. It is certain that he did die,
> like twice before. But after his third death he could not recover, ie. he
> had forever lost his ability to form a new body. He still existed within
> the world, but without any power to manipulate it or those who dwelt in i=
t,
> remaining at most the spiritual equivalent of quiet flatulence.
> After his first death he did lose one ability: to form a body of his
> choice. The next two bodies that he formed were hideous to behold. Befo=
re
> that he could disguise his evil, smelling of roses, and so deceive the
> M=EDrdain and Ar-Pharaz=F4n. Like during his fight with Huan, perhaps on=
e of
> his original abilities, peculiar to him and to few or none others of
> Morgoth's servants, was to shapeshift at will, even after he became
> compelled to have *a* body.
> It is possible that he would have remained "dead" after the ruin of
> N=FAmenor but for the Ring, and that it was the existence of it, with muc=
h of
> his power in it, which left him with the ability to reincarnate himself -
> the first time swiftly, since he had it with him, the second time taking a
> millennium or more, since it was not with him. But it seems very probable
> to me that each death diminished Sauron, because he must have invested pa=
rt
> of his native power in his body whenever he formed one, and that "capital"
> would be lost at its destruction - as it would not be if he had retained =
the
> ability to cast away his body at will, and otherwise to operate efficient=
ly
> without a body. Then presumably whatever power he had invested in the
> making of his body would return to him when he dissolved it.
> If it was the existence of the Ring which enabled him to reincarnate
> himself, then his death on the bank of Sirion next to Tol-in-Gaurhoth wou=
ld
> have left him unable to form a new body, precisely as the apparently weak=
er
> Balrogs, when slain, remained slain.
>
> As for Sauron merely being afraid of showing himself temporarily naked
> before his master, surely he must also have been afraid of reporting that=
he
> had lost this invaluable stronghold. If he could have sacrificed his body
> temporarily but retained mastery of the tower, surely that would have bee=
n a
> less perilous thing to report to such an unforgiving lord. Sauron must h=
ave
> foreseen that remaining alive must have been at least as valuable to Morg=
oth
> as retaining mastery of Tol-in-Gaurhoth.
>
But we are not told that Sauron reported to Melkor after losing
Tol-i-Gaurhoth. We are told that he turned into a bat and flew right to
Dorthonion.

So, it does sound a plausible argument that Sauron could have deserted
Morgoth - his remaining alive was valuable to himself.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254112 ]

Di, 18 April 2006 18:01

chornedsnorkack

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> <news:1145289004.568446.76550 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com enriched us with:
> >
> > Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <news:1144416875.120210.306620 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> >> eroot [at] swva.net enriched us with:
> >>>
> >>> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Where did the powers of the Rings come from?
> >>>>
>
> Please snip unnecessary history . . .
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> On yeah, I also think that Sauron's body was immediately killed
> >>> when Barad Dur collapsed like a mighty skyscraper,
> [...]
> >>
> >> The counter-argument would be to cite Gandalf's opinion:
> >>
> [...]
> [Sauron, upon the destruction of the One Ring]
> >> will be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of
> >> malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot
> >> again grow or take shape.
> >> [LotR V,9 'The Last Debate']
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> > Gandalf did not know whether Sauron, at the moment of the
> > destruction of One, would be present in the Dark Tower and killed
> > in its collapse, or out in the open.
>
> Unless he was given a specific reason to leave Barad-d=FBr, it would be
> unlikely in the extreme that he would not be there.
>
> [...]
> > Sauron in his physical form would have travelled in a hurry
> > to Mount Doom with the purpose of fighting anyone bearing
> > the One.
>
> In which case the Ring could not have been destroyed, and the question
> is void.
>
Not necessarily. The Ringwraiths set out from their places of
deployment - above the battlefield of Morannon - for Mount Doom, but
the Ring was destroyed before they arrived. It would be quite plausible
if Sauron also left the Tower and was in open road when the Ring was
destroyed.

> > The Eight were travelling on their winged steeds when the One was
> > destroyed.
> [...]
>
> They were both mortals and incarnates -- you cannot compare the
> relation between their bodies (shifted, apparently, to 'the other
> side' -- the world of the Ringwraiths) and their spirits to the
> corresponding relation between Sauron's. Sauron, though bound to his
> body in a state that would 'approach the state of "incarnation"', was
> /not/ incarnate, nor mortal.
>
> > Sauron as a Maia was not liable to aging. Therefore, is there any
> > reason Gandalf knew of that would have prevented Sauron from
> > continuing to occupy his physical body after the One was
> > destroyed?
>
> You're going about it the wrong way. You ask whether there is evidence
> that Sauron's embodiment was /not different/ from normal Ainu self-
> arrayal. It is evident that you claim it was much different, and the
> appropriate way is to ask for evidence of that.
>
> Gandalf didn't /know/, but his guesses were usually quite close, so I
> am inclined to accept that it was enough that Sauron had to use the
> power that he had bound up in the One Ring in the construction of his
> new bodies (late Second Age and Third Age) for those bodies to be tied
> to the continued existence of that power. All that is saying is that he
> made himself vulnerable in a special way by making the One Ring -- had
> he not made that Ring, he could have made himself new bodies without
> risking their destruction through any remote act (such as the
> destruction of the Ring).
>
> >> My impression has always been that Sauron's inability to rebuild
> >> a new body at the end of the Third Age was the exception to the
> >> rule, and due to the dimishment of his F=EBa that he had brought
> >> about himself.
> >
> > Recall how Sauron in the First Age was told what would happen if
> > he were killed bodily. He obviously believed it, too.
>
> Eric has already answered this in another post. All it says is that he
> couldn't instantly construct a new body -- it would take time. Given
> the general information about the self-arrayal of Ainur, that is the
> only possible interpretation of that passage.
>
I think it was implied that loss of native power when the Ainur are
violently deprived of a body tends to weaken them irreversibly.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254115 ]

Di, 18 April 2006 21:03

Troels Forchhammer

In message
<news:1145301327.928892.307180 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
eroot [at] swva.net enriched us with:
>
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>

<snip>

>>> It is important, I think, to keep in mind how Tolkien
>>> described Elvish magic:
>>> Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human
>>> limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete
>>> (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its
>>> object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and
>>> tyrannous re-forming of Creation.
>>> [Letter #131, To Milton Waldman, probably late 1951]
>>>
>>> This applies, IMO, more than anything to their artefacts --
>>> whether rope and robes or Palantíri, Rings of Power or even
>>> Silmarils.
>>>
>
> That makes sense.

Thanks ;)

When I read about the Noldor learning from Melkor, or the Elven
Ringsmiths of Eregion learning from Sauron/Annatar, I never got the
impression that they were learning spells etc. What they were learning
were the skills of the craftsman -- the skill-levels necessary to
achieve the highest levels of Art.

>> But humans are not subject to limitations like inability of
>> Feanor to make Silmarils more than once.
>
> Perhaps.

Well, they are subject to the limitation of not being able to make such
things even once . . .

Men cannot 'naturally' do magic of any kind -- neither in the Elven
sense (the Art-thing) or the black arts of the Enemy. In all cases Men
needed tutors from one of the naturally magic-using races.

The Numenóreans did learn magic through their contact with Elves and
general ennoblement, and other Men learned it from Sauron, but it
didn't come natural to Men, and it could never have been more than a
very small minority (small enough, in any case, for Tolkien to forget
them at one point -- letter #155). Some of the works of the Dúnedain
seems to approach the Elven Art -- Orthanc and the outer walls of Minas
Anor (later Tirith) seems to be /almost/ magical, as do e.g. the
Argonath.

And the idea that 'For the less even as for the greater there is some
deed that he may accomplish but once only' would, I am sure, apply
equally to human artisans and artists -- to each is given, at most, one
work of perfection and that cannot be repeated.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

The "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your
feeling of what reality "ought to be".
- Richard Feynman

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254116 ]

Di, 18 April 2006 21:34

Troels Forchhammer

In message
<news:1145376110.439688.228160 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com enriched us with:
>

<snip>

Please delete the text that is not strictly relevant in order to
provide a context for your comments -- having to wade through more than
a hundred lines with only seven lines added makes it harder to read and
less inviting for others.

[Sauron's possible fates after the battle against Huan]

> I think it was implied that loss of native power when the Ainur
> are violently deprived of a body tends to weaken them
> irreversibly.

That is implied elsewhere, yes (the passage I've quoted from letter
#200 is actually rather explicit about it). It is not entirely clear,
IMO, whether this applied in all cases or only when the Ainu was bound
to the body, though I suspect that it might apply in all cases,
although the effect would possibly be exacerbated for an Ainu who had
become bound to the body. It is also stated that they would have to
rebuild that body, implying that it was common for an Ainu to be able
to rebuild their body after a death, so the weakening, or loss of
inherent energy, is obviously not sufficient to render any but the
already weakest Ainur unable to rebuild a body (i.e. those who had
little more power than that needed to build a body in the first place).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254117 ]

Di, 18 April 2006 22:22

Raven

<chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1145375802.355992.93660 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> Raven wrote:

> > As for Sauron merely being afraid of showing himself temporarily
> > naked before his master, surely he must also have been afraid of
> > reporting that he had lost this invaluable stronghold. If he could
> > have sacrificed his body temporarily but retained mastery of the
> > tower, surely that would have been a less perilous thing to report
> > to such an unforgiving lord. Sauron must have foreseen that
> > remaining alive must have been at least as valuable to Morgoth
> > as retaining mastery of Tol-in-Gaurhoth.

> But we are not told that Sauron reported to Melkor after losing
> Tol-i-Gaurhoth. We are told that he turned into a bat and flew right to
> Dorthonion.

> So, it does sound a plausible argument that Sauron could have deserted
> Morgoth - his remaining alive was valuable to himself.

This is a good point. I don't remember reading anything about what
Sauron did between his defeat by Huan and the War of Wrath. He dwelt in
Dorthonion, but did he do so as an outlaw himself and a rebel against his
master because of fear, or in understanding with Morgoth, still obeying his
commands? Was his stay in Dorthonion an exile, in penalty for his defeat at
Tol-in-Gaurhoth? Did he later return to Angband, perhaps when he had
recovered his strength? We do know that Huan slew Draugluin. After this,
although Beren and Lúthien went the speediest way to Angband, he disguised
as Draugluin, when they approached the gates Draugluin's death was already
long known to Carcharoth. Who sent the message? Servants of Sauron's
escaping from Tol-in-Gaurhoth? Sauron apparently did not go to Angband
himself, but did he order the message to be sent?

Speaking of Carcharoth, is it coincidence that it resembles somewhat the
name Carcharodon Carcharias, the systematic name for the Great White Shark?
:-)

Kruk.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254122 ]

Mi, 19 April 2006 18:19

chornedsnorkack

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> <news:1145376110.439688.228160 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com enriched us with:
> >
>

> [Sauron's possible fates after the battle against Huan]
>
> > I think it was implied that loss of native power when the Ainur
> > are violently deprived of a body tends to weaken them
> > irreversibly.
>
> That is implied elsewhere, yes (the passage I've quoted from letter
> #200 is actually rather explicit about it). It is not entirely clear,
> IMO, whether this applied in all cases or only when the Ainu was bound
> to the body, though I suspect that it might apply in all cases,
> although the effect would possibly be exacerbated for an Ainu who had
> become bound to the body. It is also stated that they would have to
> rebuild that body, implying that it was common for an Ainu to be able
> to rebuild their body after a death, so the weakening, or loss of
> inherent energy, is obviously not sufficient to render any but the
> already weakest Ainur unable to rebuild a body (i.e. those who had
> little more power than that needed to build a body in the first place).
>
In the end of 2nd Age, the forces of good - and that includes Isildur,
Elendil, Gil-Galad, Elrond, Glorfindel et cetera - thought that good
had come out of the Fall of Numenor, namely that Sauron had also
perished.

It was a nasty surprise to all that Sauron came back at all.

There is never any mention of Belryg coming back when slain. Or
Ungolianth.

It appears that most powerful Ainur that occupied a bodily form were
permanently incarnated in that they were rendered into impotent spirits
if the body they occupied were physically destroyed - even if they,
like Sauron in Minas Tirith, were able to shift shape while remaining
incarnate in some form... or perhaps even if they could still recycle
the native power invested in the body when discarnating voluntarily and
undisturbed, they could not do so under immediate physical attack. Note
that Sauron turned into a bat in Minas Tirith, but for some reason did
not do the same and fly away when his temple collapsed in Westernesse.

If Luthien, Elendil and Gil-Galad thought Sauron could not come back
after getting killed, why were they wrong? Were they mistaken about the
general rules of the game, that Maiar can and do come back eventually,
or about the specific case of Sauron - that the existence of One Ring
(which, unlike Sauron=B4s body, was magically hardened against physical
attack - it could not be altered by cutting by sword, scratching,
hammering or melting as normal gold would be) gave Sauron an anchor in
the world allowing him to eventually come back as long as One
functioned which he could not otherwise have done?

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254123 ]

Mi, 19 April 2006 18:19

chornedsnorkack

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254127 ]

Do, 20 April 2006 14:50

eroot

chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> > In message
> > <news:1145376110.439688.228160 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> > chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com enriched us with:
> > >
> >
>
> > [Sauron's possible fates after the battle against Huan]
> >
> > > I think it was implied that loss of native power when the Ainur
> > > are violently deprived of a body tends to weaken them
> > > irreversibly.
> >
> > That is implied elsewhere, yes (the passage I've quoted from letter
> > #200 is actually rather explicit about it). It is not entirely clear,
> > IMO, whether this applied in all cases or only when the Ainu was bound
> > to the body, though I suspect that it might apply in all cases,
> > although the effect would possibly be exacerbated for an Ainu who had
> > become bound to the body. It is also stated that they would have to
> > rebuild that body, implying that it was common for an Ainu to be able
> > to rebuild their body after a death, so the weakening, or loss of
> > inherent energy, is obviously not sufficient to render any but the
> > already weakest Ainur unable to rebuild a body (i.e. those who had
> > little more power than that needed to build a body in the first place).
> >
> In the end of 2nd Age, the forces of good - and that includes Isildur,
> Elendil, Gil-Galad, Elrond, Glorfindel et cetera - thought that good
> had come out of the Fall of Numenor, namely that Sauron had also
> perished.
>

Glorfindel is the only person you mention who had been to Aman, and was
he already reincarnated by that point? I think that people who had not
been raised in Valinor may have not had a very clear idea of what a
Maia can or cannot do.

> It was a nasty surprise to all that Sauron came back at all.
>

But perhaps not a total surprise. By then, everyone realized he had
powers beyond those of elves and men.

> There is never any mention of Belryg coming back when slain.

Already mentioned: Balrogs are weak enough that a really capable,
totally-determined elf can defeat them one-on-one. Maybe Balrogs only
have just enough innate power to create one body, and being evil, they
won't get a freeby like Gandalf did.

> Or
> Ungolianth.
>

No one knows what became of Ungoliant.

> It appears that most powerful Ainur that occupied a bodily form were
> permanently incarnated in that they were rendered into impotent spirits
> if the body they occupied were physically destroyed -

Actually, if it appeared that way, we would not be disagreeing right
now. I believe it is a matter of individual power level, degree to
which they are bound to their body, and how much of their power has
been spent going against the grain of the universe, e.g., doing evil
such as passing their power into minions and whatnot.

> even if they,
> like Sauron in Minas Tirith, were able to shift shape while remaining
> incarnate in some form... or perhaps even if they could still recycle
> the native power invested in the body when discarnating voluntarily and
> undisturbed, they could not do so under immediate physical attack. Note
> that Sauron turned into a bat in Minas Tirith, but for some reason did
> not do the same and fly away when his temple collapsed in Westernesse.
>

He was taken by surprise and plunged to the depths. He should have
changed to a fish. <8^)

> If Luthien, Elendil and Gil-Galad thought Sauron could not come back
> after getting killed, why were they wrong?

That they thought this is a mere conjecture on your part, and you are
still ignoring the idea that none of them may have had a clear idea
what the powers of a Maia are, or what Sauron's power level even _is_.
For sure, Elendil would have had no basis for knowing.

> Were they mistaken about the
> general rules of the game, that Maiar can and do come back eventually,

I think they didn't know.

> or about the specific case of Sauron - that the existence of One Ring
> (which, unlike Sauron=B4s body, was magically hardened against physical
> attack - it could not be altered by cutting by sword, scratching,
> hammering or melting as normal gold would be) gave Sauron an anchor in
> the world allowing him to eventually come back as long as One
> functioned which he could not otherwise have done?

Feel free to stick to this idea, but to me, it doesn't fit with the way
the rest of the mythos works, and the idea of Maiar as essentially
spiritual, rather than physical, beings. Also, even the Valar cannot
change the essential fates of beings. Why would a _mere gadget_ be
able to give Sauron such a blatantly disproportionate power, which it
would be if no other Maia could reincarnate.

Eric Root

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254134 ]

Fr, 21 April 2006 18:41

chornedsnorkack

eroot [at] swva.net wrote:
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:
> > Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> > > In message
> > > <news:1145376110.439688.228160 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> > > chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com enriched us with:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > > [Sauron's possible fates after the battle against Huan]
> > >
> > > > I think it was implied that loss of native power when the Ainur
> > > > are violently deprived of a body tends to weaken them
> > > > irreversibly.
> > >
> > > That is implied elsewhere, yes (the passage I've quoted from letter
> > > #200 is actually rather explicit about it). It is not entirely clear,
> > > IMO, whether this applied in all cases or only when the Ainu was bound
> > > to the body, though I suspect that it might apply in all cases,
> > > although the effect would possibly be exacerbated for an Ainu who had
> > > become bound to the body. It is also stated that they would have to
> > > rebuild that body, implying that it was common for an Ainu to be able
> > > to rebuild their body after a death, so the weakening, or loss of
> > > inherent energy, is obviously not sufficient to render any but the
> > > already weakest Ainur unable to rebuild a body (i.e. those who had
> > > little more power than that needed to build a body in the first place=
)=2E
> > >
> > In the end of 2nd Age, the forces of good - and that includes Isildur,
> > Elendil, Gil-Galad, Elrond, Glorfindel et cetera - thought that good
> > had come out of the Fall of Numenor, namely that Sauron had also
> > perished.
> >
>
> Glorfindel is the only person you mention who had been to Aman, and was
> he already reincarnated by that point?

I think Tolkien concluded yes.

I think that people who had not
> been raised in Valinor may have not had a very clear idea of what a
> Maia can or cannot do.
>
> > It was a nasty surprise to all that Sauron came back at all.
> >
>
> But perhaps not a total surprise. By then, everyone realized he had
> powers beyond those of elves and men.
>
This had never been in serious doubt. As Annatar, he was claiming to be
a Maia, a good Maia setting up on his own like Melian had been and
Istari would be.

> > There is never any mention of Belryg coming back when slain.
>
> Already mentioned: Balrogs are weak enough that a really capable,
> totally-determined elf can defeat them one-on-one. Maybe Balrogs only
> have just enough innate power to create one body, and being evil, they
> won't get a freeby like Gandalf did.

Gandalf stresses that his return was rather exceptional and unexpected
intervention from above.

> > It appears that most powerful Ainur that occupied a bodily form were
> > permanently incarnated in that they were rendered into impotent spirits
> > if the body they occupied were physically destroyed -
>
> Actually, if it appeared that way, we would not be disagreeing right
> now. I believe it is a matter of individual power level, degree to
> which they are bound to their body, and how much of their power has
> been spent going against the grain of the universe, e.g., doing evil
> such as passing their power into minions and whatnot.
>
> > even if they,
> > like Sauron in Minas Tirith, were able to shift shape while remaining
> > incarnate in some form... or perhaps even if they could still recycle
> > the native power invested in the body when discarnating voluntarily and
> > undisturbed, they could not do so under immediate physical attack. Note
> > that Sauron turned into a bat in Minas Tirith, but for some reason did
> > not do the same and fly away when his temple collapsed in Westernesse.
> >
>
> He was taken by surprise and plunged to the depths. He should have
> changed to a fish. <8^)
>
> > If Luthien, Elendil and Gil-Galad thought Sauron could not come back
> > after getting killed, why were they wrong?
>
> That they thought this is a mere conjecture on your part, and you are
> still ignoring the idea that none of them may have had a clear idea
> what the powers of a Maia are, or what Sauron's power level even _is_.
> For sure, Elendil would have had no basis for knowing.
>
> > Were they mistaken about the
> > general rules of the game, that Maiar can and do come back eventually,
>
> I think they didn't know.
>
Luthien probably knew much details. She was born in Elder Days, and her
mother was a Maia herself. Then there had been the events of the start
of First Age - the scream of Melkor, the coming of Ungoliant whom
Melian repelled with her power, probably the reports of the Elves of
Hithlum of the passing of Belryg with winged speed (and return of
Morgoth saved by Belryg to Angband), the First Battle, the
establishment of the Melian=B4 s Girdle... Melian would probably have
explained at length why she preferred to sit in Menegroth rather than
go to Nan Dungortheb in person and deal with Ungoliant, or what
Ungoliant, Belryg or Melkor could or could not do if and when they
personally marched into her Girdle.

> > or about the specific case of Sauron - that the existence of One Ring
> > (which, unlike Sauron=B4s body, was magically hardened against physical
> > attack - it could not be altered by cutting by sword, scratching,
> > hammering or melting as normal gold would be) gave Sauron an anchor in
> > the world allowing him to eventually come back as long as One
> > functioned which he could not otherwise have done?
>
> Feel free to stick to this idea, but to me, it doesn't fit with the way
> the rest of the mythos works, and the idea of Maiar as essentially
> spiritual, rather than physical, beings. Also, even the Valar cannot
> change the essential fates of beings. Why would a _mere gadget_ be
> able to give Sauron such a blatantly disproportionate power, which it
> would be if no other Maia could reincarnate.
>
The Rings, "mere gadgets", could enormously extend the lifetime of
Elves against fading, stop humans from natural death, enable them to
survive physical peril like the flood of Ford... pretty essential
changes.

If the ability to survive being bodily killed was something the Maiar
theoretically had, but which they in practice were certain to lose
early on if trying to actually use a body, it would make sense that a
powerful and magically destruction-proofed Ring could give Sauron
powers that he otherwise could not have retained.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #254140 ]

Sa, 22 April 2006 05:30

Robinsons

Stan Brown wrote:
>
> 10 Apr 2006 20:41:23 GMT from Troels Forchhammer:

> > and probably didn't originate in an
> > infusion of native power from Sauron, even if he was the source of
> > these powers.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Sauron did _not_
> build those powers into the Rings? If so, why do you think that? What
> other source could have made those Rings confer invisibility and long
> life? The Elves were not interested in creating such things, as we
> know from the Three, so who would have given those powers to the
> Sixteen if not Sauron?

I thought it was obvious from the source material (and in your FAQ as well)
that invisibility was a side-effect of being used by a mortal who did not
already exist in both worlds at once, and one of insufficient stature to
control the "Ring On" effect. I.e. a physical side-effect, like the powers
of longevity which, I agree with Troels, are another unintended side-effect
of the Rings' chief power to preserve things.

If this were not true, then the whole story would make no sense.
Gandalf knew Bilbo had a ring of invisibility, after all. If invisibility
were a product of Sauronian retro-fitting, it would HAVE to be one of the
Great Rings, or one of the lesser rings in Sauron's posession (i.e. from
Mordor -- and we have no indication that Sauron bothered with the lesser
rings as they were but trifles to the Elves themselves.) If invisibility
were purely Sauronian (i.e. not an intrinsic by-product of the Ring's
intended purpose -- when used by mortals, which was not intended) then
Gandalf would be guilty of "CIA-level" blindness and lack of foresight.

It is the forcible "wraithification effect" -- and the sheer desire to
acquire and to use the rings for power and control, or to amass gold
("magic" in the Tolkienian sense, as opposed to art) that are the only
real Sauronian (after the fact) modifications I can see.

We must keep in mind that his knowledge was required to develop the whole
concept, however, so the idea of preserving works of "art" (or "white magic"
UNCHANGING FOREVER, was in itself a Sauronian "trojan horse" of some sort,
allowing him to dominate the works of the Elves, not just their wills,
thru the Morgoth Element, somehow.

Ber

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256580 ]

So, 23 April 2006 19:52

Troels Forchhammer

In message <news:4449A335.2E1F84 [at] erols.com>
Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> enriched us with:
>
> Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> 10 Apr 2006 20:41:23 GMT from Troels Forchhammer:
>>>

[The powers of invisibility and longevity]

> I thought it was obvious from the source material (and in your FAQ
> as well) that invisibility was a side-effect of being used by a
> mortal who did not already exist in both worlds at once,

I've never been comfortable with the usual explanations for these
things, I'm afraid.

There is solid evidence that the invisibility is tied to the
wraithifying effect, and thus the strong suggestion that immunity
against being 'turned to shadows' implies immunity also against being
made invisible (I agree with Stan's 'Most likely not' in the Rings
FAQ). I do take that to indicate that we should consider the Dwarves
immune to both effects, but this, I think, is due to the resistance
that was built into them by Aulë rather than anything to do with the
eventual fate of their Fëar.

Having come to that conclusion, I would be extremely uncomfortable
having to make up another form of immunity for the same thing -- that
wouldn't fit my ideas of how these things hang together.

At the same time, I frankly don't see any good arguments for why the
Elves should be immune to the invisibility effect. We even have the
specific information from Tolkien that the Three did not confer
invisibility, which, to me, implies that this, and nothing else, is the
explanation of why the keepers of the Three were not invisible.

The argument that existing in both worlds at the same time should
convey immunity to being shifted completely into one of these does also
appear to me to be failing logically. Furthermore this argument, as the
characteristic is explained by Gandalf, would apply only to those
Noldor who had been living in Aman, which would actually exclude all
but Galadriel of the Elven keepers of the Three (in the Third Age).

As for the direct 'source' of the invisibility, it is beyond doubt that
this power came directly from Sauron:

And finally they had other powers, more directly derived
from Sauron ([...]): such as rendering invisible the
material body, and making things of the invisible world
visible.
[Letter #131, To Milton Waldman, late 1951?]

The big question would be /when/ he put this power into the Rings --
and which Rings he did it to (didn't he also get hold of at least some
of the lesser rings, 'only essays in the craft before it was full-
grown', and might he have installed into some of these the power of
invisibility?

But recall also that Gandalf cites that it was 'clear from the first'
that Gollum had come by a Great Ring (LotR I,2 'The Shadow of the
Past'), and 'from the first' all he knew about the Ring was that it
conferred invisibility. But elsewhere in the chapter he relates of his
interrogation of Gollum,
Many lives of his small kind. The power of the ring had
lengthened his years far beyond their span; but that power
only the Great Rings wield.
This, obviously, implies that it was the longevity of the wearer that
proved the Ring to be one of the Great.

The evidence is not, I think, entirely consistent -- it is unclear
whether the invisibility was restricted to the seventeen Great Rings
that Sauron had touched. The way that I have found the easiest in order
to come to terms with the evidence is to assume that Gandalf guessed
already by the fact that the Ring conferred invisibility that it was
one of the Great Rings, but as he was not as strong in Ring-lore as
e.g. Saruman, he needed the corroborating evidence of Gollum's
longevity to be completely sure.

> and one of insufficient stature to control the "Ring On" effect.

I'd think that that would require someone who had actually mastered the
Ring (I suppose that all the Great Rings worked, to some extent, in the
same way, that a wearer would have to learn to 'master' the Ring).

> I.e. a physical side-effect, like the powers of longevity which,
> I agree with Troels, are another unintended side-effect of the
> Rings' chief power to preserve things.

Well, let me take it one step further and say that I think the
wraithification relies on a combination of the invisibility effect and
the longevity effect and possibly also on the domination/ corruption by
Sauron.

<snip>

> If invisibility were purely Sauronian (i.e. not an intrinsic
> by-product of the Ring's intended purpose -- when used by
> mortals, which was not intended) then Gandalf would be guilty
> of "CIA-level" blindness and lack of foresight.

Well, the invisibility did come directly from Sauron -- or at least
'more directly derived from Sauron' than the chief power (of
preservation) and the power to enhance 'the natural powers of a
possessor'.

But I don't agree that Gandalf is guilty of blindness. Gandalf was not
an expert of Ring-lore: we know how he repeatedly queried Saruman on
the subject precisely because of his misgivings about Bilbo's Ring, and
he adviced Bilbo not to use it, and Gollum, from whom Bilbo had got the
Ring, had not become a wraith, so Gandalf had reasons to believe that
he still had time.

> It is the forcible "wraithification effect" -- and the sheer
> desire to acquire and to use the rings for power and control, or
> to amass gold ("magic" in the Tolkienian sense, as opposed to art)
> that are the only real Sauronian (after the fact) modifications I
> can see.

The passage in question is
And all those rings that he governed he perverted, the
more easily since he had a part in their making, and they
were accursed, and they betrayed in the end all those that
used them.
[Silm V 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age']

This does, indeed, not say that the power to confer invisibility was
put into the Rings at this point (after Sauron had captured them from
the Elves), but if one wishes to claim that Sauron had put that power
in the Rings from the beginning, then we get the problem of either
explaining how the Elves didn't become suspicious or why they took that
part of the design out when they made the Three. Since we know that
this power stemmed 'more directly from Sauron' and also that it was not
in the Rings that he had never touched, it is natural to say that the
Rings recieved this power directly from Sauron's hand, and since it is
clearly a part of the wraithification ('if he often uses the Ring to
make himself invisible, he /fades/: [...]'), I think it fits better
with the evidence in general to assume that this power was conveyed to
the Rings after Sauron had captured them from the Elves, as part of the
perversion mentioned in the Silm.

<snip>

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next, better one.
- Konrad Lorenz

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256585 ]

Mo, 24 April 2006 18:00

chornedsnorkack

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message <news:4449A335.2E1F84 [at] erols.com>
> Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> enriched us with:
> >
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> 10 Apr 2006 20:41:23 GMT from Troels Forchhammer:
> >>>
>
> [The powers of invisibility and longevity]
>
> > I thought it was obvious from the source material (and in your FAQ
> > as well) that invisibility was a side-effect of being used by a
> > mortal who did not already exist in both worlds at once,
>
> I've never been comfortable with the usual explanations for these
> things, I'm afraid.
>
> There is solid evidence that the invisibility is tied to the
> wraithifying effect, and thus the strong suggestion that immunity
> against being 'turned to shadows' implies immunity also against being
> made invisible (I agree with Stan's 'Most likely not' in the Rings
> FAQ). I do take that to indicate that we should consider the Dwarves
> immune to both effects, but this, I think, is due to the resistance
> that was built into them by Aul=EB rather than anything to do with the
> eventual fate of their F=EBar.
>
> Having come to that conclusion, I would be extremely uncomfortable
> having to make up another form of immunity for the same thing -- that
> wouldn't fit my ideas of how these things hang together.
>
Is it inconsistent with evidence to assume that the Dwarves did become
invisible, but were immune to wrathification, because they persisted in
returning to visibility whenever they took off their Rings, unlike Men
who eventually became permanently invisible?

> > It is the forcible "wraithification effect" -- and the sheer
> > desire to acquire and to use the rings for power and control, or
> > to amass gold ("magic" in the Tolkienian sense, as opposed to art)
> > that are the only real Sauronian (after the fact) modifications I
> > can see.
>
> The passage in question is
> And all those rings that he governed he perverted, the
> more easily since he had a part in their making, and they
> were accursed, and they betrayed in the end all those that
> used them.
> [Silm V 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age']
>
> This does, indeed, not say that the power to confer invisibility was
> put into the Rings at this point (after Sauron had captured them from
> the Elves), but if one wishes to claim that Sauron had put that power
> in the Rings from the beginning, then we get the problem of either
> explaining how the Elves didn't become suspicious or why they took that
> part of the design out when they made the Three.

Celebrimbor was an Elf of Nargothrond. His history and background was
never a secret for general public, incl. Annatar.

The Noldor of Nargothrond liked hiding. Nargothrond, after the advice
of Celegorm against the dangers of open war as had been practiced
before 456 and still was practiced by Fingon and Maedhros, never went
to open war until the acts of Turin, instead relying on hiding in
forests and killing their enemies unseen. And Celebrimbor preferred to
stay in Nargothrond and go along with their policy of hiding instead of
returning to Maedhros with his father.

It would seem that, especially in respect to Nine, Celebrimbor might
have approved a magical device that allows the wearer to become
actually invisible in plain sight.

Now, the Elves of Nargothrond also were the ones to ignore the advice
of Feanor to leave their treasures behind, and insist on carrying a lot
of treasure across the ice. Therefore, a concern with increasing
one=B4s treasures would be something Celebrimbor might use his Seven
Rings for.

But it would also be in character for Celebrimbor to value healing and
understanding - the principal goals of the Three - above the more
mundane and base though valuable abilities of turning invisible,
scaring and dominating the wills of one=B4s enemies or amassing treasure.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256586 ]

Mo, 24 April 2006 20:46

stephen

In rec.arts.books.tolkien chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:

> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> The passage in question is
>> And all those rings that he governed he perverted, the
>> more easily since he had a part in their making, and they
>> were accursed, and they betrayed in the end all those that
>> used them.
>> [Silm V 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age']
>>
>> This does, indeed, not say that the power to confer invisibility was
>> put into the Rings at this point (after Sauron had captured them from
>> the Elves), but if one wishes to claim that Sauron had put that power
>> in the Rings from the beginning, then we get the problem of either
>> explaining how the Elves didn't become suspicious or why they took that
>> part of the design out when they made the Three.

> Celebrimbor was an Elf of Nargothrond. His history and background was
> never a secret for general public, incl. Annatar.

Celebrimbor was the grandson of Feanor. I think that is far
more telling than the fact that he lived in Nargothrond for awhile.

Stephen

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256592 ]

Di, 25 April 2006 12:15

Troels Forchhammer

In message
<news:1145894413.264322.188170 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> In message <news:4449A335.2E1F84 [at] erols.com>
>> Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> enriched us with:
>>>
>>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 10 Apr 2006 20:41:23 GMT from Troels Forchhammer:
>>>>>

<snip>

> Is it inconsistent with evidence to assume that the Dwarves did
> become invisible, but were immune to wrathification, because they
> persisted in returning to visibility whenever they took off their
> Rings, unlike Men who eventually became permanently invisible?

To the best of my knowledge, that would not be inconsistent with the
evidence, which is why I can only say that that they 'most likely'
didn't become invisible; a wraith, basically, is a wearer who has
become permanently invisible, so the immunity to the wraithification
is a very strong indication, though it could, obviously, also be only
an immunity to the permanency effect. The lack of any description of
an invisible Dwarf is, in this situation, a far weaker, but
corrobating, indication (we do hear something about the heirs of
Durin in LotR App. A,III 'Durin's Folk' and know, for instance, that
Thráin didn't use it to take a peep inside Moria at the Battle of
Azanulbizar, nor did he use it to escape capture by Sauron as Isildur
attempted to use the One when he was set upon by Orcs).

<snip>

> Celebrimbor was an Elf of Nargothrond.

Not really. He was a grand-son of Fëanor, who lived for a long period
in Nargothrond, before and after he 'repudiated the deeds of his
father'.

> The Noldor of Nargothrond liked hiding.

Actually they didn't -- that was why they could so easily be
persuaded not to (by Túrin). Hiding was the official policy of
Nargothrond, and probably the wisest course, but that doesn't mean
that they liked it.

<snip>

> It would seem that, especially in respect to Nine,

There is no reason to believe that there was any difference between
the Seven and the Nine. The dichotomy of the Sixteen was created only
after Sauron distributed them.

> Now, the Elves of Nargothrond also were the ones to ignore the
> advice of Feanor to leave their treasures behind,

Which has, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with Celebrimbor who
crossed in the ships with his father, Curufin.

I also notice that you conveniently ignore the evidence that the
invisibility was derived more directly from Sauron and only was found
in the Rings which he controlled.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not
imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They
laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed
at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the
Clown.
- Carl Sagan

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256593 ]

Di, 25 April 2006 18:33

chornedsnorkack

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> <news:1145894413.264322.188170 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com enriched us with:
> >
> > Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <news:4449A335.2E1F84 [at] erols.com>
> >> Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> enriched us with:
> >>>
> >>> Stan Brown wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 10 Apr 2006 20:41:23 GMT from Troels Forchhammer:
> >>>>>
>

>
> > Celebrimbor was an Elf of Nargothrond.
>
> Not really. He was a grand-son of F=EBanor, who lived for a long period
> in Nargothrond, before and after he 'repudiated the deeds of his
> father'.
>

>
> > It would seem that, especially in respect to Nine,
>
> There is no reason to believe that there was any difference between
> the Seven and the Nine. The dichotomy of the Sixteen was created only
> after Sauron distributed them.
>
It is mentioned that Sauron got the Nine immediately as he seized
Eregion, and the Six only after torturing Celebrimbor to reveal where
they were hid. This shows Celebrimbor regarded Nine as different from
Seven.

> > Now, the Elves of Nargothrond also were the ones to ignore the
> > advice of Feanor to leave their treasures behind,
>
> Which has, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with Celebrimbor who
> crossed in the ships with his father, Curufin.
>
But Celebrimbor did not follow the actions, and priorities, of his
father after the events in Nargothrond. If indeed he crossed. There is
no mention of Celebrimbor (or any other grandson of Feanor) taking his
Oath.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256640 ]

So, 30 April 2006 08:56

Stan Brown

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:15:12 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
<Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> There is no reason to believe that there was any difference between
> the Seven and the Nine. The dichotomy of the Sixteen was created only
> after Sauron distributed them.

Except for that bit in the UT about Sauron torturing Celebrimbor:

"Celebrimbor, desperate, himself withstood Sauron on the steps of the
great door of the Mírdain; but he was grappled and taken captive, and
the House was ransacked. There Sauron took the Nine Rings and other
lesser works of the Mírdain; but the Seven and the Three he could not
find. Then Celebrimbor was put to torment, and Sauron learned from
him where the Seven were bestowed. This Celebrimbor revealed, because
neither the Seven nor the Nine did he value as he valued the Three;
the Seven and the Nine were made with Sauron's aid, whereas the Three
were made by Celebrimbor alone, with a different power and purpose."

But this doesn't make it clear what difference if any there was
between the Seven and the Nine. One possible reading is that there
was _no_ difference, that only seven of the Sixteen had been handed
out and the rest were still in Celebrimbor's treasury.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256641 ]

So, 30 April 2006 09:04

Stan Brown

11 Apr 2006 10:20:12 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
<Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> As I read it, the only purpose for Sauron to infuse the One Ring with
> part of his native power was to turn it into the Master-ring, the One
> Ring to rule them all.

I agree wholeheartedly.

> In message <news:MPG.1ea4c37aab314a8698a3d6 [at] news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
> > Are you saying Sauron did _not_ build those powers into the Rings?
>
> I am saying that he didn't let any part of his native powers pass into
> any Ring in order to provide them with these powers (invisibility and
> 'immortality').
>
> > If so, why do you think that?
> > What other source could have made those Rings confer invisibility
> > and long life? The Elves were not interested in creating such
> > things, as we know from the Three, so who would have given those
> > powers to the Sixteen if not Sauron?
>
> With respect to the invisibility, I agree entirely that it was built
> into the Rings by Sauron, in the 'usual way' -- i.e. by the combination
> of Art and Craft that also constitutes the Elvish magic.

Ah -- you're saying that Sauron could do it without losing any of his
own power, just as Galadriel's Elves weren't diminished when they
made unsinkable boats. Okay, I'll buy that.

I'm thinking about the cloaks they gave the company -- "And you will
find them a great aid in keeping out of the sight of unfriendly eyes,
whether you walk among the stones or the trees. " Not invisibility
but "unobtrusiveness" was their power. :-)

> I'm a bit more uncertain about the longevity -- it seems to follow as a
> perversion of the chief power of all the Rings alike: that of staying
> decay and change. The Elven motif here would be to allow the wearer to
> experience Time as it were before the Sun and the Moon. I'm not sure
> if there is more to the life-stretching effect of the Rings than that;
> it would not surprise me if Sauron had taken a relatively harmless
> power and perverted it into what we see in LotR.

I hadn't thought about that before, but it makes sense. We know that
the Elves' motive was /preservation/. Therefore all the Nineteen had
some powers of preservation, which Sauron could misdirect in the ones
he got hold of. Or perhaps, even, the preservation effect _as_
_designed_ was dangerous to Men and Hobbits, since Celebrimbor
intended all the Nineteen for Elves.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256642 ]

So, 30 April 2006 09:08

Stan Brown

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:37:40 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
<Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> The way I've managed to make it work for me is to imagine that the
> Ainu spends some innate energy on creating a body, but that this
> energy can, normally, be retrieved when the body is left. When the
> Ainu becomes bound to the body, however, the ability to retrieve the
> energy is lost.

That much makes sense to me.

> That did not happen to Sauron until the Akkalabêth (we are
> specifically told that he lost his ability to assume a fair form at
> that point).

We are told that, but I don't think that means he was necessarily
bound to a _particular_ non-fair form. He may or may not have had the
ability to change from one hideous shape to another, or to cast off
his body.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256643 ]

So, 30 April 2006 09:11

Stan Brown

OOPS -- Troels disposed of this argment in his quote from Pengolod,
which I overlooked at first.

I agree with Troels, based on that quote, that Sauron had becoem
bound to his particular body.

Sun, 30 Apr 2006 03:08:13 -0400 from Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm>:
> Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:37:40 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
> <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> > The way I've managed to make it work for me is to imagine that the
> > Ainu spends some innate energy on creating a body, but that this
> > energy can, normally, be retrieved when the body is left. When the
> > Ainu becomes bound to the body, however, the ability to retrieve the
> > energy is lost.
>
> That much makes sense to me.
>
> > That did not happen to Sauron until the Akkalabêth (we are
> > specifically told that he lost his ability to assume a fair form at
> > that point).
>
> We are told that, but I don't think that means he was necessarily
> bound to a _particular_ non-fair form. He may or may not have had the
> ability to change from one hideous shape to another, or to cast off
> his body.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256646 ]

So, 30 April 2006 13:54

Christopher Kreuzer

Troels Forchhammer <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> And the idea that 'For the less even as for the greater there is some
> deed that he may accomplish but once only' would, I am sure, apply
> equally to human artisans and artists -- to each is given, at most,
> one work of perfection and that cannot be repeated.

Alternatively, one can niggle away at a work, say, a lifelong attempt to
write a mythology, and then leave it to one's son to publish it? :-)

I think issues of Tolkien and perfectionism are complicated, to say the
least! I read a reference to him saying that the 'Silmarillion' was his
life work, but he also said that 'The Lord of the Rings' was written in
his "life-blood" (Letter 109).

Christopher

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256647 ]

So, 30 April 2006 14:08

Christopher Kreuzer

Raven <jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
> <chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1145375802.355992.93660 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

>> But we are not told that Sauron reported to Melkor after losing
>> Tol-i-Gaurhoth. We are told that he turned into a bat and flew right
>> to Dorthonion.
>
>> So, it does sound a plausible argument that Sauron could have
>> deserted Morgoth - his remaining alive was valuable to himself.
>
> This is a good point. I don't remember reading anything about what
> Sauron did between his defeat by Huan and the War of Wrath. He dwelt
> in Dorthonion, but did he do so as an outlaw himself and a rebel
> against his master because of fear, or in understanding with Morgoth,
> still obeying his commands? Was his stay in Dorthonion an exile, in
> penalty for his defeat at Tol-in-Gaurhoth?

This is what I always thought. A period of exile and recovery. It seems
that by the time of the War of Wrath, he was recovered. There are
probably more details in HoME. I never thought of him setting up
independently. Might not be impossible, but it's not what I read from
the text (unless HoME says more).

> Did he later return to
> Angband, perhaps when he had recovered his strength? We do know that
> Huan slew Draugluin. After this, although Beren and Lúthien went the
> speediest way to Angband, he disguised as Draugluin, when they
> approached the gates Draugluin's death was already long known to
> Carcharoth. Who sent the message? Servants of Sauron's escaping
> from Tol-in-Gaurhoth? Sauron apparently did not go to Angband
> himself, but did he order the message to be sent?

A fair amount of time elapses between the episode at Tol-in-Gaurhoth and
the scene at the Gates of Angband, so messages could have been sent.

> Speaking of Carcharoth, is it coincidence that it resembles
> somewhat the name Carcharodon Carcharias, the systematic name for the
> Great White Shark? :-)

I've thought that myself, but it seems that the etymologies are as
follows:

1) Carcharoth (wolf) - /carch/ (Sind) - fang

[also glossed as 'Red Maw' in the text]

2) Carcharodon carcharias (shark) - (Latin) - jagged toothed one

[note that /carcharos/ means jagged and /odon/ means tooth]

http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/fish/Carcharodon_carcharia s/

So it looks related, but seemingly the meanings of the word fragments
are different. Maybe there are more clues in Tolkien's /Etymologies/ to
see how the /carch/ Sindarin fragment was formed from earlier elements.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256650 ]

So, 30 April 2006 14:29

Christopher Kreuzer

eroot [at] swva.net <eroot [at] swva.net> wrote:
> chornedsnorkack [at] hushmail.com wrote:

<snip>

>> If Luthien, Elendil and Gil-Galad thought Sauron could not come back
>> after getting killed, why were they wrong?
>
> That they thought this is a mere conjecture on your part, and you are
> still ignoring the idea that none of them may have had a clear idea
> what the powers of a Maia are, or what Sauron's power level even _is_.
> For sure, Elendil would have had no basis for knowing.

This reminds me of comments by Tolkien somewhere (either Letters or in
Unfinished Tales) about how Men perceived Istari. I can't remember
whether he commented similarly about how Elves perceived them.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256667 ]

So, 30 April 2006 17:45

Stan Brown

Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:08:57 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
<spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Raven <jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
> > Speaking of Carcharoth, is it coincidence that it resembles
> > somewhat the name Carcharodon Carcharias, the systematic name for the
> > Great White Shark? :-)
>
> I've thought that myself, but it seems that the etymologies are as
> follows:
>
> 1) Carcharoth (wolf) - /carch/ (Sind) - fang
> [also glossed as 'Red Maw' in the text]
>
> 2) Carcharodon carcharias (shark) - (Latin) - jagged toothed one
> [note that /carcharos/ means jagged and /odon/ means tooth]

I think we have to remember that in Tolkien the etymologies might
follow the words. They're hardly trustworthy guides to how Tolkien
created the words, even when we accept them as valid inside the
story.

He sometimes chose words for their sound, then fitted them into the
rest of his linguistic system. So it's possible, at least, that he
chose Carcharoth because he liked the sound of it, perhaps knowingly
or subconsciously because of the shark taxonomy, then recognized the
"Car" element and decided to use it, then further decided to create
"carch" (fang) in Sindarin.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256670 ]

So, 30 April 2006 20:01

Christopher Kreuzer

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:

<snip>

[Carcharoth cf. Carcharodon carcharias]

> I think we have to remember that in Tolkien the etymologies might
> follow the words. They're hardly trustworthy guides to how Tolkien
> created the words, even when we accept them as valid inside the
> story.

Good point.

> He sometimes chose words for their sound, then fitted them into the
> rest of his linguistic system. So it's possible, at least, that he
> chose Carcharoth because he liked the sound of it, perhaps knowingly
> or subconsciously because of the shark taxonomy, then recognized the
> "Car" element and decided to use it, then further decided to create
> "carch" (fang) in Sindarin.

That sounds plausible. Pity we will probably never know. The bit in the
Silmarillion appendix about "red" = "caran" being 'associated' with
Carcharoth ('Red Maw'), rather than a direct translation, might lend
support to your theory.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256673 ]

So, 30 April 2006 20:52

Troels Forchhammer

In message <news:MPG.1ebe29aa5fa8b47698a464 [at] news.individual.net>
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
> Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:15:12 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
> <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>>
>> There is no reason to believe that there was any difference
>> between the Seven and the Nine. The dichotomy of the Sixteen was
>> created only after Sauron distributed them.
>
> Except for that bit in the UT about Sauron torturing Celebrimbor:

<snip quotation>

> But this doesn't make it clear what difference if any there was
> between the Seven and the Nine. One possible reading is that there
> was _no_ difference, that only seven of the Sixteen had been
> handed out and the rest were still in Celebrimbor's treasury.

Or possibly that they were merely stored in different places (possibly
to increase security) and that only the Three had been passed on.

Or that he thought he might get away with revealing only nine to begin
with, but surrendering seven more later.

The main point is that the designation of 'The Nine' and 'The Seven'
cannot be said with any certainty to pre-date Sauron's handing them out
(in the sequence he got hold of them), nor is there any evidence that
they were in any way different (as groups -- beyond the known
differences between the Three as individual Rings).

I'll happily acknowledge that the passage is perfectly consistent with
the reading that even Celebrimbor thought of these two groups as 'the
Seven' and 'the Nine' /before/ they were taken by Sauron, but that is
still a far cry from saying that it is actually a /reason/ to read it
that way. It is quite common to apply a name retroactively.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256676 ]

So, 30 April 2006 22:48

Raven

"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:tN15g.61833$wl.32450 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Raven <jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:

[Carcharoth knowing of Draugluin's death when Beren came to Angband
disguised as Draugluin]

> > Sauron apparently did not go to Angband himself, but did he order the
> > message to be sent?

> A fair amount of time elapses between the episode at Tol-in-Gaurhoth and
> the scene at the Gates of Angband, so messages could have been sent.

On the order of a year, perhaps. Enough time for simple rumour to have
diffused to Angband, or to servants of Morgoth's who would upon hearing them
immediately report to Angband. Whence the rumours then? Servants of
Sauron's that he left behind when he fled the tower? Huan and Lúthien may
have been too noble to slay helpless enemies. These may later have brought
the tale, either running as messengers to Angband themselves or bringing the
rumour with them. Thus it seems to me that we cannot conclude from the text
whether Sauron sent messages of this to his master, or he hid for a time
from him, and the report of Draugluin's death came from other sources.
Though judging from Morgoth's character it is unlikely that Sauron hid,
and then returned to his master's allegiance. Morgoth would not have
forgiven. He would not have forgiven Sauron for having been defeated by
Huan either, but presumably the penalty would have been much lesser for
defeat than for treason. Banishment to Dorthonion, perhaps?

> > Speaking of Carcharoth, is it coincidence that it resembles
> > somewhat the name Carcharodon Carcharias, the systematic name for the
> > Great White Shark? :-)

> I've thought that myself, but it seems that the etymologies are as
> follows:

> 1) Carcharoth (wolf) - /carch/ (Sind) - fang

> [also glossed as 'Red Maw' in the text]

> 2) Carcharodon carcharias (shark) - (Latin) - jagged toothed one

> [note that /carcharos/ means jagged and /odon/ means tooth]

> http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/fish/Carcharodon_carcharia s/

> So it looks related, but seemingly the meanings of the word fragments
> are different. Maybe there are more clues in Tolkien's /Etymologies/ to
> see how the /carch/ Sindarin fragment was formed from earlier elements.

Deliberately facetious as my remark was, I wondered more if Tolkien,
consciously or not, devised the Sindarin word "carch" with the shark's name
in mind. Or perhaps devised "Carcharoth" first, and then back-engineered
the Sindarin vocabulary on this point.

Corvus.

Re: The source of Ring-powers [message #256697 ]

Mo, 01 Mai 2006 17:48

"davémon"

Christopher Kreuzer arranged shapes to form:

> Troels Forchhammer <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> And the idea that 'For the less even as for the greater there is some
>> deed that he may accomplish but once only' would, I am sure, apply
>> equally to human artisans and artists -- to each is given, at most,
>> one work of perfection and that cannot be repeated.
>
> Alternatively, one can niggle away at a work, say, a lifelong attempt to
> write a mythology, and then leave it to one's son to publish it? :-)
>

'/Niggle/ away at a work' - I hope the pun was intended!

> I think issues of Tolkien and perfectionism are complicated, to say the
> least!

Agreed... It might be possible to read "Leaf by Niggle" as Tolkiens
commentary on his own creative process, and his regard for his works role
in the world. There may be some irony that it /didn't/ come from Tolkiens
usual niggling away but that it arrived "very swiftly, one day when I awoke
with it already in my mind" (JRRT. Introduction to Leaf by Niggle.)

IMHO it may well be Tolkiens 'one work of perfection' (not that I subscribe
to such a doctrine) - a fairy story for adults which is mythic, spiritual,
and modern.

--

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/

Seiten (2): [1 2 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	Tolkien and the OED (new book)
Nächstes Thema:	Re: Formal baseball player, Steve Howe dies

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 00:09:30 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,34943 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.