Sam and the Ring at Cirith Ungol
Thomas Deniau
in the FAQ....
When Sam puts the Ring on (twice) near Cirith Ungol, so near to Mordor,
why doesn't Sauron see him ?
He could see Frodo at Amon Hen, and Cirith Ungol is so much nearer to
Barad-Dūr... We know that Sauron is gazing at the Pelennor fields at
this time, but is this enough to prevent him from seeing someone putting
the Ring on the border of his realm ?
--
Thomas Deniau
pawn
> There is something which has always puzzled me, and I couldn't find it
> in the FAQ....
>
> When Sam puts the Ring on (twice) near Cirith Ungol, so near to Mordor,
> why doesn't Sauron see him ?
He was still hidden in Shelob's lair and/or the tunnels leading to the
Tower the entire time he uses it.
> He could see Frodo at Amon Hen, and Cirith Ungol is so much nearer to
> Barad-Dūr... We know that Sauron is gazing at the Pelennor fields at
> this time, but is this enough to prevent him from seeing someone putting
> the Ring on the border of his realm ?
Well, that is a resounding plot theme in the book, and why the Captains
of the West sacrifced themselves at the Black Gate.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>When Sam puts the Ring on (twice) near Cirith Ungol, so near to Mordor,
>why doesn't Sauron see him ?
>
>He could see Frodo at Amon Hen, and Cirith Ungol is so much nearer to
>Barad-Dūr... We know that Sauron is gazing at the Pelennor fields at
>this time,
I think you have the answer to your own question there, but with a
little shift in emphasis. Sauron wasn't just "gazing" at the
Pelennor fields, he was completely absorbed with what was going on
there.
By contrast, when Frodo was at Amon Hen, Sauron didn't have anything
else making special demands on his attention. Even so, it's not
quite accurate to say he could "see" Frodo there. He sensed that the
Ring was being worn, and about where it was, but he did not know by
whom and he did not know exactly where. Remember Frodo's vision of
the arm groping, touching first one spot then another -- but when
Frodo took off the Ring the arm faded out before it touched Amon
Hen.
Sam was protected from discovery because the Eye of Sauron was
gazing past him. From time to time Gandalf talks of the need to
distract Sauron (as we would say) so that Frodo and Sam are less
likely to be found by the Eye.
--
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
McREsq
>in the FAQ....
>
>When Sam puts the Ring on (twice) near Cirith Ungol, so near to Mordor,
>why doesn't Sauron see him ?
The movie overplays the idea that Sauron can sense anytime someone puts on the
ring. The books do no such thing.
>
>He could see Frodo at Amon Hen,
That was special because Frodo was on the Seat of Seeing and sort of projected
himself to Sauron.
and Cirith Ungol is so much nearer to
>Barad-Dūr... We know that Sauron is gazing at the Pelennor fields at
>this time, but is this enough to prevent him from seeing someone putting
>the Ring on the border of his realm ?
Russ
Sean
> Sam was protected from discovery because the Eye of Sauron was
> gazing past him. From time to time Gandalf talks of the need to
> distract Sauron (as we would say) so that Frodo and Sam are less
> likely to be found by the Eye.
However, when Frodo put on the Ring in Sammath Naur and claimed
it for his own, that got Sauron's attention right away.
If Sam had claimed the Ring in Cirith Ungol it's pretty certain
that Sauron would have been instantly aware of him, distraction
or no distraction. And then I think no Samwise the Strong,
Hero of the Age.
Sean
ps. An interesting artist's impression of Frodo at Sammath Naur:
http://www.lightindarkplaces.net/ATSN.html
Christopher Kreuzer
> ps. An interesting artist's impression of Frodo at Sammath Naur:
> http://www.lightindarkplaces.net/ATSN.html
And an interesting piece of fanfiction. It suggests that Gandalf and
Elrond tricked Frodo into going on the quest, and shows Frodo's response
to that perceived deception. There is no hint of this reaction by Frodo
in the book, but it does raise two questions:
1) Did Gandalf and Elrond realise that Frodo would not be able to cast
away the Ring, and did they chose not to tell Frodo, and does this count
as a deception?
2) Did Frodo realise that he would not be able to cast away the Ring in
Sammath Naur (or anywhere)? If so, when?
The second question was discussed earlier in the year, but I can't
actually remember what the views were back then.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Vandevere
I'm not sure that Gandalf or Elrond knew Frodo would not be able to do
it. The only other two examples they had were Isildur and Gollum; and
Isildur's failure was explainable in that he was an arrogant young-or
relatively young-man of high lineage. I don't think too many people
knew that Smeagol had originally been of Hobbit-stock either...
Gandalf had already noted Frodo's inner strength to resist based upon
how long he withstood the wound from the Nazgul Blade.
Perhaps Gandalf realized that Frodo was their last, and best hope; and
that, if Frodo wasn't strong enough to withstand the Ring, then nobody
was...
Vandevere
Chris Kern
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
>Sean <no....@no.spam> wrote:
>> ps. An interesting artist's impression of Frodo at Sammath Naur:
>> http://www.lightindarkplaces.net/ATSN.html
>
>And an interesting piece of fanfiction. It suggests that Gandalf and
>Elrond tricked Frodo into going on the quest, and shows Frodo's response
>to that perceived deception. There is no hint of this reaction by Frodo
>in the book, but it does raise two questions:
>
>1) Did Gandalf and Elrond realise that Frodo would not be able to cast
>away the Ring, and did they chose not to tell Frodo, and does this count
>as a deception?
I think that both Gandalf and Elrond probably realized that the Quest
was something that was inspired by Eru (they make several references
to this throughout the book), and thus had faith that things would
work out.
-Chris
Troels Forchhammer
Vandevere <vonho...@juno.com> enriched us with:
>
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<QWtWc.5648$My5.70...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>>
>> and Elrond tricked Frodo into going on the quest, and shows
>> Frodo's response to that perceived deception. There is no hint
>> of this reaction by Frodo in the book, but it does raise two
>> questions:
>>
>> 1) Did Gandalf and Elrond realise that Frodo would not be able
>> to cast away the Ring, and did they chose not to tell Frodo,
>> and does this count as a deception?
>>
>
> to do it.
Gandalf, IMO, ought to at the very least suspect it very strongly:
" Gandalf laughed grimly. 'You see? Already you too, Frodo,
cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could
not 'make' you - except by force, which would break your mind.
But as for breaking the Ring, force is useless. Even if you
took it and struck it with a heavy sledge-hammer, it would
make no dint in it. It cannot be unmade by your hands, or by
mine."
(LotR I,2 'The Shadow of the Past')
And Tolkien seems to think that the result, given the way the story had
developed, was inevitable. E.g. in letter #181 (1956?):
" Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a
person of greater native power could probably never have
resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less
power could not hope to resist it in the final decision.
(Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he
set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.)
The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and
also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble
Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail
it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was
concerned. He 'apostatized' - and I have had one savage
letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a
traitor, not honoured.
[...]
But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's
own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and
forgiveness of injury."
But also in letter #24 (1963); "But, for one thing, it became at last
quite clear that Frodo after all that had happened would be incapable of
voluntarily destroying the Ring."
<snip>
> Gandalf had already noted Frodo's inner strength to resist based
> upon how long he withstood the wound from the Nazgul Blade.
But he had also reflected on Frodo's inability to "will to damage it".
> Perhaps Gandalf realized that Frodo was their last, and best hope;
> and that, if Frodo wasn't strong enough to withstand the Ring, then
> nobody was...
I'm not sure that they went as far as that. Elrond says,
"'If I understand aright all that I have heard,' he said, 'I
think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if
you do not find a way, no one will.'"
(LotR II,2 'The Council of Elrond')
My understanding is that Elrond (and Gandalf) reads some signs -- they
recognise that Frodo's ability to carry the Ring to Rivendell and
withstand both the Ring and the Morgul wound was not random. Frodo had
been appointed this task; they trusted that he had been appointed by
'higher powers' and they put their trust in this -- /estel/!
>> 2) Did Frodo realise that he would not be able to cast away the
>> Ring in Sammath Naur (or anywhere)? If so, when?
I don't think he did. Had he stopped to consider it, he might have
realised that he wouldn't be able to do it, but I don't think he ever
allowed himself to approach this realisation.
We know that he was uncertain from the start, he was given grace to
accept the quest, and Tolkien reflects on the various signs in the above
quotation from letter #181 -- had Frodo paused to reflect on this, he
ought to have reached the same realisation himself.
There is also the actual passage in VI,3 'Mount Doom':
" The light sprang up again, and there on the brink of the
chasm, at the very Crack of Doom, stood Frodo, black against
the glare, tense, erect, but still as if he had been turned to
stone.
'Master!' cried Sam.
Then Frodo stirred and spoke with a clear voice, indeed with
a voice clearer and more powerful than Sam had ever heard him
use, and it rose above the throb and turmoil of Mount Doom,
ringing in the roof and walls.
'I have come,' he said. 'But I do not choose now to do what
I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!' And
suddenly, as he set it on his finger, he vanished from Sam's
sight. Sam gasped, but he had no chance to cry out, for at
that moment many things happened."
The impression I get is that Frodo is, when Sam first sees him stand
"tense, erect, but still as if he had been turned to stone", still locked
in an internal debate. Sam's cry wakes him and only then does he see what
he has to do, what the inevitable outcome will be. This is, IMO, the
moment he makes his (albeit inevitable) choice.
--
Troels Forchhammer
The trouble with being a god is that you've got no one to pray to.
- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Stan Brown
>Perhaps Gandalf realized that Frodo was their last, and best hope; and
>that, if Frodo wasn't strong enough to withstand the Ring, then nobody
>was...
Elrond realized this, and said so in just about those words: "'f I
understand aright all that I have heard, I think that this task is
appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one
will."
In the movie, I think that line was given to Galadriel.
Christopher Kreuzer
> I think that both Gandalf and Elrond probably realized that the Quest
> was something that was inspired by Eru (they make several references
> to this throughout the book), and thus had faith that things would
> work out.
But how much of those thoughts should they have divulged to Frodo? Do
they fear that saying too much would make Frodo incapable of what he
might have to do? I think that Elrond, by his "I think that this task is
appointed to you..." comment does in effect reveal his faith or estel. I
can't remember quite as clear a comment from Gandalf. How much do you
think _Frodo_ appreciated these comments?
ste...@nomail.com
: "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<QWtWc.5648$My5.70...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
:> Sean <no....@no.spam> wrote:
:> > ps. An interesting artist's impression of Frodo at Sammath Naur:
:> > http://www.lightindarkplaces.net/ATSN.html
<snip>
:> 1) Did Gandalf and Elrond realise that Frodo would not be able to cast
:> away the Ring, and did they chose not to tell Frodo, and does this count
:> as a deception?
:>
:> 2) Did Frodo realise that he would not be able to cast away the Ring in
:> Sammath Naur (or anywhere)? If so, when?
:>
:> The second question was discussed earlier in the year, but I can't
:> actually remember what the views were back then.
:>
:> Christopher
: I'm not sure that Gandalf or Elrond knew Frodo would not be able to do
: it. The only other two examples they had were Isildur and Gollum; and
: Isildur's failure was explainable in that he was an arrogant young-or
: relatively young-man of high lineage. I don't think too many people
: knew that Smeagol had originally been of Hobbit-stock either...
Isildur was 232 years old when he took the Ring. That is not relatively
young even by Numenorean standards.
Stephen
AC
As is the case through the entire book, Sauron was looking elsewhere.
However, Sam also feels that if he were to walk into Mordor with the
Ring on, he would be discovered.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
Belba Grubb from Stock
All good answers; I would just add, that while none of the hobbits had
the strength to withstand Sauron, Sam was strengthened at that point
by his intense focus on Frodo, whom he thought dead at first and then
was overwhelmingly concerned about Frodo in the tower. He was tempted
and he did sense the danger in wearing the Ring while entering Mordor,
but the rest of the time, his mind was focused elsewhere, just as
Sauron's was, and very strongly too, which might have deflected any
glancing attention Sauron may have been able to spare before the
Captains of the West began their march to the Black Gate.
Barb
Vandevere
I believe he accepted the Quest as his duty. He may have appreciated
their beliefs that he was *fated* for lack of a better term, but I
don't think he ever really held out much hope of actually
succeeding...
Vandevere
Christopher Kreuzer
>>> I think that both Gandalf and Elrond probably realized that the
>>> Quest was something that was inspired by Eru (they make several
>>> references to this throughout the book), and thus had faith that
>>> things would work out.
>>
>> But how much of those thoughts should they have divulged to Frodo? Do
>> they fear that saying too much would make Frodo incapable of what he
>> might have to do? I think that Elrond, by his "I think that this
>> task is appointed to you..." comment does in effect reveal his faith
>> or estel. I can't remember quite as clear a comment from Gandalf.
>> How much do you think _Frodo_ appreciated these comments?
>
> their beliefs that he was *fated* for lack of a better term, but I
> don't think he ever really held out much hope of actually
> succeeding...
That seems a bit defeatist. I think he initially thought he could do it,
but only later realised the enormity of the burden. I'm trying to think
of an analogy in real life where we (Gandalf/Elrond) would let someone
(Frodo)do something (be the Ringbearer on the Quest of Mount Doom) while
knowing they wouldn't be able to achieve it without some form of divine
intervention.
It all seems to fall down when examined too closely....
[Or rather, it reveals Tolkien's deeply held religious beliefs]
david60610
> He 'apostatized' - and I have had one savage
> letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a
> traitor, not honoured.
It could, of course, be said that he was exiled as a traitor.
He was not especially honored in his own country.
david60610
considering Frodo a traitor, even assuming that Frodo must accept
full responsibility for his actions at Mt Doom?
Treason is an act of betrayal against one's_own_country. In this
case, Frodo's country was the Shire. At Mt Doom, Frodo made the
following claim:
"The Ring is mine."
By the laws of the Shire, Frodo was justified in making this claim,
because the Ring had been bequeathed to him (from Bilbo) in a will
that even the Sackville-Bagginses had been forced to admit was
impeccable according to the legal customs of hobbits. From the
point of view of the Shire, the Ring was, in fact, his.
Unlike Pippin, who swore an oath to Denethor, Frodo had no legal
obligation to anyone outside the Shire.
Comments?
david...@hotmail.com (david60610) wrote in message news:<f5a2db3e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
McREsq
>considering Frodo a traitor, even assuming that Frodo must accept
>full responsibility for his actions at Mt Doom?
>
>Treason is an act of betrayal against one's_own_country. In this
>case, Frodo's country was the Shire. At Mt Doom, Frodo made the
>following claim:
>
>"The Ring is mine."
>
>By the laws of the Shire, Frodo was justified in making this claim,
>because the Ring had been bequeathed to him (from Bilbo) in a will
>that even the Sackville-Bagginses had been forced to admit was
>impeccable according to the legal customs of hobbits. From the
>point of view of the Shire, the Ring was, in fact, his.
>
>Unlike Pippin, who swore an oath to Denethor, Frodo had no legal
>obligation to anyone outside the Shire.
>
>Comments?
Yeah, that you're missing the point.
Russ
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>Actually, thinking about what happened, what would be the basis for
>considering Frodo a traitor, even assuming that Frodo must accept
>full responsibility for his actions at Mt Doom?
>
>Treason is an act of betrayal against one's_own_country. In this
>case, Frodo's country was the Shire.
No, his country was Arnor. The Shire was a fief of the Kings of
Arnor, whose heir was Aragorn.
> At Mt Doom, Frodo made the following claim:
>
>"The Ring is mine."
>
>By the laws of the Shire, Frodo was justified in making this claim,
>because the Ring had been bequeathed to him (from Bilbo) in a will
Bilbo's will didn't mention the Ring, since it was supposed to be a
secret! (I wonder why Bilbo transferred his possessions to Frodo by
_will_, since he wasn't dying? Wouldn't a deed of gift have been
more appropriate? And how could the will be considered valid until
Bilbo had been missing and presumed dead for some considerable
time?)
> From the
>point of view of the Shire, the Ring was, in fact, his.
But at the Council of Elrond it was established that the Ring did
not belong to him, nor to Aragorn.
Legally Isildur stole the Ring from Sauron, and so he had no title.
When he lost it and Gollum found it centuries later, Gollum might or
might not have had legal title to it as treasure trove. But Bilbo
had no title -- Gollum was absolutely right to call him "thief". And
since Bilbo had no title, he could not transfer title to Frodo. (*)
But that's all nit-picking. A more serious point is that there are
two types of "ownership" -- ownership of the physical Ring, and
ownership of the world through the power of the Ring. Whether or not
Frodo had legal title to the first (and before his Ring-induced
madness he knew he did not), he certainly had no right, legally or
morally, to teh dominion of the world. When he said "The Ring is
Mine" he was saying "I claim the lordship of the world." None has
that right, save Manwë the High King as vicegerent for Eru.
>Unlike Pippin, who swore an oath to Denethor, Frodo had no legal
>obligation to anyone outside the Shire.
It's true that the Shire had gone its own way for centuries. But
legally it was still part of the North Kingdom.
>Comments?
[Please don't quote upside down, and please do trim quotes; see
<http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html>.]
(*) In To Holt's /Expecting Someone Taller/, there's an amusing
passage near the end in which the Middle Norn and Mother Erda trace
the ownership of the Ring according to the various applicable laws.
It's a different Ring, but still the point is that no one really
"owns" such mighty heirlooms.
david60610
Who precisely does Frodo owe allegiance to at Mt Doom?
The Elves? The Elves and Sauron created the problem of the
Ring--Frodo is assisting the Elves as a favor but owes them nothing
IMHO.
The Shire? Maybe, but the Shire as a whole knows nothing about the
Ring and is not involved in the Quest.
His family? He doesn't have any, being an orphan and a bachelor.
The Fellowship? At one time, he did--but I would argue that Frodo was
released from any obligation to the Fellowship once Boromir tried to
seize the Ring.
Sam? Yes, I would say Frodo does owe Sam something, but unless Sam
himself complained about Frodo's actions at Mt Doom (a scenario
extremely unlikely) this matter should remain between Frodo and Sam.
My point is that the entire Quest is being done not out of a sense of
any type of obligation, but purely as a favor or selfless act--and I
believe this IS a big part of the point of the book.
mcr...@aol.com (McREsq) wrote in message news:<20040905154246...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Stan Brown
Please don't quote upside down, and please do trim quotes; see
<http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html>.
The purpose is to help us understand better what you are trying to
say, and thus to have a better conversation. Of course, if you don't
care about being understood and having a conversation ....
McREsq
>
>Who precisely does Frodo owe allegiance to at Mt Doom?
>
>The Elves? The Elves and Sauron created the problem of the
>Ring--Frodo is assisting the Elves as a favor but owes them nothing
>IMHO.
>
>The Shire? Maybe, but the Shire as a whole knows nothing about the
>Ring and is not involved in the Quest.
>
>His family? He doesn't have any, being an orphan and a bachelor.
>
>The Fellowship? At one time, he did--but I would argue that Frodo was
>released from any obligation to the Fellowship once Boromir tried to
>seize the Ring.
>
>Sam? Yes, I would say Frodo does owe Sam something, but unless Sam
>himself complained about Frodo's actions at Mt Doom (a scenario
>extremely unlikely) this matter should remain between Frodo and Sam.
>
>My point is that the entire Quest is being done not out of a sense of
>any type of obligation, but purely as a favor or selfless act--and I
>believe this IS a big part of the point of the book.
You're looking at this too legalistically. When Frodo accepted the burden, he
also accepted the responsibility of seeing the quest through to the best of his
ability. His duty was the all the Free Peoples.
So, yes, Frodo did owe a duty. The main issue however, is that the letter
writer was wrong because Froo did in fact see the quest through to the best of
his ability. In fact, Tolkien says that none other would have even have made
it so far. No one could have withstood the lure of the Ring in the Sammath
Naur. Frodo did all he could, with every last reserve of strength he had and
that allowed fate to take a hand.
Russ
McREsq
>Legally Isildur stole the Ring from Sauron, and so he had no title.
It was weregild - a legally recognized war prize.
Russ
Bill O'Meally
That's how he justified it. Just like Gollum saying it was his Birthday
Present, or Bilbo saying that he won it in the Riddle Game.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
-- The Wise will remove 'se' to reply; the Foolish will not--
Larry Swain
McREsq wrote:
>
> You're looking at this too legalistically. When Frodo accepted the burden, he
> also accepted the responsibility of seeing the quest through to the best of his
> ability. His duty was the all the Free Peoples.
>
> So, yes, Frodo did owe a duty. The main issue however, is that the letter
> writer was wrong because Froo did in fact see the quest through to the best of
> his ability. In fact, Tolkien says that none other would have even have made
> it so far. No one could have withstood the lure of the Ring in the Sammath
> Naur. Frodo did all he could, with every last reserve of strength he had and
> that allowed fate to take a hand.
>
> Russ
As I recall that letter, doesn't Tolkien say something about the
fact that the quest was to get the Ring to the Cracks of Doom,
the quest was not to destroy the Ring? A casuistic distinction
perhaps, but one apparently in the mind of the author.
McREsq
>>> Legally Isildur stole the Ring from Sauron, and so he had no title.
>>
>> It was weregild - a legally recognized war prize.
>
>That's how he justified it. Just like Gollum saying it was his Birthday
>Present, or Bilbo saying that he won it in the Riddle Game.
We're talking legality, not wisdom. Sauron did kill his father and thus
Isildur was within his rights to claim weregild. Was it wise? No. But it was
legal within the concept of weregild.
With respect to the Deagol, Smeagol Frodo issue, I'm using general common law
ideas of property (appropriate for hobbits).
Isildur's death and the losing of the Ring would have effectively broken the
chain of title. Thus, Deagol, who found the Ring, would have been considered a
bona fide owner. However, there was no legal right for Smeagol to claim the
Ring from Deagol.
With respect to Bilbo, while his finding of the Ring would not give him
paramount title over a bona fide owner, as stated above, Smeagol was *not* a
bona fide owner. Thus Bilbo would have been considered a bona fide owner of
the Ring who could then validly gift the Ring to Frodo. Frodo in turn, as bona
fide owner, was within his rights to effectively "give" the Ring to the Council
of Elrond for disposition. In a way Frodo was giving the Ring to the Free
Peoples as a whole, as represented in the Council. The Council, in turn,
returned the Ring to Frodo as a caretaker only.
Thus the Rings chain of title is as follows:
Sauron to Isildur validly under doctrine of weregild.
Isildur loses it and chain of title is broken.
Deagol finds and claims the Ring and is new bona fide owner.
Smeagol steals the Ring and is not a bona fide owner.
Smeagol loses the Ring and it is found by Bilbo. Because Smeagol was not a
bona fide owner, Bilbo can take bona fide ownership of the Ring.
Bilbo passes title to Frodo by gift.
Frodo gives the Ring to the Free Peoples represented by the Council of Elrond
(I'm doing some inferring here)
Council, on behalf of the Free Peoples, returns *custody* but not title of the
Ring to Frodo for the purposes of completing the quest.
That's how I look at it anyway, in terms of pure legalism/
Russ
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Thus the Rings chain of title is as follows:
<snip>
> Smeagol loses the Ring and it is found by Bilbo. Because Smeagol was
> not a bona fide owner, Bilbo can take bona fide ownership of the Ring.
Umm. That presumes that Bilbo *knows* that Gollum is not the rightful
owner of the Ring. That fact only emerges later, as found out by
Gandalf's interrogation of Gollum.
In actual fact, although we later know that Bilbo could rightfully hold
on to the Ring (finders keepers), all that Bilbo knows when he finds it,
deep in the Misty Mountains, is that Gollum claims it for his own and
calls Bilbo a thief. Legally, given the short amount of time Bilbo had
been holding the Ring, he should have acknowledged Gollum's claim on the
Ring in some way. Gollum would have had to prove that the Ring was his,
but never got that opportunity as Bilbo ran away.
This is all complicated slightly by the fact that Gollum was trying to
kill Bilbo. But hey, why let that get in the way of a legal argument!
<snip>
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> But that's all nit-picking. A more serious point is that there are
> two types of "ownership" -- ownership of the physical Ring, and
> ownership of the world through the power of the Ring. Whether or not
> Frodo had legal title to the first (and before his Ring-induced
> madness he knew he did not), he certainly had no right, legally or
> morally, to the dominion of the world. When he said "The Ring is
> Mine" he was saying "I claim the lordship of the world." None has
> that right, save Manwė the High King as vicegerent for Eru.
Interesting. I can see why some people might think that, but I have
never thought of it quite like that. I always thought it was just Frodo
claiming the Ring for himself. He has ambitions and desires that he
could fulfil by using the Ring, but I never thought that world
domination was one of them. There are other types of power more suited
to a hobbit.
<snip>
Stan Brown
>McREsq <mcr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Thus the Rings chain of title is as follows:
>
><snip>
>
>> Smeagol loses the Ring and it is found by Bilbo. Because Smeagol was
>> not a bona fide owner, Bilbo can take bona fide ownership of the Ring.
>
>Umm. That presumes that Bilbo *knows* that Gollum is not the rightful
>owner of the Ring. That fact only emerges later, as found out by
>Gandalf's interrogation of Gollum.
But it's irrelevant anyway.
If A breaks into my house and steals something, then B steals it
from A, B does not "own" it because A had no right to it. It still
belongs to me legally, however unlikely I am to see it again.
Stan Brown
(Responding to my statement that there was ownership of the Ring
itself and ownership of the world, which the Ring might facilitate)
>I have
>never thought of it quite like that. I always thought it was just Frodo
>claiming the Ring for himself. He has ambitions and desires that he
>could fulfil by using the Ring, but I never thought that world
>domination was one of them. There are other types of power more suited
>to a hobbit.
True -- but _all_ of them that the Ring can give are forbidden.
Even if you don't think Frodo aimed consciously at world domination,
his purpose in claiming the Ring was to exercise some form of power
with it, and all forms were forbidden except _maybe_ the passive
power of being invisible.
Even if Frodo had stuck to being invisible, after the experiences
he'd been through he would certainly have used the invisibility for
nasty purposes, not just for avoiding unwelcome visitors.
david60610
> >Treason is an act of betrayal against one's_own_country. In this
> >case, Frodo's country was the Shire.
>
> No, his country was Arnor. The Shire was a fief of the Kings of
> Arnor, whose heir was Aragorn.
But--significantly in my view--the throne was vacant at the time of
the Mt Doom finale. The throne had no non-hobbit representative in
the Shire at the time. Speaking about the King of Arnor at that
time would make as much sense as, in our world in 2004, talking about
the King of France or the Tsar of Russia. It is a long-vacant
throne--and royal restorations happen not simply because an heir to
the long-vacant throne comes forward, but because it politically
makes sense to do so.
> >By the laws of the Shire, Frodo was justified in making this claim,
> >because the Ring had been bequeathed to him (from Bilbo) in a will
>
> Bilbo's will didn't mention the Ring, since it was supposed to be a
> secret! (I wonder why Bilbo transferred his possessions to Frodo by
> _will_, since he wasn't dying? Wouldn't a deed of gift have been
> more appropriate? And how could the will be considered valid until
> Bilbo had been missing and presumed dead for some considerable
> time?)
I don't know--but the same question could be asked about the more
mundance possessions that Bilbo owned like Bag End. Perhaps, not
knowing at first of the will's existence, the S.-B.'s started the
rumor of Bilbo's death, and then found themselves legally stuck once
the will surfaced. But, of course, you are right that Frodo,
knowing Bilbo was still alive, could not rely on the will to stake
a claim to the Ring.
> But that's all nit-picking. A more serious point is that there are
> two types of "ownership" -- ownership of the physical Ring, and
> ownership of the world through the power of the Ring. Whether or not
> Frodo had legal title to the first (and before his Ring-induced
> madness he knew he did not), he certainly had no right, legally or
> morally, to teh dominion of the world. When he said "The Ring is
> Mine" he was saying "I claim the lordship of the world." None has
> that right, save Manwė the High King as vicegerent for Eru.
I don't know that the Ring can be equated with 'lordship of the
world'. The Ring was designed as a tool for controlling the free
peoples of Middle Earth. I don't know that even Sauron would expect
to control the world beyond the shores of Middle Earth with the
Ring.
Did Frodo, even in his Ring-induced madness, intend to try to
control all of Middle Earth? I see no evidence of this--although
I'm not familiar with all of JRRT's letters so perhaps JRRT provided
evidence in his letters to support this. I think the default
assumption would have to be that Frodo simply wanted to keep
possession of the Ring for himself, as did the two hobbits who
previously held it for extended periods: Smeagol and Bilbo. Neither
Smeagol nor Bilbo ever tried to claim lordship of the world or
even Middle Earth, but they were to varying degrees unwilling to
part with the Ring. Of course, with the Nazgul hot on his trail,
Frodo would not have possessed the Ring for long--but I doubt if
he thought that through rationally.
> >Unlike Pippin, who swore an oath to Denethor, Frodo had no legal
> >obligation to anyone outside the Shire.
>
> It's true that the Shire had gone its own way for centuries. But
> legally it was still part of the North Kingdom.
But who precisely was he loyal to then?
Interestingly, in his final instructions to the Fellowship before
their departure, Elrond says that no member of the Fellowship has
any particular obligation except Frodo--but even in Frodo's case
the obligation is limited to not letting the Enemy touch the Ring
and not letting allies touch the Ring except at great need. Elrond
stops short of stating that Frodo is obligated to destroy the
Ring. Perhaps Elrond, knowing that Frodo might have difficulty
destroying it, deliberately worded his instructions in a way that
wouldn't place too many constraints on how the final destruction
was to play out.
McREsq
>>> not a bona fide owner, Bilbo can take bona fide ownership of the Ring.
>>
>>Umm. That presumes that Bilbo *knows* that Gollum is not the rightful
>>owner of the Ring. That fact only emerges later, as found out by
>>Gandalf's interrogation of Gollum.
>
>But it's irrelevant anyway.
>
>If A breaks into my house and steals something, then B steals it
>from A, B does not "own" it because A had no right to it. It still
>belongs to me legally, however unlikely I am to see it again.
Normally yes. But that is not the fact pattern here. The fact pattern here is
"A" loses item and dies, "B" finds item, "C" kills "B" and takes item, "C"
loses item which is found by "D".
You're correct that D does not get good title simply by stealing an item from a
thief. So you go back to the last bona fide owner, Isildur, who lost it and
died. D would be able to take up bona fide ownership in that case.
Russ
Gorbag
> When he lost it and Gollum found it centuries later, Gollum might or
> might not have had legal title to it as treasure trove. But Bilbo
> had no title -- Gollum was absolutely right to call him "thief". And
> since Bilbo had no title, he could not transfer title to Frodo. (*)
In some countries, if you sell an item to an innocent buyer who is unaware
that the item is stolen at that time, the title does indeed transfer - a
loophole frequently used by art theives and fences to move stolen art into
new homes. Once there, even though the art is "famous," it cannot be
recovered; the original owner has a case against the theif, but not the new
owner.
Thus, one could argue, depending on the laws at the time, that Frodo was
indeed the rightful owner, not being aware of the theft.
McREsq
>that the item is stolen at that time, the title does indeed transfer - a
>loophole frequently used by art theives and fences to move stolen art into
>new homes. Once there, even though the art is "famous," it cannot be
>recovered; the original owner has a case against the theif, but not the new
>owner.
>
>Thus, one could argue, depending on the laws at the time, that Frodo was
>indeed the rightful owner, not being aware of the theft.
That generally only applies to what's called a "good faith purchaser for
value". The key here being "for value". Frodo received the Ring as a gift, he
did not pay value for it. Thus he would not be protected against the "true
owner".
This puts us back to the last true owner: Isildur (this assumes the validity of
his claim of weregild). Isildur lost the Ring and died. The issue then rests
on the fact that apart from the dead Deagol, there were no bine fide owners
until Bilbo.
Russ
the softrat
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> Smeagol loses the Ring and it is found by Bilbo. Because Smeagol was
>>> not a bona fide owner, Bilbo can take bona fide ownership of the Ring.
>>
>>Umm. That presumes that Bilbo *knows* that Gollum is not the rightful
>>owner of the Ring. That fact only emerges later, as found out by
>>Gandalf's interrogation of Gollum.
>
>But it's irrelevant anyway.
>
>If A breaks into my house and steals something, then B steals it
>from A, B does not "own" it because A had no right to it. It still
>belongs to me legally, however unlikely I am to see it again.
Sauron will SUE!
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Profanity: The linguistic crutch of inarticulate bastards
Christopher Kreuzer
>>>> Smeagol loses the Ring and it is found by Bilbo. Because Smeagol
>>>> was not a bona fide owner, Bilbo can take bona fide ownership of
>>>> the Ring.
>>>
>>> Umm. That presumes that Bilbo *knows* that Gollum is not the
>>> rightful owner of the Ring. That fact only emerges later, as found
>>> out by Gandalf's interrogation of Gollum.
>>
>> But it's irrelevant anyway.
>>
>> If A breaks into my house and steals something, then B steals it
>> from A, B does not "own" it because A had no right to it. It still
>> belongs to me legally, however unlikely I am to see it again.
>
> Normally yes. But that is not the fact pattern here.
But you fail to address my point about Bilbo not knowing that Gollum's
claim on the Ring was false.
> The fact
> pattern here is "A" loses item and dies, "B" finds item, "C" kills
> "B" and takes item, "C" loses item which is found by "D".
C claims item from D.
But D runs away.
C emerges from Misty Mountains to stake his claim.
C bites off finger of E in anger.
McREsq
>>>>> Smeagol loses the Ring and it is found by Bilbo. Because Smeagol
>>>>> was not a bona fide owner, Bilbo can take bona fide ownership of
>>>>> the Ring.
>>>>
>>>> Umm. That presumes that Bilbo *knows* that Gollum is not the
>>>> rightful owner of the Ring. That fact only emerges later, as found
>>>> out by Gandalf's interrogation of Gollum.
>>>
>>> But it's irrelevant anyway.
>>>
>>> If A breaks into my house and steals something, then B steals it
>>> from A, B does not "own" it because A had no right to it. It still
>>> belongs to me legally, however unlikely I am to see it again.
>>
>> Normally yes. But that is not the fact pattern here.
>
>But you fail to address my point about Bilbo not knowing that Gollum's
>claim on the Ring was false.
From a property law perspective, it's not particularly relevant what Bilbo's
subjective knowledge was. Regardless of what Bilbo knew, Gollum was not
legally a bona fide owner. Gollum would have no reight recognized by the
common law in the ring and thus Bilbo was free to keep it.
Let's not forget, Bilbo didn't actually steal the Ring; rather he found it and
then learned later another made a claim to it.
<snip>
Russ
Jussi Jaatinen
david60610 wrote:
> Treason is an act of betrayal against one's_own_country. In this
> case, Frodo's country was the Shire. At Mt Doom, Frodo made the
> following claim:
>
> "The Ring is mine."
>
> By the laws of the Shire, Frodo was justified in making this claim,
At the Council of Elrond Frodo undertook the Quest, and was therefore
morally bound to complete it to the best of his ability, which is what
he did. Sometimes a person can be morally bound to betray one's contry -
imagine a scientist exposing a nuclear-weapons program to the world.
BR,
-JJ
Stan Brown
>At the Council of Elrond Frodo undertook the Quest, and was therefore
>morally bound to complete it to the best of his ability, which is what
>he did. Sometimes a person can be morally bound to betray one's contry -
>imagine a scientist exposing a nuclear-weapons program to the world.
I believe it was E.M. Forster who said "If faced with choice of
betraying my friend or betraying my country, I hope I should have
the courage to betray my country."
Michelle J. Haines
mcr...@aol.com says...
>
> You're correct that D does not get good title simply by stealing an item from a
> thief. So you go back to the last bona fide owner, Isildur, who lost it and
> died. D would be able to take up bona fide ownership in that case.
Isildur isn't exactly a legitimate owner, either, unless hacking a
ring off someone's hand is a legitimate method of ownership. :)
Michelle
Flutist
--
Drift on a river, That flows through my arms
Drift as I'm singing to you
I see you smiling, So peaceful and calm
And holding you, I'm smiling, too
Here in my arms, Safe from all harm
Holding you, I'm smiling, too
-- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]
McREsq
>> You're correct that D does not get good title simply by stealing an item
>from a
>> thief. So you go back to the last bona fide owner, Isildur, who lost it
>and
>> died. D would be able to take up bona fide ownership in that case.
>
>Isildur isn't exactly a legitimate owner, either, unless hacking a
>ring off someone's hand is a legitimate method of ownership. :)
He claimed it as weregild - it was perfectly legal.
Russ
The American
"McREsq" <mcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040908160658...@mb-m04.aol.com...
Wasn't Sauron "dead" when Isildur cut it off?
(I'm sure the slopes of Mt.Doom was hardly the place for Elrond and Cirdan
to start instructing Isildur on the possibilities of Maiar reformation)
:o)
T.A.
McREsq
>> >> You're correct that D does not get good title simply by stealing an
>item
>> >from a
>> >> thief. So you go back to the last bona fide owner, Isildur, who lost
>it
>> >and
>> >> died. D would be able to take up bona fide ownership in that case.
>> >
>> >Isildur isn't exactly a legitimate owner, either, unless hacking a
>> >ring off someone's hand is a legitimate method of ownership. :)
>>
>> He claimed it as weregild - it was perfectly legal.
>>
>
>Wasn't Sauron "dead" when Isildur cut it off?
>(I'm sure the slopes of Mt.Doom was hardly the place for Elrond and Cirdan
>to start instructing Isildur on the possibilities of Maiar reformation)
>:o)
I don't think that made a difference. Sauron killed his father, the King.
Under weregild, Isildur could claim compensation.
Russ
NobodyMan
Sauron was not "dead" when the ring was forcibly removed from him. He
was beaten down and at that time defeated, but i doubt anybody there
believed him dead. Most of the Wise there knew well and good that
Sauron could not BE killed.
Troels Forchhammer
McREsq <mcr...@aol.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> I don't think that made a difference. Sauron killed his father, the
> King. Under weregild, Isildur could claim compensation.
And even if Sauron later should wish to contest the point (just playing
with the thought of turning it into a legal battle) it's well-known that
possession is nine tenths of the law: though of course normally the
meaning isn't that the man is possessed by the item >:->
On a more serious note, I agree. His claim could of course be contested
(for instance on the basis that the One Ring was more than reasonable
compensation, and Isildur should be satisfied with e.g. one of the lesser
Ring . . .)
It's difficult to stay serious ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the
opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
- Niels Bohr
Christopher Kreuzer
> in <20040908205629...@mb-m22.aol.com>,
> McREsq <mcr...@aol.com> enriched us with:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't think that made a difference. Sauron killed his father, the
>> King. Under weregild, Isildur could claim compensation.
<snip>
> On a more serious note, I agree. His claim could of course be
> contested (for instance on the basis that the One Ring was more than
> reasonable compensation, and Isildur should be satisfied with e.g.
> one of the lesser Ring . . .)
But he also claimed it as compensation for Anarion, his brother, who was
killed during the siege of Barad-dur. Later, Isildur wrote, in his
scroll that recorded these matters, that "I buy it [the Ring] with great
pain." That is another clear reference to the Ring being compensation
for the death of his father and brother. Isildur also wrote that: "The
Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom." Does
that mean that Aragorn has a stronger claim (due to it being an heirloom
of his House) than previously discussed? [Yes, I know that Aragorn said
it did not belong to him - but we are being legalistic here.]
Can you also contest the weregild claim on the basis that weregild
should be agreed by both parties, or at least the remaining
representatives of both sides. I get the impression that the Last
Alliance War didn't end in any sort of negotiated settlement! They just
disembodied Sauron and took the Ring. The weregild stuff sounds like
rationalisation to me...
AC
Not to mention that Sauron's empire was the defeated power.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a whitish
fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
AC
NobodyMan <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
> Sauron was not "dead" when the ring was forcibly removed from him. He
> was beaten down and at that time defeated, but i doubt anybody there
> believed him dead. Most of the Wise there knew well and good that
> Sauron could not BE killed.
And here again we get into the difficult manner of terminology. Sauron's
physical body was killed, and thus his spirit fled. If we take the
continued existence of the spirit as a state of living (or, at least, of
non-death), then not even Men really die, as their spirits persist, at least
until they depart Ea.
When I personally refer to death within the mythos, I refer to the
destruction of the physical body. In this respect, Glorifindel died when he
and the Balrog plummuted during the Fall of Gondoilin, Gandalf died after
casting down the Balrog, Saruman died after being knifed by Wormtongue,
Sauron died (yet again) after the Ring was destroyed and Barad-dur crashed
down.
In all the above cases, the fea (spirits) of those involved remained, as
they are indestructible, but all had suffered a physical death. What makes
the Ainur special is that they could take on new physical forms unaided (at
least the first few times around, anyways).
Troels Forchhammer
Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> in <20040908205629...@mb-m22.aol.com>,
>> McREsq <mcr...@aol.com> enriched us with:
>>>
>>> King. Under weregild, Isildur could claim compensation.
>>
>> contested (for instance on the basis that the One Ring was more than
>> reasonable compensation, and Isildur should be satisfied with e.g.
>> one of the lesser Ring . . .)
>
> But he also claimed it as compensation for Anarion, his brother, who
> was killed during the siege of Barad-dur.
Didn't some -- or at least one -- of Isildur's sons die die as well in
the war of the Last Alliance? Though of course in the scroll Gandalf
found, he only claimed it as weregild for Elendil and Anárion.
The question is (and actually I think it could be a serious question)
whether it was beyond the level of reasonable compensation -- that
Isildur wanted to re-enforce his claim to the Ring by claiming it as more
than just 'spoils of war' in the same spirit as we see later with both
Sméagol and Bilbo, though clearly the Ring was far too good a birthday
present (even as just a golden ring) or far too good a prize for a
riddling game (even if seen as just a nice golden ring that conveyed
invisibility). He knows this ts the One Ring, the Ruling Ring -- the Ring
that would potentially allow Isildur to command the lesser Rings,
including those of his allies, Elrond, Círdan and Galadriel -- is that
Ring truly suitable weregild even for Elendil and Anárion? Or was his
wish the same as Bilbo's; "I only wished to claim the treasure as my very
own in those days, and to be rid of the name of thief that was put on me.
But perhaps I understand things a little better now."
<snip>
> "The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom."
> Does that mean that Aragorn has a stronger claim (due to it being an
> heirloom of his House) than previously discussed?
Of course his claim is stronger -- it is stronger than anyone's except
perhaps Sauron's.
" 'Then it belongs to you, and not to me at all!' cried Frodo in
amazement, springing to his feet, as if he expected the Ring to
be demanded at once."
> [Yes, I know that Aragorn said it did not belong to him - but we are
> being legalistic here.]
He was wiser than his forebear. Aragorn knew that it would be deadly for
him to claim the One Ring in any way, and consequently he has to reject
any claim to it. Legally speaking Frodo was right -- Isildur's claim to
the Ring as weregild had not been actually contested, and consequently it
should still be valid (or at least semi-valid).
> Can you also contest the weregild claim on the basis that weregild
> should be agreed by both parties, or at least the remaining
> representatives of both sides.
IIRC the settlement of weregild in ancient times (in Denmark) was a
matter for an impartial judge or for the whole 'thing' (or court) before
which the matter was brought. Things such as the importance of the killed
and the ability of the killer to pay would enter their considerations.
I don't think that the wronged party could just set the weregild.
> I get the impression that the Last Alliance War didn't end in any
> sort of negotiated settlement! They just disembodied Sauron and
> took the Ring.
;-)
> The weregild stuff sounds like rationalisation to me...
Precisely.
It really was spoils of war, but Isildur wanted to ascertain his claim to
the Ring just as Gollum and Bilbo did later.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Christopher Kreuzer
>>> McREsq <mcr...@aol.com> enriched us with:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that made a difference. Sauron killed his father,
>>>> the King. Under weregild, Isildur could claim compensation.
<snip>
> The question is (and actually I think it could be a serious question)
> whether it was beyond the level of reasonable compensation -- that
> Isildur wanted to re-enforce his claim to the Ring by claiming it as
> more than just 'spoils of war' in the same spirit as we see later
> with both Sméagol and Bilbo
<snip>
> Or was his wish the same as Bilbo's; "I only
> wished to claim the treasure as my very own in those days, and to be
> rid of the name of thief that was put on me. But perhaps I understand
> things a little better now."
Isildur wasn't accused of being a thief. Though Sauron's messenger does
accuse Bilbo of being a thief, so I suppose Sauron probably did feel
that Isildur was a thief. Elrond and Cirdan of course did not see
Isildur as a thief, but as either foolish or ensnared by the Ring. They
told him to throw it into the Fire, but the effect is the same: they did
not think that Isildur should keep the Ring, and Isildur's claim of
weregild was meant to counter that.
We mustn't forget how Isildur changed his tune, as we see in UT. By the
time he got to the Gladden Fields he had realised that this thing of
Power was beyond him. It caused him great pain to put it on, plus other
stuff that I can't remember.
> <snip>
>
>> "The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North
>> Kingdom." Does that mean that Aragorn has a stronger claim
>> (due to it being an heirloom of his House) than previously
>> discussed?
>
> Of course his claim is stronger -- it is stronger than anyone's except
> perhaps Sauron's.
>
> " 'Then it belongs to you, and not to me at all!' cried Frodo in
> amazement, springing to his feet, as if he expected the Ring to
> be demanded at once."
Well, yes. But I don't use the words of Frodo to decide whether Aragorn
had a genuine claim on the Ring. Frodo is most probably wrong. Aragorn
does not merely reject it: he says that it does not belong to either of
them.
>> [Yes, I know that Aragorn said it did not belong to him - but we are
>> being legalistic here.]
>
> He was wiser than his forebear. Aragorn knew that it would be deadly
> for him to claim the One Ring in any way, and consequently he has to
> reject any claim to it. Legally speaking Frodo was right -- Isildur's
> claim to the Ring as weregild had not been actually contested, and
> consequently it should still be valid (or at least semi-valid).
But in the book, I don't think anyone would seriously think that
Aragorn's claim was legal. The weregild thing was only a justification,
and Isildur was most probably wrong to claim weregild.
>> Can you also contest the weregild claim on the basis that weregild
>> should be agreed by both parties, or at least the remaining
>> representatives of both sides.
>
> IIRC the settlement of weregild in ancient times (in Denmark) was a
> matter for an impartial judge or for the whole 'thing' (or court)
> before which the matter was brought. Things such as the importance of
> the killed and the ability of the killer to pay would enter their
> considerations.
>
> I don't think that the wronged party could just set the weregild.
>
>> I get the impression that the Last Alliance War didn't end in any
>> sort of negotiated settlement! They just disembodied Sauron and
>> took the Ring.
>
> ;-)
We Want Justice for Sauron!
The weregild for Elendil and Anarion is set at one (1) finger.
NOOOO!! Not *that* finger.....
>> The weregild stuff sounds like rationalisation to me...
>
> Precisely.
> It really was spoils of war, but Isildur wanted to ascertain his
> claim to the Ring just as Gollum and Bilbo did later.
Cool! We have come up with a serious point from a silly (but nice)
discussion over weregild and the legalistic points of who had a right to
the Ring. :-)
Stan Brown
>Aragorn knew that it would be deadly for
>him to claim the One Ring in any way, and consequently he has to reject
>any claim to it. Legally speaking Frodo was right -- Isildur's claim to
>the Ring as weregild had not been actually contested,
Isildur's claim _was_ contested -- both Elrond and Círdan argued
against his taking it and that he should throw it in the fire. They
were unwilling to use force to compel him to give it up.
In any event, wergild is not decided upon by the survivor of the
deceased; it is set in advance upon a fixed scale by higher
authority or by law. _And_ it doesn't apply to death in open battle,
but to more or less what we today would call murder.
I am afraid that Isildur's "wergild" was a rationalization pure and
simple. You compare it to Bilbo's "birthday present" lie; and I
think the comparison is quite right. Isildur grabbed at some words
that sounded like justification, because the Ring was already
working on it and he wished to make his claim look legitimate.
Stan Brown
>I don't think that the wronged party could just set the weregild.
Sorry -- I overlooked this statement of yours when I drafted my
article a minute ago.
I don't know ancient Danish law but you're correct as regards
ancient English law. Wergild was law, to replace the lawlessness of
the blood feud. Letting the survivors set the wergild would have
invited endless feuds over the amount, leading to exactly the
bloodshed that the institution of the wergild was supposed to
prevent.
NobodyMan
>> Sauron was not "dead" when the ring was forcibly removed from him. He
>> was beaten down and at that time defeated, but i doubt anybody there
>> believed him dead. Most of the Wise there knew well and good that
>> Sauron could not BE killed.
>
>And here again we get into the difficult manner of terminology. Sauron's
>physical body was killed, and thus his spirit fled. If we take the
>continued existence of the spirit as a state of living (or, at least, of
>non-death), then not even Men really die, as their spirits persist, at least
>until they depart Ea.
Sauron's bodily form was thrown down, but his spirit didn't flee the
body until AFTER Isildur cut the ring from his hand. As such, Isildur
was a bit premature in claiming his wereguild. Who know what may have
happened if they had left the ring on Sauron's body and scooted off.
He may have quickly rose again. We don't know. We'll never know.
Larry Swain
Stan Brown wrote:
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Aragorn knew that it would be deadly for
> >him to claim the One Ring in any way, and consequently he has to reject
> >any claim to it. Legally speaking Frodo was right -- Isildur's claim to
> >the Ring as weregild had not been actually contested,
>
> Isildur's claim _was_ contested -- both Elrond and Círdan argued
> against his taking it and that he should throw it in the fire. They
> were unwilling to use force to compel him to give it up.
Well, sort of. That is, while it is true that Elrond and Cirdan
argued against his taking it and argued for throwing it into the
fire then and there, they didn't make that argument on the basis
of his claim of the ring as weregild. That is, they didn't
contest it as weregild or his right to it: they contested if you
will the wisdom of allowing the ring to continue to exist. If
they did not recognize his right to the ring and the weregild,
undoubtedly they would have wrested it from him and thrown it in
themselves.
> In any event, wergild is not decided upon by the survivor of the
> deceased; it is set in advance upon a fixed scale by higher
> authority or by law. _And_ it doesn't apply to death in open battle,
> but to more or less what we today would call murder.
Not always. While we certainly do have examples of that being
done in say Alfred's laws, there are not earlier examples that
I'm aware of. Perhaps you are and would care to share them.
But there is another example of weregild in the LoTR corpus that
in fact is decided by the survivor, which I think goes to show
Tolkien's understanding of it: that is Eorl the Young who claims
the life and service of the first of mearas when the stallion
threw Eorl's father and as a consequence his father died. The
survivor, Eorl, named and received the price.
> I am afraid that Isildur's "wergild" was a rationalization pure and
> simple. You compare it to Bilbo's "birthday present" lie; and I
> think the comparison is quite right. Isildur grabbed at some words
> that sounded like justification, because the Ring was already
> working on it and he wished to make his claim look legitimate.
Bilbo never said it was his birthday present, did he? Bilbo and
Isildur both claim ownership, but neither, unlike Gollum, stole
it or had nefarious designs on it. Further, if I recollect, it
is Elrond who informs us of Isildur's words concerning his claim
of the Ring as weregild--that is if it is justification, it was
justification invented on the spot on the sides of Mount Doom,
and unlike Gollum who had already received his birthday present,
Isildur had not claimed weregild yet or named the price.
ljs
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> If
>they did not recognize his right to the ring and the weregild,
>undoubtedly they would have wrested it from him and thrown it in
>themselves.
I don't think so. Gandalf dd not take the Ring from Frodo by force,
and I suspect Elrond and Círdan had the same reasons for their
forbearance: (1) it would destroy Isildur ("break your mind" is the
expression Gandalf used to Frodo), and (2) by acquiring the Ring in
that way, they would fall under its spell and be unable to destroy
it theme selves.
Christopher Kreuzer
[in response to Isildur claiming the Ring as weregild]
> But there is another example of weregild in the LoTR corpus that
> in fact is decided by the survivor, which I think goes to show
> Tolkien's understanding of it: that is Eorl the Young who claims
> the life and service of the first of mearas when the stallion
> threw Eorl's father and as a consequence his father died. The
> survivor, Eorl, named and received the price.
And Felarof is said to have "submitted" (though only to Eorl). Does
anyone here think that the Ring 'submitted' to Isildur's will? I don't
think that the fact that Felarof submitted to a claim of weregild meant
that the survivor was necessarily justified in setting the price. It
sounds more like Felarof doing the right thing. And for all we know,
Eorl was following some scale of reparations that we are never told
about.
[BTW, the reference is note 28 to Cirion and Eorl, UT]
Maxie
>Sauron's bodily form was thrown down, but his spirit didn't flee the
>body until AFTER Isildur cut the ring from his hand. As such, Isildur
>was a bit premature in claiming his wereguild.
How do you figure? Weregild doesn't require the death of the person losing
property. It is the right of a survivor of a person wrongly killed to claim
payment from the killer or his estate.
Maxie Maxwell
"Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey ...
The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an
imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to
kill the dragon."
G. K. Chesterton
Larry Swain
Stan Brown wrote:
>
> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> > If
> >they did not recognize his right to the ring and the weregild,
> >undoubtedly they would have wrested it from him and thrown it in
> >themselves.
>
> I don't think so. Gandalf dd not take the Ring from Frodo by force,
> and I suspect Elrond and Círdan had the same reasons for their
> forbearance: (1) it would destroy Isildur ("break your mind" is the
> expression Gandalf used to Frodo), and (2) by acquiring the Ring in
> that way, they would fall under its spell and be unable to destroy
> it theme selves.
>
A) Bilbo had worn and used the Ring for many years; Isildur at
best had it for only seconds and hadn't used it, and possibly
hadn't even touched it yet when Elrond and Cirdan counseled him,
depending on how you read Elrond's statement at the Council:
"'This I will have as weregild for my father and my brother,' he
(Isildur) said, and therefore whether we would or no, he took it
(the Ring) to treasure it." So depending on how you take that
"took"--did he cut it off Sauron's finger and then Elrond and
Cirdan counseled it to be thrown in the fire, and Isildur
didn't; or the discussion came up BEFORE Isildur cut it off
Sauron's hand and Isildur "took" it thus ending the discussion.
I don't know of any way to resolve that based on our texts so I
repeat: at best, Isildur possessed the Ring mere seconds, not
years, and had not worn it. Thus, the situations here between
Gandalf and Bilbo and Isildur and Elrond-Cirdan are not
comparable or analagous. It is doubtful that such harm would
have come to Isildur. So no breaking of Isildur's mind need be
posited.
B) Surely not. Sauron lay unconcious on the ground, at that
point both his malice and the power of the Ring which utterly
depends on Sauron and is an extension of him were quiescent. I
doubt whether indeed at that moment the forces that we see later
working when Sauron is again taking shape and rising (such as
when Gollum and Deagol find the Ring: according to the Tale of
Years, in 2460 or so Sauron enters Dol Guldur and it is approx.
3 years later that the White Council is formed and that the Ring
is found. Back to Mt. Doom and Sauron's defeat then: if Sauron
and the Ring are weakened, I do not think that Elrond and Cirdan
wresting the Ring from Isildur would have the same effects,
certainly not to the same degree, as you posit here. BUT, even
if you are correct, would at that moment in time, Elrond and
Cirdan known that since we only know it because we see the
Ring's effect on lesser beings who hold it (Isildur, Gollum,
Bilbo, Frodo). On the slopes of Mt Doom, no one had seen what
effect the Ring would have on lesser mortals, so there is no
reason to think that Elrond and Cirdan would know or suspect
that if they with the best of intentions should wrest the Ring
from Isildur to cast it into the volcano that they would fall
under its spell and be unable to destroy it.
ljs
Troels Forchhammer
NobodyMan <no...@none.net> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> Sauron's bodily form was thrown down, but his spirit didn't flee
> the body until AFTER Isildur cut the ring from his hand.
I'm don't think that the wording is all that clear on this matter. I've
seen people argue strongly both for this interpretation and for the
interpretation that Sauron's Fëa left his body when he was 'thrown
down'.
Are there any other texts that make it clearer what happened?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
I USHERED SOULS INTO THE NEXT WORLD. I WAS THE GRAVE OF ALL HOPE. I WAS
THE ULTIMATE REALITY. I WAS THE ASSASSIN AGAINST WHOM NO LOCK WOULD
HOLD.
"Yes, point taken, but do you have any particular skills?"
- Death consults a job broker (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
Larry Swain
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> [in response to Isildur claiming the Ring as weregild]
>
> > But there is another example of weregild in the LoTR corpus that
> > in fact is decided by the survivor, which I think goes to show
> > Tolkien's understanding of it: that is Eorl the Young who claims
> > the life and service of the first of mearas when the stallion
> > threw Eorl's father and as a consequence his father died. The
> > survivor, Eorl, named and received the price.
>
> And Felarof is said to have "submitted" (though only to Eorl). Does
> anyone here think that the Ring 'submitted' to Isildur's will?
Does the Ring have a choice? That is, does the Ring have a will
and sentience? Further, unlike the horse, the Ring can not run
away, put up its fists and fight, use feet to kick, buck, and
otherwise take steps not to be held. This isn't an apt analogy
and so the comparison doesn't stand.
>I don't
> think that the fact that Felarof submitted to a claim of weregild meant
> that the survivor was necessarily justified in setting the price.
I'm not necessarily saying anything about whether or not Isildur
was justified. My point was that of the two places in Tolkien's
writing where he speaks of weregild, in both the survivor names
and receives the "geld" that is demanded, showing Tolkien's
understanding of weregild. If you know of other places in
Tolkien's writings, fiction or academic, where he speaks of
weregild in a different way, please do post it here. On the
basis of the 2 instances known to me, I'd have to say that
Tolkien views Isildur as justified, if unwise.
It
> sounds more like Felarof doing the right thing.
How is forfeiting one's freedom the "right thing?" So the US
enslave or kill an Iraqi for every American killed? If life for
life is the right thing.....and of course this then gets us into
speculating whether Felarof was justified in resisting Leod's
attempts to capture him, during which Leod was accidentally
killed. So Felarof did the right thing by surrendering his
freedom for an accidental death? Seems a high price to me, and
I don't agree that it was the "right thing," even by those
standards. Weregild was demanded and surprisingly paid.
And for all we know,
> Eorl was following some scale of reparations that we are never told
> about.
Well, if we want to import things external to the text, why
isn't Isildur following the same scale? After all he has lost
his father, a king of men and of the royal house of Numenor and
a brother: why isn't taking the thing most dear to Sauron not on
the scale or unjustified by it?
> [BTW, the reference is note 28 to Cirion and Eorl, UT]
I was referring to Appendix A.
ljs
Troels Forchhammer
Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>
>> I don't think that the wronged party could just set the weregild.
>
> Sorry -- I overlooked this statement of yours when I drafted my
> article a minute ago.
>
> I don't know ancient Danish law but you're correct as regards
> ancient English law. Wergild was law, to replace the lawlessness of
> the blood feud. Letting the survivors set the wergild would have
> invited endless feuds over the amount, leading to exactly the
> bloodshed that the institution of the wergild was supposed to
> prevent.
I looked it up in "Jyske Lov" the oldest preserved Danish law (1241),
and while there was a possibility for the killer to make an agreement
with the family of the killed, it would otherwise be a matter of
judgement for "sandemænd" (Truth-men) -- or the King if the wronged
party (the family of the killed) rejects the terms.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle and quick
to anger.
- Gildor Inglorion, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Troels Forchhammer
Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>
>> Aragorn knew that it would be deadly for him to claim the One
>> Ring in any way, and consequently he has to reject any claim to
>> it. Legally speaking Frodo was right -- Isildur's claim to the
>> Ring as weregild had not been actually contested,
>
> Isildur's claim _was_ contested -- both Elrond and Círdan argued
> against his taking it and that he should throw it in the fire.
> They were unwilling to use force to compel him to give it up.
I'm not sure that their advice would count as contesting Isildur's
claim -- it is strong advice against taking that particular piece, can
they be said to be contesting his right to take it?
("You know, it's really very, /very/ stupid to take that irrevocably
armed nuclear bomb as your compensation -- you will definitely learn to
regret it, but if that's what you really want . . .")
> In any event, wergild is not decided upon by the survivor of the
> deceased; it is set in advance upon a fixed scale by higher
> authority or by law. _And_ it doesn't apply to death in open
> battle, but to more or less what we today would call murder.
Exactly.
Isildur's claim of 'weregild' was foolish and invalid. The problem is
what happens to an invalid claim if it is left uncontested (in the
legal sense) for three thousand years?
I think that there's a good chance that Aragorn could, had he wished to
do so, have claimed the Ring on the basis that Sauron had not
officially contested Isildur's claim, and that he, by his silence, had
consented to it. I know that this gets silly (law occasionally does),
but I think that he would at least have stood a chance of defending
that position in legal terms.
Essentially it's playing around with the technicalities of law.
> I am afraid that Isildur's "wergild" was a rationalization pure
> and simple. You compare it to Bilbo's "birthday present" lie; and
> I think the comparison is quite right. Isildur grabbed at some
> words that sounded like justification, because the Ring was
> already working on it and he wished to make his claim look
> legitimate.
I agree completely.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
If no thought
your mind does visit,
make your speech
not too explicit.
- Piet Hein, /The Case for Obscurity/
Troels Forchhammer
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> [in response to Isildur claiming the Ring as weregild]
>>
>> But there is another example of weregild in the LoTR corpus that
>> in fact is decided by the survivor, which I think goes to show
>> Tolkien's understanding of it: that is Eorl the Young who claims
>> the life and service of the first of mearas when the stallion
>> threw Eorl's father and as a consequence his father died. The
>> survivor, Eorl, named and received the price.
>
> And Felarof is said to have "submitted" (though only to Eorl).
> Does anyone here think that the Ring 'submitted' to Isildur's
> will? I don't think that the fact that Felarof submitted to a
> claim of weregild meant that the survivor was necessarily
> justified in setting the price. It sounds more like Felarof doing
> the right thing. And for all we know, Eorl was following some
> scale of reparations that we are never told about.
I'm not aware of how weregild was decided in ancient English law, but
in Danish law there were provisions for the two parties to settle
things out of 'court' ("tinge" = 'thing'). Of course it also involved
paying something to the king ("tegngæld" =? 'signgild'), but I think
Éorl might have foregone that part ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
- (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>
>
>Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
>> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> > If
>> >they did not recognize his right to the ring and the weregild,
>> >undoubtedly they would have wrested it from him and thrown it in
>> >themselves.
>>
>> I don't think so. Gandalf dd not take the Ring from Frodo by force,
>> and I suspect Elrond and Círdan had the same reasons for their
>> forbearance: (1) it would destroy Isildur ("break your mind" is the
>> expression Gandalf used to Frodo), and (2) by acquiring the Ring in
>> that way, they would fall under its spell and be unable to destroy
>> it theme selves.
>>
>
>A) Bilbo had worn and used the Ring for many years;
Bilbo? Gandalf was talking about Frodo.
(The Ring did have its hooks into Bilbo right away, though: he lied
to the Dwarves about it, not just once but multiple lies.)
> Isildur at
>best had it for only seconds and hadn't used it, and possibly
>hadn't even touched it yet when Elrond and Cirdan counseled him,
So? hobbits as a class were more resistant than other races; and
some Númenóreans were very highly susceptible. Boromir was;
apparently Isildur was too. Perhaps he had a larger-than-usual dose
of ordinary headstrongness too.
>B) Surely not. Sauron lay unconcious on the ground, at that
>point both his malice and the power of the Ring which utterly
>depends on Sauron and is an extension of him were quiescent.
You have it backward, I'm afraid. Sauron was dependent on the Ring,
not the other way round. When the Ring was destroyed, Sauron
collapsed. When Sauron's body was destroyed, the Ring was
unaffected.
> BUT, even if you are correct,
"If" I'm correct??? <grin>
>would at that moment in time, Elrond and
>Cirdan known that since we only know it because we see the
>Ring's effect on lesser beings who hold it (Isildur, Gollum,
>Bilbo, Frodo).
They knew because they remembered what happened 1600-odd years
earlier when Sauron set the Ring on his finger.
Stan Brown
>My point was that of the two places in Tolkien's
>writing where he speaks of weregild, in both the survivor names
>and receives the "geld" that is demanded, showing Tolkien's
>understanding of weregild.
In a letter, Tolkien makes the point that he is not his characters.
I think we can accept that he knew what wergild was, even if his
characters used the term wrongly as a specious justification for
getting what they wanted.
Christopher Kreuzer
[about whether the Ring would immediately exert an influence over
Isildur, Elrond and Cirdan on the slopes of Mount Doom]
> B) Surely not. Sauron lay unconcious on the ground, at that
> point both his malice and the power of the Ring which utterly
> depends on Sauron and is an extension of him were quiescent.
The Ring was quiescent? Surely not. I would say that the very fact that
Elrond, Cirdan and Isildur do not act logically is evidence that the
Ring is not quiescent. Isildur refuses to destroy the Ring, and Elrond
and Cirdan fail to act decisively. This could be seen as the Ring's
influence.
>I doubt whether indeed at that moment the forces that we see later
> working when Sauron is again taking shape and rising
The references to the Ring being aroused by the rise of Sauron towards
the end of the Third Age is an indication that the Ring _did_ become
quiescent, but does not indicate _when_ it became quiescent.
We know for certain that the Ring was active enough, even after Sauron's
defeat at Mount Doom, to only slowly contract in size and lose heat. It
was also active enough to consolidate its hold on Isildur ("I will risk
no hurt to this thing. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great
pain." - quoted from memory). Even as Isildur rode north to Rivendell,
some time after the events at Mount Doom, there are several indications
that the Ring is still active (all quotes from UT):
"...and though it was unknown to them, the Ring, cut from his black hand
two years before, was still laden with Sauron's evil will and called to
all his servants for their aid."
And when the Ring slips from Isildur's hand:
"The pain had left him. A great burden had been taken away."
Compare this with Frodo's reaction to having the burden of the Ring
removed at Mount Doom. I would say that these quotes from UT show that
the Ring is indeed still active at this point.
I would speculate that it is when it no longer has anyone claiming it or
bearing it or wearing it, that this is the point at which it becomes
quiescent as it sinks to the bottom of the Great River to lie in peace
for much of an Age of the world.
> Back to Mt. Doom and Sauron's defeat then: if Sauron
> and the Ring are weakened
<snip>
> there is no reason to think that Elrond and Cirdan would know
> or suspect that if they with the best of intentions should wrest
> the Ring from Isildur to cast it into the volcano that they would
> fall under its spell and be unable to destroy it.
If that is true, then you can (again) say that the reason Elrond and
Cirdan did not take this course of action is due to the Ring's
influence. And it is not even necessarily true that Elrond and Cirdan
were unaware of the effect the Ring might have on themselves. They were
probably told by the holders of the Three of the power of the One Ring,
and that would be deterrant enough.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [in response to Isildur claiming the Ring as weregild]
>>
>>> But there is another example of weregild in the LoTR corpus that
>>> in fact is decided by the survivor, which I think goes to show
>>> Tolkien's understanding of it: that is Eorl the Young who claims
>>> the life and service of the first of mearas when the stallion
>>> threw Eorl's father and as a consequence his father died. The
>>> survivor, Eorl, named and received the price.
>>
>> And Felarof is said to have "submitted" (though only to Eorl). Does
>> anyone here think that the Ring 'submitted' to Isildur's will?
>
> Does the Ring have a choice? That is, does the Ring have a will
> and sentience?
Maybe I should have said that Isildur was unable to master the Ring.
Eorl was able to master Felarof, regardless of whether his claim of
weregild was justified, only because Felarof submitted to Eorl.
In contrast, Isildur makes it clear that he has failed with the Ring:
"I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet
found the strength to bend it to my will. It needs one greater than I
now know myself to be. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers
of the Three."
(Disaster of the Gladden Fields, Unfinished Tales)
This makes clear that the fact that Eorl mastered Felarof is not proof
that his claim of weregild was justified.
> Further, unlike the horse, the Ring can not run
> away, put up its fists and fight, use feet to kick, buck, and
> otherwise take steps not to be held. This isn't an apt analogy
> and so the comparison doesn't stand.
But it does. See above. The Ring fights in more subtle ways. :-)
>> I don't
>> think that the fact that Felarof submitted to a claim of weregild
>> meant that the survivor was necessarily justified in setting the
>> price.
>
> I'm not necessarily saying anything about whether or not Isildur
> was justified. My point was that of the two places in Tolkien's
> writing where he speaks of weregild, in both the survivor names
> and receives the "geld" that is demanded, showing Tolkien's
> understanding of weregild.
I agree with Stan that we should not look at Tolkien's characters to see
how Tolkien thought weregild worked. That is fiction. We should look at
what Tolkien wrote academically.
Anyway, as king, Eorl had the right to set the weregild.
>> It sounds more like Felarof doing the right thing.
>
> How is forfeiting one's freedom the "right thing?"
<snip>
> this then gets us into
> speculating whether Felarof was justified in resisting Leod's
> attempts to capture him, during which Leod was accidentally
> killed.
Actually, Leod captured Felarof as a foal. It was when he tried to mount
it that Felarof (though he did not have that name yet) bore him away. We
could speculate that Felarof felt guilty about throwing Leod and
accidentally killing him, and so gladly submitted to Eorl in payment of
his debt.
<snip>
>> [BTW, the reference is note 28 to Cirion and Eorl, UT]
>
> I was referring to Appendix A.
That is indeed a more detailed account!
NobodyMan
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> I don't think so. Gandalf dd not take the Ring from Frodo by force,
>>> and I suspect Elrond and Círdan had the same reasons for their
>>> forbearance: (1) it would destroy Isildur ("break your mind" is the
>>> expression Gandalf used to Frodo), and (2) by acquiring the Ring in
>>> that way, they would fall under its spell and be unable to destroy
>>> it theme selves.
>>>
>>
>>A) Bilbo had worn and used the Ring for many years;
>
>Bilbo? Gandalf was talking about Frodo.
>
>(The Ring did have its hooks into Bilbo right away, though: he lied
>to the Dwarves about it, not just once but multiple lies.)
At the point that Gandalf would have considered taking the ring from
Frodo, Frodo had also possessed the ring for many years. Don't go by
the sequences as shown in the movie; many years had passed between
Bilbo's 111th birthday party and the time when Gandalf revealed to
Frodo that the ring was the One Ring.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>If that is true, then you can (again) say that the reason Elrond and
>Cirdan did not take this course of action is due to the Ring's
>influence.
I never thought about that before. I always thought the Ring
constrained Isildur to refuse to destroy it, but I never thought it
made Cirdan and Elrond diffident about advising Isildur. Interesting
possibility!
Larry Swain
Stan Brown wrote:
>
> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >
> >
> >Stan Brown wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> >A) Bilbo had worn and used the Ring for many years;
>
> Bilbo? Gandalf was talking about Frodo.
I'm sorry, but where precisely are you getting this from? In
the chapter in book I title Shadow of the Past Gandalf tells
Frodo that he, Gandalf, could not have taken the Ring from Bilbo
without breaking his mind. I do not recall that Gandalf says
anything close to the same about taking the Ring from Frodo, but
that could be just my bad memory. So I'll have to ask you to
cite the passage if you would please.
In either case though the point is the same: by that point Frodo
too had possessed the Ring many years, 17 in fact.
>
> (The Ring did have its hooks into Bilbo right away, though: he lied
> to the Dwarves about it, not just once but multiple lies.)
Yes, and by the time in the Hobbit he had told that story he had
already WORN the Ring for several hours, he hadn't just come on
it and then lied to the dwarves.
> > Isildur at
> >best had it for only seconds and hadn't used it, and possibly
> >hadn't even touched it yet when Elrond and Cirdan counseled him,
>
> So? hobbits as a class were more resistant than other races; and
> some Númenóreans were very highly susceptible. Boromir was;
> apparently Isildur was too. Perhaps he had a larger-than-usual dose
> of ordinary headstrongness too.
Boromir by the time he "broke" had also been tempted by the Ring
for months, being in close proximity, knowing its power and that
using it could save his people in a hour of hopelessness. Not
at all like Isildur who just won a major victory over Sauron and
on the field of victory takes a weregild and has only been in
the presence of the thing mere moments. Not analogous at all.
> >B) Surely not. Sauron lay unconcious on the ground, at that
> >point both his malice and the power of the Ring which utterly
> >depends on Sauron and is an extension of him were quiescent.
>
> You have it backward, I'm afraid. Sauron was dependent on the Ring,
> not the other way round. When the Ring was destroyed, Sauron
> collapsed. When Sauron's body was destroyed, the Ring was
> unaffected.
No, I'm afraid you seem confused. Without Sauron there would be
no Ring. He made it, he put HIS power into it, it resurfaced
when he began to rise again and search for it. They were part
of one another. The Ring is a recepticle of Sauron's power.
> > BUT, even if you are correct,
>
> "If" I'm correct??? <grin>
NOw don't go getting all Michael Martinez on us.
>
> >would at that moment in time, Elrond and
> >Cirdan known that since we only know it because we see the
> >Ring's effect on lesser beings who hold it (Isildur, Gollum,
> >Bilbo, Frodo).
>
> They knew because they remembered what happened 1600-odd years
> earlier when Sauron set the Ring on his finger.
>
I'm afraid I don't follow. Sauron only turned evil when he put
on the Ring he made? Or are you saying that when Sauron put on
the Ring it was revealed to the elves that wresting the Ring
from lesser beings who happened to possess it would destroy the
being in question? Or that when Sauron put on the Ring and his
intentions were revealed that also it was revealed that should
anyone else possess the Ring they would want to cherish it and
possess it for themselves rather than destroy it? I just don't
follow your point here.
ljs
Larry Swain
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> [about whether the Ring would immediately exert an influence over
> Isildur, Elrond and Cirdan on the slopes of Mount Doom]
>
> > B) Surely not. Sauron lay unconcious on the ground, at that
> > point both his malice and the power of the Ring which utterly
> > depends on Sauron and is an extension of him were quiescent.
>
> The Ring was quiescent? Surely not. I would say that the very fact that
> Elrond, Cirdan and Isildur do not act logically is evidence that the
> Ring is not quiescent. Isildur refuses to destroy the Ring, and Elrond
> and Cirdan fail to act decisively. This could be seen as the Ring's
> influence.
I wouldn't. One of the problems that even the elves from the
very beginning have had in dealing first with Morgoth and then
Sauron is a lack of logic (including the ill-logic of waging war
against a divine being in the first place!!) Considering that
among both Elves and Men there is a decided pattern of illogical
behavior throughout the stories of Middle Earth, I wouldn't
place this specific one down to the Ring without something more
to go on.
>
> >I doubt whether indeed at that moment the forces that we see later
> > working when Sauron is again taking shape and rising
>
> The references to the Ring being aroused by the rise of Sauron towards
> the end of the Third Age is an indication that the Ring _did_ become
> quiescent, but does not indicate _when_ it became quiescent.
True, but this doesn't help your case any either.
> We know for certain that the Ring was active enough, even after Sauron's
> defeat at Mount Doom, to only slowly contract in size and lose heat. It
> was also active enough to consolidate its hold on Isildur ("I will risk
> no hurt to this thing. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great
> pain." - quoted from memory). Even as Isildur rode north to Rivendell,
> some time after the events at Mount Doom, there are several indications
> that the Ring is still active (all quotes from UT):
Proving my point. If you recall Sauron and the end of the
Second Age occurred in 3441 SA; Isildur did not go north until 2
Third Age. By the time he wrote that scroll and made that
declaration he had had the Ring for some time, and had
apparently tried to use it. Even your citation which I snipped
for brevity says 2 years--you have to posit that the Ring had
the effect IMMEDIATELY that it continued to have 2 years later,
and perhaps even on someone who has not even touched it or
claimed it yet.
>
> "...and though it was unknown to them, the Ring, cut from his black hand
> two years before, was still laden with Sauron's evil will and called to
> all his servants for their aid."
>
> And when the Ring slips from Isildur's hand:
>
> "The pain had left him. A great burden had been taken away."
>
> Compare this with Frodo's reaction to having the burden of the Ring
> removed at Mount Doom. I would say that these quotes from UT show that
> the Ring is indeed still active at this point.
Ok, point conceded. The Ring is active. Now if you don't mind
prove to us how the active Ring can have this affect on someone
IMMEDIATELY, before they even TOUCH THE RING ITSELF OR CLAIM
IT. That is after all what we are talking about it here, not
its affect on characters who possess it for years. There are
only 2 such instances: Isildur and Gollum. Isildur was of the
faithful, Gollum even before the Ring seems to have been an
undesireable sort. By your definition the Ring has to have a
hold on someone IMMEDIATELY. Gollum isn't a comparison to
Isildur since Gollum's lust for the bauble was only increased by
the Ring; he already had the nastiness and the lust for it.
Isildur didn't seek the Ring for power or command or possession:
but for weregild.
>
> <snip>
>
> > there is no reason to think that Elrond and Cirdan would know
> > or suspect that if they with the best of intentions should wrest
> > the Ring from Isildur to cast it into the volcano that they would
> > fall under its spell and be unable to destroy it.
>
> If that is true, then you can (again) say that the reason Elrond and
> Cirdan did not take this course of action is due to the Ring's
> influence. And it is not even necessarily true that Elrond and Cirdan
> were unaware of the effect the Ring might have on themselves. They were
> probably told by the holders of the Three of the power of the One Ring,
> and that would be deterrant enough.
>
This is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from my statement at
all. How would the holders of the 3 know the effects of the One
on mortals? I mean I have every respect for the Elves, but they
weren't omnisicient. So essentially you're saying too that even
if Isildur had not taken the Ring, Elrond and Cirdan would not
have either, not even to destroy it, because they were deterred
by their knowledge received from the holders of the 3 (wasn't
Cirdan already one of those?) of the power of the One, and so
they would not have touched it? But then are willing to have
Isildur do it or wait for some hapless hobbit to do it for
them? This seems to be the logical extension of your comments.
ljs
Larry Swain
Stan Brown wrote:
>
> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >My point was that of the two places in Tolkien's
> >writing where he speaks of weregild, in both the survivor names
> >and receives the "geld" that is demanded, showing Tolkien's
> >understanding of weregild.
>
> In a letter, Tolkien makes the point that he is not his characters.
> I think we can accept that he knew what wergild was, even if his
> characters used the term wrongly as a specious justification for
> getting what they wanted.
>
I'll respond to you and Chris on this one. If an author
consistently presents a cultural phenomenon in a book the same
way, he is either trying to tell the reader something about his
character or he is revealing his own knowledge, or both. One
need not conflate the author and character to see that the
character is limited by the creator's knowledge and
understanding of a concept. In LoTR we have two explicit
examples of weregild given: Eorl and Isildur. In both, the
characters in question name their price as weregild for fathers
(and a brother in Isildur's case). Both have similar
conditions. They both then must stand or fall together. SO,
please present some evidence from somewhere that Tolkien
intended us to read Eorl's actions as unjustified. If you can
not do that, then you have to admit that they are justified, and
that means that so were Isildur's actions. Further, I invite
you to provide some evidence that Eorl's demand of weregild was
used wrongly and was specious.
As for Isildur, if we again follow your conclusion out to its
logical conclusion, he made up on the spot the excuse of
weregild to get the Ring--which means that he knew what it was,
what its power was, and intended to use it himself. I don't
find this in Tolkien. Gollum made up the birthday present
excuse to justify him getting what he wanted. Bilbo made up a
story to a) justify his possession AFTER the fact (it is what
makes him different, he didn't want the Ring, but once he had
it, it began to work on him too) and as he says later to b)
remove the stigma of being called a thief, which he in essence
was. But in both of these cases, the stories to justify things
were made up AFTER possession of the Ring, not before. In
Isildur's case, it was made up before, or at best for your case,
simultaneously with possession. I think that is sufficiently
different to clear him of charges of seeking to justify a desire
for the Ring.
ljs
Dirk Thierbach
> Stan Brown wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
>>> My point was that of the two places in Tolkien's writing where he
>>> speaks of weregild, in both the survivor names and receives the
>>> "geld" that is demanded, showing Tolkien's understanding of
>>> weregild.
There's a third place where weregild is mentioned: in HoME III, manuscript
C of the Lay of Leithian, "Of Tarn Aeluin The Blessed":
Though price was set upon each head
to match the weregild of a king
This suggests that weregild is not arbitrary, but connected to rank.
The glossary (probably by CT) confirms this:
weregild: the price to be paid in compensation for the killing of a man,
varying according to his rank
I am certainly no expert on this, but I have the impression that
weregild may be "demanded" by the wronged party, and then the other
party may either submit to it, or the whole affair is to be settled by
the Thing or some other higher authority, if no agreement can be
reached. Also, it seems to be considered "poetic justice" if the
weregild matches the killing in a particular or maybe surprising
way. If anyone knows a specific passage in the sagas that contradicts
this or explain it better, please correct me.
Note that the footnote in UT says that "Felarof submitted" -- there would
have been no way to force the horse, save by killing it, which would
have spoiled the anecdote.
Also note that the two examples you have discussed so far are pretty
atypical. Isildur is obviously making up an excuse, and it's not
usual to demand compensation from a horse -- this is the sort of
"transfer" that makes a story interesting, of course.
On the other hand, Tolkien knew both the source texts and the history of
the time when weregild was common pretty well. So I think one can quite
likely assume that he knew the "proper" meaning, and was playing
with the term in the stories about Isildur and Felarof, while in the
Lay he was using it in the usual sense.
> If an author consistently presents a cultural phenomenon in a book
> the same way, he is either trying to tell the reader something about
> his character or he is revealing his own knowledge, or both.
Two exceptional usages are not strong enough to make an argument
for "consistently presenting something", at least IMHO.
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>
> [about whether the Ring would immediately exert an influence over
> Isildur, Elrond and Cirdan on the slopes of Mount Doom]
>
>> B) Surely not. Sauron lay unconcious on the ground, at that
>> point both his malice and the power of the Ring which utterly
>> depends on Sauron and is an extension of him were quiescent.
I disagree that the power of the Ring "utterly depends on Sauron" and is
merely "an extension of him". There are many indications that the Ring
was capable of functioning independently of Sauron -- leaving Gollum, for
instance.
The Ring would, while Sauron was 'active' and the Lord of the Ring,
receive its purpose from Sauron, but it is shown as being able to act
independently upon that purpose. Even if Sauron's fëa had left his body,
the Ring would still be able to function according to Sauron's purpose,
as demonstrated by the passage in UT.
> The Ring was quiescent? Surely not.
[...]
I agree completely that Isildur was influenced immediately by the Ring --
his unwillingness to give it up, his attempt to strengthen his claim to
it and also his use, in the scroll of "It is precious to me" (this is
clearly used as a sign of being under the influence of the Ring) and his
unwillingness to risk any harm to it. It is of course also made explicit
in UT: "the Ring, cut from his black hand two years before, was still
laden with Sauron's evil will."
Whether Elrond and Círdan were also influenced by the Ring? I don't know,
but it is certainly an interesting thought.
>> I doubt whether indeed at that moment the forces that we see later
>> working when Sauron is again taking shape and rising
>
> The references to the Ring being aroused by the rise of Sauron towards
> the end of the Third Age is an indication that the Ring _did_ become
> quiescent, but does not indicate _when_ it became quiescent.
I don't agree completely here. I don't think it is an indication that the
Ring became entirely quiescent, but rather that it did not seek to be
reunited with Sauron.
Had somebody found the Ring (if that would have been possible at all
without its encouragement), the Ring would certainly have dominated him
as it did dominate Gollum.
Of course I am a firm proponent for the suggestion that the Ring did have
some level of consciousness or sentience by itself -- it was capable of
having a purpose and to form strategies towards achieving that purpose.
> We know for certain that the Ring was active enough, even after
> Sauron's defeat at Mount Doom,
<snip>
What he said ;-)
> I would speculate that it is when it no longer has anyone claiming it
> or bearing it or wearing it, that this is the point at which it
> becomes quiescent as it sinks to the bottom of the Great River to lie
> in peace for much of an Age of the world.
Possibly actively disencouraging discovery until it felt Sauron
awakening.
<snip>
[Isildur, Elrond and Círdan at Mount Doom]
> And it is not even necessarily true that Elrond and Cirdan were unaware
> of the effect the Ring might have on themselves. They were probably
told
> by the holders of the Three of the power of the One Ring, and that
would
> be deterrant enough.
Didn't Círdan have Narya at that point?
I'm not sure when Gil-Galad's Ring passed on to Elrond -- possibly not
until Elrond took it from him (or was given it by a dying Gil-Galad) on
the slopes of Mount Doom after Sauron's fall, but I think that Círdan had
been given his Ring earlier, and would have known about the dangers.
--
Troels Forchhammer
The errors hardest
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/
Troels Forchhammer
Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> Ok, point conceded. The Ring is active. Now if you don't mind
> prove to us how the active Ring can have this affect on someone
> IMMEDIATELY, before they even TOUCH THE RING ITSELF OR CLAIM
> IT.
"Then I heard Bilbo's strange story of how he had "won" it, and
I could not believe it. When I at last got the truth out of
him, I saw at once that he had been trying to put his claim to
the ring beyond doubt. Much like Gollum with his "birthday
present". The lies were too much alike for my comfort. Clearly
the ring had an unwholesome power that set to work on its
keeper at once."
Gandalf in LotR I,2 'The Shadow of the Past'
This at least says that the Ring affects "its keeper" immediately. The
problem is that there is apparently only four possible cases for a
before-touch effect.
Isildur: Well, this is what we're debating. Was he, even before he
took up the Ring, influenced like Bilbo and Gollum to try "to put
his claim to the Ring beyond doubt?"
Déagol: Was he enticed by the Ring to find it? I would claim so, but
there is, as far as I know, no proof for that opinion other than
what can be derived from other statements and the fact that his
finding of the Ring falls a few years after Sauron returned to Dol
Guldur, ending the Watchful Peace.
Sméagol/Gollum: Would he have killed Déagol if the Ring hadn't
influenced him? I don't think that he would, but you have already
disallowed Gollum on the grounds that he was a mean little fellow
before the Ring was found.
Bilbo: It is stated that some other force was at work that made Bilbo
find the Ring instead of some Orc, so I don't think he can be used
to show anything either way.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
McREsq
>> being legalistic here.]
>
>He was wiser than his forebear. Aragorn knew that it would be deadly for
>him to claim the One Ring in any way, and consequently he has to reject
>any claim to it. Legally speaking Frodo was right -- Isildur's claim to
>should still be valid (or at least semi-valid).
Under the common law, the finder of lost property has paramount rights against
all but the true owner. Here, Aragorn is the only possible candidate to be the
true owner (I'm talking property law here, we all know Sauron was
metaphysically the true owner of the Ring). Since Aragorn waived his claim,
full complete fee ownership was vested in Frodo.
<snip>
Russ
McREsq
>Aragorn's claim was legal. The weregild thing was only a justification,
>and Isildur was most probably wrong to claim weregild.
I disagree. From a purely legal standpoint, Aragorn had a valid claim as heri
of Isildur. Isildur's title was valid either as weregild or as spoils of war.
That's an entirely different thing than acknowledging that metaphyically, the
Ring would always be Sauron's.
Russ
McREsq
>against his taking it and that he should throw it in the fire. They
>were unwilling to use force to compel him to give it up.
I don't think they contested the legality of his claim. They contested the
wisdom of his claim.
>In any event, wergild is not decided upon by the survivor of the
>deceased; it is set in advance upon a fixed scale by higher
>authority or by law.
At that point there was no higher law in Middle-earth than Isildur.
<snip>
Russ
McREsq
>I don't think so. Gandalf dd not take the Ring from Frodo by force,
>and I suspect Elrond and Círdan had the same reasons for their
>forbearance: (1) it would destroy Isildur ("break your mind" is the
>expression Gandalf used to Frodo),
Perhaps. But Isildur had possessed the Ring for only a few minutes. Frodo had
possesed it for years.
and (2) by acquiring the Ring in
>that way, they would fall under its spell and be unable to destroy
>it theme selves.
Quite likely.
and 3), they could not forcibly take the Ring from Isildur: he was, after all,
a great warrior with a formidable army at his back.
Russ
Troels Forchhammer
mcr...@aol.com (McREsq) enriched us with:
>
<snip>
"Legal" aspect of ownership of the Ring at the end of the Third Age:
> From a purely legal standpoint, Aragorn had a valid claim as heir
> of Isildur. Isildur's title was valid either as weregild or as
> spoils of war.
>
> That's an entirely different thing than acknowledging that
> metaphyically, the Ring would always be Sauron's.
That is, I think, a good way to put it.
Isildur's claim of "weregild" may have been invalid, but he could still
claim the Ring as spoils of war, but the metaphysical ownership, or the
"mastery", of the Ring never changed.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought
which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Larry Swain
McREsq wrote:
>
> >But in the book, I don't think anyone would seriously think that
> >Aragorn's claim was legal. The weregild thing was only a justification,
> >and Isildur was most probably wrong to claim weregild.
>
> I disagree. From a purely legal standpoint, Aragorn had a valid claim as heri
> of Isildur. Isildur's title was valid either as weregild or as spoils of war.
>
Frodo at least thought the Ring belonged to Aragorn. Note his
words at the Council of Elrond.
> That's an entirely different thing than acknowledging that metaphyically, the
> Ring would always be Sauron's.
WHich is just what Aragorn's replies indicates I think.
Well put!
> Russ
Larry Swain
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> in <4145277D...@operamail.com>,
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> enriched us with:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > Ok, point conceded. The Ring is active. Now if you don't mind
> > prove to us how the active Ring can have this affect on someone
> > IMMEDIATELY, before they even TOUCH THE RING ITSELF OR CLAIM
> > IT.
>
> "Then I heard Bilbo's strange story of how he had "won" it, and
> I could not believe it. When I at last got the truth out of
> him, I saw at once that he had been trying to put his claim to
> the ring beyond doubt. Much like Gollum with his "birthday
> present". The lies were too much alike for my comfort. Clearly
> the ring had an unwholesome power that set to work on its
> keeper at once."
>
> Gandalf in LotR I,2 'The Shadow of the Past'
>
> This at least says that the Ring affects "its keeper" immediately. The
> problem is that there is apparently only four possible cases for a
> before-touch effect.
No, it doesn't Troels. As I already pointed out, by the time
Gandalf hears Bilbo's original doubtful story, Bilbo has already
WORN THE RING for several hours--hardly an immediate response.
>
> Isildur: Well, this is what we're debating. Was he, even before he
> took up the Ring, influenced like Bilbo and Gollum to try "to put
> his claim to the Ring beyond doubt?"
No. He claimed it as weregild. It was his right. Even if we
take the later laws as indicative (something by the way that
scholars since Tolkien's day have doubted) of the practice of
earlier, pagan weregild where the King and the law assign a
value to the life of an individual based on class or station, we
have to remember that since Elendil is dead, and Anarion is
dead, that de facto makes Isildur KING--to whom is Isildur to
appeal in setting the weregild price for his father and brother
if not to himself? Unlike the Icelanders for example, the
Numenorean states were NOT democracies and didn't have allthings
or moots to overrule the king's word. So no matter how you read
it, he claimed it as weregild and it is a valid claim.
>
> Déagol: Was he enticed by the Ring to find it? I would claim so, but
> there is, as far as I know, no proof for that opinion other than
> what can be derived from other statements and the fact that his
> finding of the Ring falls a few years after Sauron returned to Dol
> Guldur, ending the Watchful Peace.
Agreed, though he doesn't know what he has....apparently from
Gandalf's story he sees something shiny in the water, grabs it,
surfaces, and finds it is a gold ring. Then Smeagol comes up
behind him and claims......not much to go on with Deagol.
> Sméagol/Gollum: Would he have killed Déagol if the Ring hadn't
> influenced him? I don't think that he would, but you have already
> disallowed Gollum on the grounds that he was a mean little fellow
> before the Ring was found.
Probably not killed, but probably in my book have wanted
Deagol's find anyway.
> Bilbo: It is stated that some other force was at work that made Bilbo
> find the Ring instead of some Orc, so I don't think he can be used
> to show anything either way.
Agreed.
ljs
Larry Swain
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> in <Gm31d.63$vZ7.7...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
> >
> > Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > [about whether the Ring would immediately exert an influence over
> > Isildur, Elrond and Cirdan on the slopes of Mount Doom]
> >
> >> B) Surely not. Sauron lay unconcious on the ground, at that
> >> point both his malice and the power of the Ring which utterly
> >> depends on Sauron and is an extension of him were quiescent.
>
> I disagree that the power of the Ring "utterly depends on Sauron" and is
> merely "an extension of him". There are many indications that the Ring
> was capable of functioning independently of Sauron -- leaving Gollum, for
> instance.
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. The Ring "leaves"
Gollum, if indeed that departure was not motivated by the same
force(s) that meant Bilbo to find the Ring, at the very time
when Sauron is waxing strongest in Dol Guldur as the
Necromancer. I. E. the Ring was answering his call, or at the
least responding to his growing power and influence, and not
acting "independently."
>
> The Ring would, while Sauron was 'active' and the Lord of the Ring,
> receive its purpose from Sauron, but it is shown as being able to act
> independently upon that purpose.
Where else might you see this in the book? When it is found by
Deagol, Sauron had entered into Dol Guldur, and so the Ring was
responding to Sauron then too. Gollum took it out of reach
until Sauron's might and influence grew and when the Ring again
felt the tug of its master, it responded again, leaving Gollum.
Bilbo found it, the White Council acted, and again the Ring
became quiet.
You might at this juncture point to the Ring's getting larger or
smaller, but since it does both, at times seeming to slip from
the finger, but since it both gets larger and gets smaller and
the wearer has no control over the Ring anymore than the wearer
can stop becoming invisible, the Ring is simply exhibiting its
nature: not fitting any hand except the one that masters it.
This is more like the properties of inanimate objects than the
Ring acting in any sort of willful way.
So what else indicates that the Ring is able to act
independently?
>Even if Sauron's fëa had left his body,
> the Ring would still be able to function according to Sauron's purpose,
> as demonstrated by the passage in UT.
Agreed, which doesn't mean that the Ring "acts", it simply obeys
its nature: plant a tree in healthy soil with a water source and
it will grow.
> > The Ring was quiescent? Surely not.
> [...]
>
> I agree completely that Isildur was influenced immediately by the Ring --
> his unwillingness to give it up, his attempt to strengthen his claim to
> it and also his use, in the scroll of "It is precious to me" (this is
> clearly used as a sign of being under the influence of the Ring) and his
> unwillingness to risk any harm to it.
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? His unwillingness
to give it up can be put down to grief on the sides of Mount
Doom. The rest he says AFTER he has possessed the Ring for some
time, almost two full years in fact. Again, hardly an immediate
response on his part. What we're interested in is what happened
on the sides of Mount Doom, for it is there that Isildur claims
the Ring as weregild, not what he writes in a scroll two years
later.
It is of course also made explicit
> in UT: "the Ring, cut from his black hand two years before, was still
> laden with Sauron's evil will."
I am sorry, but I continue to fail to see how TWO YEARS can be
read as IMMEDIATE.
> Whether Elrond and Círdan were also influenced by the Ring? I don't know,
> but it is certainly an interesting thought.
Tis interesting, but doubtful. Look at how many are in the
presence of the Ring for long periods of time and have no effect
at all.
ljs
Larry Swain
Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> >> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
>
> >>> My point was that of the two places in Tolkien's writing where he
> >>> speaks of weregild, in both the survivor names and receives the
> >>> "geld" that is demanded, showing Tolkien's understanding of
> >>> weregild.
>
> There's a third place where weregild is mentioned: in HoME III, manuscript
> C of the Lay of Leithian, "Of Tarn Aeluin The Blessed":
>
> Though price was set upon each head
> to match the weregild of a king
>
> This suggests that weregild is not arbitrary, but connected to rank.
No it doesn't. It suggests the same thing that "a king's
ransom" does....I think you are reading far too much into it.
Besides, in both of the instances of which we are speaking a
king has been killed and the king's son and successor claims the
weregild--i. e. the one who on your view would legislate the
value of the life weregild is being paid for.
> The glossary (probably by CT) confirms this:
>
> weregild: the price to be paid in compensation for the killing of a man,
> varying according to his rank
While I don't disagree with this definition, I will point out
that it confirms nothing except CT's understanding of the term,
not JRRT's or anything else. And since as I said above in the
other two instances of weregild kings are killed and their
successors claim the weregild price, I don't see how this
definition disproves anything I've said.
> I am certainly no expert on this, but I have the impression that
> weregild may be "demanded" by the wronged party, and then the other
> party may either submit to it, or the whole affair is to be settled by
> the Thing or some other higher authority, if no agreement can be
> reached.
Much is open to question. The primary sources that describe or
give infomration to us are late and come to us after royal power
had been consolidated and centralized, and long after
Christianization. So it is extremely difficult to read from the
ninth century in England or the thirteenth century in Denmark
backwards to the sixth century and describe for example what is
happening in Beowulf. They look the same, but we simply do not
know enough to say that they were the same, and determined in
the same way.
Also, it seems to be considered "poetic justice" if the
> weregild matches the killing in a particular or maybe surprising
> way. If anyone knows a specific passage in the sagas that contradicts
> this or explain it better, please correct me.
Indeed, and isn't claiming the Ring in exchange for the lives of
Elendil and Anarion poetic justice and fair? Or the claiming of
Felarof for Leod?
>
> Note that the footnote in UT says that "Felarof submitted" -- there would
> have been no way to force the horse, save by killing it, which would
> have spoiled the anecdote.
Exactly. Felarof agreed to pay the claimed weregild.
> Also note that the two examples you have discussed so far are pretty
> atypical. Isildur is obviously making up an excuse,
Why is that obvious? The laws on weregild don't cover as I
recall what happens in the case of battle, so I question calling
on them to say that Isildur and Eorl were unjustified in their
claims in the first place. So how is claiming the gear of a
fallen enemy after a major battle in the case of Isildur
atypical and obviously an excuse? Seems extremely typical to
me, and such activities are described in Latin, Norse, and Old
English sources.
and it's not
> usual to demand compensation from a horse -- this is the sort of
> "transfer" that makes a story interesting, of course.
Agreed. Usual to demand a horse as compensation, perhaps, but
not of the horse itself.
> On the other hand, Tolkien knew both the source texts and the history of
> the time when weregild was common pretty well. So I think one can quite
> likely assume that he knew the "proper" meaning,
I didn't question that. But I also happen to know that the
scholarly view of weregild and its practices have changed in the
years since Tolkien was about. The view of his generation is no
longer the accepted view.
>and was playing
> with the term in the stories about Isildur and Felarof, while in the
> Lay he was using it in the usual sense.
What evidence do you have that he was playing with it in
Isildur? It seems very straightforward to me.
> > If an author consistently presents a cultural phenomenon in a book
> > the same way, he is either trying to tell the reader something about
> > his character or he is revealing his own knowledge, or both.
>
> Two exceptional usages are not strong enough to make an argument
> for "consistently presenting something", at least IMHO.
You're entitled, but I fail to see them as exceptional.
Claiming weregild in battle is normal; claiming werego;d
afterthe deeath of a king is normal, what's exceptional there is
that it is asked of the horse rather than a human. So it is not
the concept of weregild or its practice that is exceptional in
the case of Felarof, but the being of whom weregild is
demanded. So if they are not as exceptional as you claim, what
then? Further, exceptional of what? They must be exceptions to
something, and since they are the only times Tolkien gives us
instances of weregild, they seem normative rather than
exceptional.
By the way, here is a portion of Grettir's Saga that shows a
demand for weregild in the way I've been describing:
Asmund seized the two men who were with the jarl and threw them
to the ground with such violence that they were well-nigh
killed. Asgrim rushed at the jarl and demanded of him weregild
for his father, for he had been in league with Grim and took
part in the attack when Ondott was murdered. The jarl said he
had no money about him and asked for time. Asgrim then placed
the point of his spear against his breast and ordered him to pay
up on the spot. Then the jarl took a necklace from his neck and
gave it to him with three gold rings and a velvet mantle. Asgrim
took the things and bestowed a name upon the jarl. He called him
Audun Nannygoat.
Here we see Asgrim claim weregild from the killer of his father
quite without "agreeing" on a price or the agency of a king or
Thing, part of which btw are 3 gold rings!
One might also point to the historical account of Ine who with
his army demanded weregild for the brather of Caedwalla from teh
King of Kent. Essentially this is what Isildur is doing, except
that his foe, Sauron, is already defeated and unable to answer.
Anyway, a couple of examples.
>
> - Dirk
Christopher Kreuzer
> There's a third place where weregild is mentioned: in HoME III,
> manuscript C of the Lay of Leithian, "Of Tarn Aeluin The Blessed":
>
> Though price was set upon each head
> to match the weregild of a king
You just happened to remember this or be reading it? :-)
<snip>
> Also note that the two examples you have discussed so far are pretty
> atypical. Isildur is obviously making up an excuse, and it's not
> usual to demand compensation from a horse -- this is the sort of
> "transfer" that makes a story interesting, of course.
Good point. Ordinary weregild is so... boring!
> On the other hand, Tolkien knew both the source texts and the history
> of the time when weregild was common pretty well. So I think one can
> quite likely assume that he knew the "proper" meaning, and was playing
> with the term in the stories about Isildur and Felarof
...to make an interesting story...
> while in the
> Lay he was using it in the usual sense.
That sounds really good. I'm convinced.
Christopher Kreuzer
> I didn't question that. But I also happen to know that the
> scholarly view of weregild and its practices have changed in the
> years since Tolkien was about. The view of his generation is no
> longer the accepted view.
You wouldn't be able to expand on that, would you?
<snip>
> By the way, here is a portion of Grettir's Saga that shows a
> demand for weregild in the way I've been describing:
<snip>
That was extremely interesting. Especially the 'three' rings bit. I'm
actually writing something on Numbers in Tolkien, and I was looking for
other uses of the number three in mythologies. I now have one!
> Asgrim took the things and bestowed a name upon the jarl.
> He called him Audun Nannygoat.
Is that an insult? And what is a jarl?
<snip>
> Anyway, a couple of examples.
Are stuff like Grettir's saga or the other sagas available online? If
not, which books would you recommend?
Christopher Kreuzer
[about Sauron/Elendil/Gil-galad on Mount Doom]
> Didn't Círdan have Narya at that point?
>
> I'm not sure when Gil-Galad's Ring passed on to Elrond -- possibly not
> until Elrond took it from him (or was given it by a dying Gil-Galad)
> on the slopes of Mount Doom after Sauron's fall, but I think that
> Círdan had been given his Ring earlier, and would have known about
> the dangers.
I thought that the bearers of the Three did not take their Rings with
them to the Wars of the Last Alliance. I thought they left them at home,
but maybe I am wrong.
Looking here...
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q3-Bearers
We see that Elrond received his Ring from Gil-galad before he died,
which is still not quite specific enough. I still would have thought
that the Elves would not have taken the Rings with them to battle, even
in a pocket or on a chain.
Christopher Kreuzer
>> But in the book, I don't think anyone would seriously think that
>> Aragorn's claim was legal. The weregild thing was only a
>> justification, and Isildur was most probably wrong to claim weregild.
>
> I disagree. From a purely legal standpoint, Aragorn had a valid
> claim as heri of Isildur. Isildur's title was valid either as
> weregild or as spoils of war.
>
> That's an entirely different thing than acknowledging that
So, kind of remove the Sauron bit, making the One Ring just an ordinary
gold band, and then use property law to wrangle over who owns that?
Christopher Kreuzer
> and 3), they could not forcibly take the Ring from Isildur: he was,
> after all, a great warrior with a formidable army at his back.
Hmm. I don't want to start a D&D 'powers' thread, but they are 2 against
1. No matter how mighty Isildur was, I think they would have had a
chance. And they were alone on Mount Doom: the bit at Council of Elrond
where Elrond says: "[Isildur] alone stood by his father in that last
mortal contest, and by Gil-galad, only Cirdan stood, and I."
And anyway, Elves beat Men hands down anytime!
Odysseus
>
> McREsq <mcr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > [...] From a purely legal standpoint, Aragorn had a valid
> > claim as heri of Isildur. Isildur's title was valid either as
> > weregild or as spoils of war.
> >
> > That's an entirely different thing than acknowledging that
> > metaphysically, the Ring would always be Sauron's.
>
> So, kind of remove the Sauron bit, making the One Ring just an ordinary
> gold band, and then use property law to wrangle over who owns that?
Something of the kind seems to have been the premise of most of the
discussion in this thread. But as weregild the Ring's value would be
a critical consideration, in comparison to the 'going rate' for the
life of a king, and its Sauron-derived powers must have increased
that value, no matter how difficult it would be to assess them; as
"an ordinary gold band" it would only be adequate compensation for
the death of a slave, or perhaps the loss of a freeman's finger.
In the early-mediaeval Nordic societies, was weregild even applicable
to death or injury from battle? That is, to use current legal
phraseology, was engaging in combat really deemed a tort that could
incur liability for damages? By the same token, we don't consider
soldiers (those who observe the Geneva Convention &c., or those on
'our side', at least) to be committing murder -- or to be liable for
"wrongful death" -- when they kill enemy combatants.
BTW, if Aragorn *did* claim the Ring on the ground that it was
Isildur's by right of weregild, wouldn't he be in effect settling
with Sauron, ending their 'feud'? AIUI inherent to the weregild
system was the principle that acceptance of the due payment by an
injured party or his family entailed renunciation of vengeance.
--
Odysseus
Odysseus
>
[snip]
>
> [...] it is not even necessarily true that Elrond and Cirdan
> were unaware of the effect the Ring might have on themselves. They were
> probably told by the holders of the Three of the power of the One Ring,
> and that would be deterrant enough.
>
the third? And although IIRC Elrond had received Vilya from Gil-galad
some time after Sauron revealed himself, Cirdan was one of the
original "elven-lords under the sky" and must have known as much as anyone.
--
Odysseus
Larry Swain
Odysseus wrote:
>
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> >
> > McREsq <mcr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In the early-mediaeval Nordic societies, was weregild even applicable
> to death or injury from battle? That is, to use current legal
> phraseology, was engaging in combat really deemed a tort that could
> incur liability for damages?
You assume that they conceived of a difference between "battle"
as combat and "battle" as individuals fighting each other. Even
"combat" was simply a group of individuals fighting on one side
against a group of individuals fighting on the other!
> BTW, if Aragorn *did* claim the Ring on the ground that it was
> Isildur's by right of weregild, wouldn't he be in effect settling
> with Sauron, ending their 'feud'?
Aragorn could not make that claim. Though it had belonged to
his ancestor, his ancestor had lost it. It was no longer in his
family's possession. And no, it would satisfy only the feud
caused by the deaths of Elendil and Anarion, not for any of the
other crimes Sauron committed.
Larry Swain
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't question that. But I also happen to know that the
> > scholarly view of weregild and its practices have changed in the
> > years since Tolkien was about. The view of his generation is no
> > longer the accepted view.
>
> You wouldn't be able to expand on that, would you?
Sure. I've intimated it somewhat already. It was once
"thought" that weregild was weregild and that all sources were
equal. That is, to put it another way, that what the laws of
Alfred from the ninth century say about weregild (leodgild, bot
etc) was pretty much the same as what Beowulf is talking about
or what Snorri is talking about. An adjustment to that view has
come to the fore that most of our written information about
weregild and the varying degrees of prices and so on come to us
when a) royal power was consolidated and centralized b) was
Christianized. ANd so one posits a continuity of traditions
like weregild but yet a discontinuity--that is the later form
may not have been the form practiced say before 600--thus
interpreting something like Beowulf becomes a new issue. Using
later documents to illustrate an earlier practice is always a
rum thing.
> <snip>
>
> > By the way, here is a portion of Grettir's Saga that shows a
> > demand for weregild in the way I've been describing:
>
> <snip>
>
> That was extremely interesting. Especially the 'three' rings bit. I'm
> actually writing something on Numbers in Tolkien, and I was looking for
> other uses of the number three in mythologies. I now have one!
> > Asgrim took the things and bestowed a name upon the jarl.
> > He called him Audun Nannygoat.
>
> Is that an insult? And what is a jarl?
>
"jarl" is Old Norse for Old English "eorl">earl, a free born
man. ANd I think it must be an insult, what warrior wants to be
called an Old Nanny goat? A taunt that we used to chant when I
was a wee lad was "Nanny goat, nanny goat, can't catch a billy
goat!"
> <snip>
>
> > Anyway, a couple of examples.
>
> Are stuff like Grettir's saga or the other sagas available online? If
> not, which books would you recommend?
Yes, or at least some. Try this URL:
http://members.aol.com/heroicage1/halinks.htm#norse and note
especially sites like Northvegr and OMACL that have Norse
literature online in translation. The Penguin series also has
several in fairly inexpensive paper back.
ljs
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> > Stan Brown wrote:
>> >> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
>> Though price was set upon each head
>> to match the weregild of a king
>>
>> This suggests that weregild is not arbitrary, but connected to rank.
> No it doesn't. It suggests the same thing that "a king's
> ransom" does....
Hm. To me, that would suggest the same: A "king's ransom" is
larger than an "ordinary" ransom, because the king has higher rank
(and hence more influence and wealth).
> Besides, in both of the instances of which we are speaking a
> king has been killed and the king's son and successor claims the
> weregild--i. e. the one who on your view would legislate the
> value of the life weregild is being paid for.
Yes. That would explain while they can set the amount in those cases.
>> The glossary (probably by CT) confirms this:
> While I don't disagree with this definition, I will point out
> that it confirms nothing except CT's understanding of the term,
> not JRRT's or anything else.
Yes, that's why I said "probably by CT", to make it clear.
Nevertheless, I guess CT are JRRT are close enough to share some
knowledge about these things, and if anyone would know if JRRT had
a different understanding of "weregild", it would be CT. That's
of course purely negative evidence, and by itself doesn't prove
anything, but it makes it more unlikely that JRRT had a different
understanding.
> And since as I said above in the other two instances of weregild
> kings are killed and their successors claim the weregild price, I
> don't see how this definition disproves anything I've said.
You have now a third instance, where Tolkien doesn't "consistently
present a cultural phenomenon in the same way".
> Indeed, and isn't claiming the Ring in exchange for the lives of
> Elendil and Anarion poetic justice and fair? Or the claiming of
> Felarof for Leod?
Yes. That's why I brought this point up.
>> Also note that the two examples you have discussed so far are pretty
>> atypical. Isildur is obviously making up an excuse,
> Why is that obvious?
By Occam's razor: In every other instance, the new possessor of the
Ring makes up some excuse. Other characters explicitely say that
they see through these excuses. So Tolkien had the intention to make
it a recurrent theme. (That's the same argument of a "consistent
presentation" you use, the only differences is that the instances
of the presentations are not exceptions here).
The claiming of the Ring as a weregild fits this theme of an excuse.
If you want to make Isildur the "rightful" owner of the Ring
(which nobody is but Sauron -- it is His Ring) you'd have to explain
the deviation from theme, and you'd have to explain why Isildur
then cannot exercise the abilities of the Ring at all (compare
this to the abilities of Aragorn to use the Palantir as the rightful
owner).
So the simpler explanation is that Isildur was indeed making up
an excuse, and by Occam's razor, this is very probably the right one.
> The laws on weregild don't cover as I recall what happens in the
> case of battle,
It's not a question of law; it's a question of story-telling.
> I didn't question that. But I also happen to know that the
> scholarly view of weregild and its practices have changed in the
> years since Tolkien was about. The view of his generation is no
> longer the accepted view.
Can you state the "view of his generation", and sources for it?
Does the change in the view touch upon the issues we are discussing
here? Just curious.
>> Two exceptional usages are not strong enough to make an argument
>> for "consistently presenting something", at least IMHO.
> You're entitled, but I fail to see them as exceptional.
> Claiming weregild in battle is normal; claiming werego;d
> afterthe deeath of a king is normal, what's exceptional there is
> that it is asked of the horse rather than a human.
Yes. So it *is* exceptional.
> So it is not the concept of weregild or its practice that is
> exceptional in the case of Felarof, but the being of whom weregild
> is demanded.
Yes. But that makes the story as a whole exceptional, so it should be
treated carefully, and not lightly as an example of what Tolkien
thinks are "normal practices". That by itself of course neither proves
nor disproves that Tolkien did or didn't show the "normal practice"
here, but it makes it very doubtful.
> By the way, here is a portion of Grettir's Saga that shows a
> demand for weregild in the way I've been describing:
>
> Asmund seized the two men who were with the jarl and threw them
> to the ground with such violence that they were well-nigh
> killed. Asgrim rushed at the jarl and demanded of him weregild
> for his father, for he had been in league with Grim and took
> part in the attack when Ondott was murdered. The jarl said he
> had no money about him and asked for time. Asgrim then placed
> the point of his spear against his breast and ordered him to pay
> up on the spot. Then the jarl took a necklace from his neck and
> gave it to him with three gold rings and a velvet mantle. Asgrim
> took the things and bestowed a name upon the jarl. He called him
> Audun Nannygoat.
Two interesting points here: The *jarl* chose the price (not Asgrim),
and the jarl is called a coward. The first means that we have an
instance where the wronged party does not decide on the price to be
paid, and the second means that the actions of the jarl, i.e. paying a
high price because he is frightened, are dishonorable. If he had stood
up to Asgrim and insisted on the "proper" procedure, he might have
been killed, and Asgrim might have taken the necklace etc. by
himself. But that would put Asgrim now in the role of the offender,
and in that case I would have expected the Saga to continue with some
incident where Asgirm is punished for that, before the Thing or
otherwise, and looses his weregild and more.
> One might also point to the historical account of Ine who with
> his army demanded weregild for the brather of Caedwalla from teh
> King of Kent. Essentially this is what Isildur is doing, except
> that his foe, Sauron, is already defeated and unable to answer.
My understanding is that "demanding" weregild is part of the procedure,
but the simple taking of the weregild by the demander is not. The weregild
has to be given to the demander by the offender, or his family.
The jarl gives the weregild (though under pressure, for which he
is called a coward). Sauron does not.
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
>>
<snip>
>> Gandalf in LotR I,2 'The Shadow of the Past'
>>
>> This at least says that the Ring affects "its keeper" immediately.
[...]
>
> No, it doesn't Troels. As I already pointed out, by the time
> Gandalf hears Bilbo's original doubtful story, Bilbo has already
> WORN THE RING for several hours--hardly an immediate response.
I focused on Gandalf's words, "Clearly the ring had an unwholesome power
that set to work on its keeper at once." I did translate 'at once' to
'immediately', but is there a significant difference there?
That is, I am going not by the events as laid out in /The Hobbit/, but
rather by Gandalf's interpretation of them -- he does seem to me to
conclude that the Ring had an immediate effect, whether or not he saw the
result of this effect as it happened or a few hours later. In general I
think that Gandalf's interpretations can be trusted, and that would
include this case.
>> Isildur: Well, this is what we're debating. Was he, even before he
>> took up the Ring, influenced like Bilbo and Gollum to try "to put
>> his claim to the Ring beyond doubt?"
>
> No. He claimed it as weregild. It was his right.
[...]
> So no matter how you read it, he claimed it as weregild and it is a
> valid claim.
Does it really matter whether the claim was valid or not?
You may be right that his claiming it as weregild would be valid, but
even if it wasn't he did have a valid claim to the Ring as 'spoils of
war', but the validity of his claim is not, for me, the point here (in
this part of the discussion), but rather the reasons why he claimed the
One Ring in particular in spite of the advice of Elrond and Círdan (and
the general folly of the idea).
The question, such as I see it, is whether he was affected by the Ring to
make the claim -- to put his claim to it beyond doubt. It would be in the
interest of the Ring (whether you consider it conscious or merely an
extension of Sauron's will, which was still active in it two years later)
to avoid destruction, and Isildur was the most likely one present to wish
to keep it (for instance as weregild). "Isildur wanted weregild and the
Ring presented itself, making itself irrestible to him" could be one
interpretation.
And we do have an example of the Ring working at a distance on someone
who hasn't touched it, and seen it only briefly: Boromir. Granted he
spent quite a long time being close to the Ring-bearer before succumbing,
but the Ring had to overcome his resistance to betraying Frodo -- there
would be no such obstacles for its seduction of Isildur.
I do think that Isildur's actions were influenced by the Ring --
essentially because they were too damned foolish to be entirely his own
;-)
<snip agreement>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond
them is more than memory, Farewell!
- Aragorn Son of Arathorn, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Odysseus
> > He called him Audun Nannygoat.
>
> Is that an insult? And what is a jarl?
>
English "earl".
--
Odysseus
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
>> I disagree that the power of the Ring "utterly depends on Sauron"
>> and is merely "an extension of him". There are many indications that
>> the Ring was capable of functioning independently of Sauron --
>> leaving Gollum, for instance.
>
> Perfect example of what I'm talking about. The Ring "leaves"
> Gollum, if indeed that departure was not motivated by the same
> force(s) that meant Bilbo to find the Ring,
Yes, that is of course another possibility, but Gandalf's words, IMO,
implies differently.
> at the very time when Sauron is waxing strongest in Dol Guldur
> as the Necromancer. I. E. the Ring was answering his call, or
> at the least responding to his growing power and influence, and
> not acting "independently."
When my manager tells me to finish something, and I get on with my work,
do I not then finish the work independently?
The Ring clearly responded to Sauron's growing power, but since Sauron
evidently had no idea whatsoever of the Ring's whereabouts (actually it
was hiding in the mountains while Sauron was searching the River), there
is no way that Sauron could be giving it specific instructions.
Essentially Sauron's growing power made the Ring seek to return to him,
but how this was to be accomplished would necessarily have been left to
the Ring. This is what I mean by the Ring acting independently trying to
fulfill Sauron's will.
>> The Ring would, while Sauron was 'active' and the Lord of the Ring,
>> receive its purpose from Sauron, but it is shown as being able to act
>> independently upon that purpose.
>
> Where else might you see this in the book?
In any situation where the Ring acts and there is no Nazgűl in the
vicinity knowing the exact whereabouts and situation of the Ring. In all
other situations Sauron (or his Nazgűl) were unable to give specific
instructions to the Ring, and consequently it would have to act
independently. It is trying to serve Sauron's purpose, being filled with
his will, but it is not directed by his consciousness (or the
consciousness of anyone else).
The various quotations implying that the Ring has will and intention of
its own (though not will, purpose and intention completely independant of
Sauron) are numerous and have been quoted here many times. It is
noteworthy, IMO, that in all these instances the speaker (often
Gandalf -- himself the wearer of a Ring of Power) doesn't once say that
Sauron makes the Ring to this or that, but rather that the Ring did this
or that in response to Sauron's will.
<snip rest>
--
Troels Forchhammer
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent whatsoever," he
said. "Have you thought of going into teaching?"
- (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
Troels Forchhammer
>
> [about Sauron/Elendil/Gil-galad on Mount Doom]
>
>> Didn't Círdan have Narya at that point?
>
> I thought that the bearers of the Three did not take their Rings with
> them to the Wars of the Last Alliance. I thought they left them at
> home, but maybe I am wrong.
I don't know -- I'm afraid that I didn't think that specifically, only
that Círdan at that point (as I believe) would have been the keeper of
Narya, not whether he was actually carrying it.
With respect to Vilya, it was only idle speculation -- I didn't recall
the passage referred to in the FAQ (though I ought to have checked
there).
> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q3-Bearers
>
> We see that Elrond received his Ring from Gil-galad before he died,
> which is still not quite specific enough. I still would have thought
> that the Elves would not have taken the Rings with them to battle,
> even in a pocket or on a chain.
Strangely UT makes the timing a bit differently. According to that,
Gil-Galad gave Vilya to Elrond when he was appointed vice-regent in
Eriador, "but the Red Ring he kept, until he gave it to Círdan whenhe set
out from Lindon in the days of the Last Alliance."
To this Christopher, however, notes:
" Earlier in this narrative (p.249) it is said that Gil-galad
gave Narya, the Red Ring, to Círdan as soon as he himself
received it from Celebrimbor, and this agrees with the
statements in Appendix B to The Lord of the Rings and in Of
the Rings of Power, that Círdan held it from the beginning.
The statement here, at variance with the others, was added in
the margin of the text."
It could be added that the statement that Elrond received Vilya at the
early point (about 1800 SA) also would seem at variance with the
statement in LotR that Gil-Galad kept this Ring for himself, giving it to
Elrond before he died.
Either way it would seem that one of them, when Isildur cut the One Ring
from Sauron's finger, had been keeping one of the Three for quite a
while, and the other was a recent keeper. Both could be expected to know
something about the Rings of Power in general and the dangers of the One
in particular.
--
Troels Forchhammer
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
Troels Forchhammer
Thanks for the explanations on weregild, both here and elsewhere.
I have just one question regarding weregild in the case of battle.
<snip>
> The laws on weregild don't cover as I recall what happens in
> the case of battle, so I question calling on them to say that
> Isildur and Eorl were unjustified in their claims in the first
> place.
Well, the case of Felaróf is, apart from the unusual race of the killer,
a classical example (the case is, I think, being poetically justified by
the intelligence of the horse -- it being able to understand human
speech).
> So how is claiming the gear of a fallen enemy after a major
> battle in the case of Isildur atypical and obviously an excuse?
You say yourself that the laws on weregild don't, as you or I recall,
cover the case of battle -- that death in battle is not (if I understand
it correctly) eligible for weregild. Are there examples from sources of
anyone actually claiming weregild after someone slain in battle (not to
mention on the actual field of battle).
Claiming the gear is, I believe, quite common, but as I have hitherto
understood these matters, it would normally be as 'spoils of war'.
--
Troels Forchhammer
My adversary's argument
is not alone malevolent
but ignorant to boot.
He hasn't even got the sense
to state his so-called evidence
in terms I can refute.
- Piet Hein, /The Untenable Argument/