|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:45:01 GMT -6
From: Lord_Algamesh (Original Message) Sent: 12/8/2002 4:28 PM
Ok guys ... how many of you out there, like me, have been under the assumption that Sauron is a yet formless entity? I know that the FOTR movie makes it quite clear and I think that Gandalf makes some mention of it in the Book as well ... Sauron being unable to take physical form (correct me if I'm wrong here please ...). Well ... I really noticed one particular line from Gollum this time around that I really paid no heed to in my multiple previous reads. Gollum is describing the "Tower of the Moon" to the Hobbits from an old tale he remembers from his childhood. Frodo replies: "That would be Minas Ithil that Isildur the son of Elendil built", said Frodo. "It was Isildur who cut off the finger of the Enemy." "Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough," said Gollum shuddering. So which is it? Did Gollum actually get to see Sauron as a physical being? What are your thoughts and do you feel like this dialogue may have been a mistake by Tolkien?
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:45:28 GMT -6
From: Alaere_Dûnhilien Sent: 12/9/2002 7:23 AM Even if Sauron could not take physical form yet, the power of his mind must have been terrible. So maybe he could project an image of him into Gollum's mind. I think that Evil has more ways besides physical torture. Sauron could have been messing around in Gollum's head, and planted some image in his mind, together with some torments that I really wouldn't like to imagine myself . Gollum is a nasty creature, but still you have to feel some compassion about him, because it is not entirely his fault that he became like this. * * * From: Elanor Sent: 12/9/2002 6:04 PM I think the arm is used as a metaphor. Therefore, it really doesn't matter how many finger he has. We know for sure that he still has power, fingers and form or not. Gimli and Gandalf make a comment early on that also gives Saroun's power a physical form. Before Cadaras in the chapter "The ring goes South." 'His ARM has grown long indeed,' siad Gimli, 'if he can draw snow down from the North to trouble us here three thousand leagues away." (emphasis added) 'His arm has grown long,' said Gandalf * * * From: Thorkel Sent: 12/9/2002 8:39 PM I agree that the "arm of Sauron has grown long" is likely to be merely a metaphor, and likewise believe that "The Eye," "The Dark Shadow," and "The Black Hand" are all likewise used in metaphorical senses only. From my understanding, Sauron does not re-shape himself into any of these discrete body-part forms, but would be "manlike" in his general shape just as his fellow Maiar, Gandalf, Saruman etc always use anthropomorphic shapes. This is a difficult matter to prove, because the Maiar clothe themselves in flesh and presumably at one time could have altered their physical appearances at will. But we have NO instance of any known Maiar in LotR or The Hobbit, altering their shapes to a non-humanoid design, although the Silmarillion and other auxiliary volumes do use this effect.
One of the Letters in "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien," (H, Carpenter editor), Letter # 130, page 158 footnote "*" seems to indicate that Sauron has indeed regained a physical, "real" shape, which would, I suppose, include arms, hands, feet, legs and fingers (9 at least). "It is only in the time between The Hobbit and its sequel that it is discovered that the Necromancer is Sauron Redivivus, growing swiftly to visible shape and power again."
In FotR, "The Shadow of the Past," Gandalf addresses this issue: "Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow [Sauron] takes another shape and grows again." But what shape? This seems unclear until we get Gollum's bit of information which does indeed seem to put Sauron back in a humanoid form, much like the black image of hideous aspect he wore after his 2nd Age "de-fleshing" experience when Numenor (Atlantis) was destroyed. He lost many of his "shape-shifting" powers after Numenor sank, and could thereafter only appear in the guise of great, black, anthropomorphic figure whose hands could burn others at a touch (thus was Gil-galad slain upon the slopes of Orodruin see "The Council of Elrond" the scroll of Isildur) "The Ring misseth, maybe, the heat of Sauron's hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed...").
I wonder if the viewed "image" of Sauron as The Eye, may not be more metaphor than reality, an illusion projected by Sauron into the Palantir and other such scrying devices as Galadriel's mirror? But, when Pippin has his overhasty interview with Sauron, there is no mention of an Eye at all, something one might expect Pippin to remark upon, especially as Gandalf was demanding a full disclosure of the "meeting's" details. Instead Pippin calls the image in the Palantir "he" not "it" (an eye would be an it?): "Then he came. He did not speak so that I could hear words." The Two Towers: "The Palantir."
Additionally, the last figure-image that Sauron presents as he dissolves into his 3rd Age destruction (not "death") is that of a giant anthropomorphic cloud crowned with lightning, NOT an Eye image.
None of this makes it definitely certain that Sauron, sometime around the finding of the Ring by Bilbo, had an anthropomorhic shape, but I do NOT think there is ANY statement in the canonical texts of Tolkien that implies Sauron's new, 3rd Age shape was merely that of a liddless Eyeball -- in fact, such allegations seem to come only from the movie version, for whatever reason PJ knows best... * * * From: Thorkel Sent: 12/9/2002 9:07 PM Ack! A post script here!
Lara, I was thinking that Sauron could definitely project an "image" of himself into poor Gollum's mind, as you suggest, but why a "nine-fingered" image? The lack of a finger marks Sauron as a vulnerable creature, someone TOOK his finger, beat him... Deliberately projecting an image of himself as "marred and dismembered" would simply advertize that he had once been bested and might, therefore, be bested again -- not an image a supreme egotist like Sauron would want to project, I think!
The fact, then, that Gollum knew Sauron had nine fingers only, indicates to me that he really DID see a physical shape of the Dark Lord, anthropomorphic in its form and missing one digit. I do not think Gollum would have any other way of knowing that Sauron had lost his finger -- Gollum had no access to the hidden scrolls in Gondor where Isildur told this story, nor would it be likely that Aragorn told him of the taking of the Ring when Gollum was captured, and any way, Gollum was taken to Sauron a goodly time before Gandalf sent Aragorn out to find him and put him in the Wood Elves' keeping...
LOL -- maybe we need a palantir of our own, with a direct line to JRRT to finally settle this! * * * From: Elanor Sent: 12/9/2002 10:29 PM Do you not think that the tale of Sauron's Fall would be a well-known story? Even if what happened to the ring later is not. I think I assumed in the back of my mind that all children would know the tale of the sword that was broken. I seems like Sauron was discussed little during the happy years, but I think that if anyone was to picture him, he would have 9 fingers. Therefore if Smeagol knew any world history, he would invision Sauron with 9 fingers. But then again, Frodo didn't seem to know much, even in terms of basic information, so I disagreeumption could be way off until my next reading. keep shining elanor
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:47:27 GMT -6
From: Thorkel Sent: 12/10/2002 6:53 AM Hello, Elanor.
You bring up a very exciting point, and for YOU, perhaps a dangerous one! It provokes me to emulate the excellent scholastic work done by Iarwain Ben Adar on the sister discussion here concerning "Gollum's Views" of the sun and moon. If there's a lot to be read here -- its your fault! LOL!
The short of it:
No, in fact, I do not think the tale of Sauron's Fall at the end of the 2nd Age would necessarily be that well known throughout Middle-earth, especially known to the Hobbit kind. Additionally, the actual intelligence that Sauron had lost a finger AND his Ring in that Fall would be known to virtually no one at all (the few exceptions to this I'll point out below).
My arguments here are meaningless, personal speculations until I can find passages in Tolkien to support them, and even then, keep in mind that I may be incorrectly applying these passages, or incompletly informed and missing other passages that would invalidate my own reconstruction -- but for that you'll have to dig up the "counter-facts," if any, yourself! (A very big and toothy grin here!) But, I'll try to honestly point out the weak areas in my dissertation, just to be fair. Weakness 1: way too long!
Down to business.
Sources: "The Hobbit," "Unfinished Tales," "The Book of Lost Tales" Parts One and Two, "The Silmarillion," "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
There may be "SPOILERS" ahead!
This analysis hangs largely upon the accepance of Smeagol/ Gollum as a Hobbit, and it depends upon the understanding that Tolkien's Middle-earth is supposed to be an ancient, "pre-historic," pre-Christian form of our own planet, and its peoples and cultures were created under the influence of real life models from our own real histories and can be analyzed historically and anthropologically. If these items are acceptable, I think my analysis will stand fairly solidly upon its own two feet.
I will first point out that Middle-earth was quite huge, and the "Elvish Histories" of the wars between the West and Sauron directly concerned only those people living in the westernmost regions of this vast space. By analogy, the much larger, more important first war between the faithful Valar and Morgoth (and his dark allies) went largely unnoticed by the newly awakened Elves themselves: "Never did Melkor forget that this war was made for the sake of the Elves, and that they were the cause of his downfall. Yet they [the Elves] had no part in those deeds, and they know little of the riding of the might of the West against the North in the beginning of their days." (Silmarillion p. 51).
At the time of Sauron's first fall, (Second Age 3441), the early Hobbits were just as isolated from the battle action in Mordor as the Elves had been at Cuivienen from the battle scene at Utumno. As an isolated, rustic, hidden people, with no know contacts among Men, Elves, or Dwarves (show me a quotation that counters this and my argument may be severely compromised!) the early Hobbits probably knew little or nothing about the momentous events then taking place far to their south. The news of the victory over the Dark Lord would eventually filter north to the confluences of the Gladden and Anduin rivers -- where the early Hobbit, "barbarian" tribes were dwelling as a semi-nomadic folk in 3441 SA -- but the details of that fall would be vague indeed.
Another problem with Hobbits of Gollum's time (circa 1100 Third Age ?) knowing much about the war that ended the Second Age and ushered in the Third Age, concerns the enormous length of time between Smeagol/ Gollum's birth and the events of that battle, about 1050 years! At this early time we can only assume (from later statements made by Tolkien) that the Hobbits were not yet able to read and write, so any information on Sauron's fall they might have picked up from casual contacts with "outsiders" would have to be preserved and transmitted as oral narratives. How accurate, and detailed would such information be after a full millenium of oral transmission?
There is an ongoing debate among literature specialists, anthropologists, historians etc, concerning just how reliable and how detailed oral histories may be, and how durative their contents. When we compare oral histories with written forms to see how much information is passed on uncorrupted, we are limited to those situations where we have both a written record and an oral history upon which to make this test comparison. Most of the test cases where oral histories are compared to written histories are not valid for times earlier than the existance of solid, reliable, "scientific" writers -- usually no more than two or three hundred years -- so I do not know of a way to check the expected accuracy of information transferred orally (and leaving no archaeologically recoverable traces) over a period at least three times that long. If Herodotus tells us that the Massagetae told him in 440 BCE that they won a great battle in 1540 BCE and the details they have concerning this battle were passed down as oral traditions only, we have no independent means of testing whether or not the details of that story accurately describe the original event, nor can we determine how much of the battle detail was corrupted by Herodotus, or by those who later copied Herodotus for transmission to us. So I think it is unlikely, and certainly untestable, that the early Hobbits could have transmitted accurate, detailed information of a battle they did not see, over a thousand year period as just an oral account. (But, still possible in Tolkien's world?)
Additionally we have Tolkien's culture analysis of the Hobbits and their collective psychogical nature to inform our discussions here and this material also seems to diminish the chances that Smeagol/ Gollum learned of Sauron's maiming from Hobbit histories, either written or oral. From the Prologue of the LotR Tolkien makes it clear that the Hobbits were not a "learned" people interested in the global histories of their Middle-earth: "A love of learning (other than genealogical lore) was far from general among them..." (FotR "Concerning Hobbits," p. 15). In fact, exposure to Elvish, Manish, and Dwarvish written histories which MIGHT have accurately recorded details of the battle against Sauron would become available to Hobbits no earlier than 1300 Third Age when the Periannath (Hobbits) are first mentioned as entities in Middle-earth and having contacts with the other peoples of the Anduin Vale and westward during their movements into the Elvish-Arnoran realms of Eriador (see Appendix B LotR). Even at this late time, however, it is unlikely that the Hobbits could have picked up Western histories and put them to any useful purpose as Tolkien informs us that they still did not know how to read. At some time between 1400 Third Age and 1600, the time the Shire was settled, the Hobbits finally became a lettered people, at least those of them who had left the Wilderness of Rhovanion behind. "It was in these early days, doubtless, that the Hobbits learned their letters and began to write after the manner of the Dunedain..." (Prologue, p. 16).
Even in the halcyon days of settled life in the Shire, when book learning could be had, the Hobbits maintained their isolationism, taking little or no interest in the affairs of the wider world about them. By the time of Bilbo's adventure and then Frodo's, there were still few among the Hobbits who could read and write, and fewer books of any sort to read anyway. The Gaffer, Hamfast Gamgee, speaks of Samwise's accomplishment of reading in a half-apologetic tone as if that talent were still something unecessary and even uncanny or downright dangerous: "Mr. Bilbo has learned him [Sam] his letters -- meaning no harm, mark you, and I hope no harm will come of it." (FotR: "A Long Expeced Party").
Very few Hobbits ever read and wrote, fewer still were engaged in reading outside histories, even among the more well-to-do. Certainly Merry and Pippin have no knowledge of so great a figure as Gil-galad, last High King of the Elves who died in the final battle that saw Sauron lose his Ring. When Strider mentions Gil-galad, Sam jumps up to recite a portion of a poem about the Elven King, to the great astonishment of both Merry and Pippin. Even Sam, who has been well-schooled by Bilbo, does not realize that his staves are a piece of a longer Elvish epic -- he thinks Bilbo wrote the poem and Aragorn has to correct him on this bit of "outside" history. So if the Hobbit tendencies to downplay the learning of history, and to isolate themselves from the non-Hobbit world are indeed characteristic of all Hobbits, as Tolkien suggests, then how much less likely is it that a semi-nomadic, illiterate folk such as the Hobbits of Smeagol tribe would know the histories of the world beyond their own hunting-gathering sphere?
LOL - still following me?
My clinching argument would be a paraphrase of Gandalf's statement that "all knowledge must have a source." Saruman knew much of the history of the Ring, including the fact that the Ring's maker had set identifying signs of some type upon it. What sort of marks, Gandalf wondered? Tracing this information to its source, Gandalf found a little known scroll written by Isildur, and read, as Gandalf surmized, by no one save Isildur himself, Saruman, and now Gandalf in all the thousands of years since it was first penned at the start of the Third Age. This account, summarized by Gandalf in LotR, "The Shadow of the Past," and re-iterated in "The Council of Elrond," makes it clear that only a few people were present when the Ring was actually taken by Isildur. This account is verified by Elrond himself when he states that Elendil, Gil-galad, Cirdan, Isildur and Elrond himself were the only ones to wittness the final battle when the Ring was actually taken: "I [Elrond] beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad died, and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown, and Isildur cut the Ring from his hand with the hilt-shard of his father's sword and took it for his own." ("The Council of Elrond, p 260 in the hardback edition). At this revealation even Boromir, a learned man of high Numenorean blood from Gondor, exclaims " 'So that is what became of the Ring!' he cried. 'If ever such a tale was told in the South, it has long been forgotten.' " (p. 260) If even Boromir has no knowledge of this bit of Ring Lore, and he has every reason to know it -- if the information had ever been of a public nature -- how can we expect that a "barbarian" Hobbit, Smeagol/ Gollum had this intelligence? Elrond then continues, "Isildur took it... But few marked what Isildur did. He alone stood by his father in that last mortal contest; and by Gil-galad only Cirdan stood and I." (260)
Here I think we have convincing proof that Smeagol/ Gollum could never have known through any history, written or oral, that the Ring was taken from Sauron's hand by the severing of one of Sauron's fingers by the shards of Narsil -- this information was NEVER published and known only to Isildur, Elrond, and Cirdan. Apparently Elrond told the tale to the heirs of Isildur in private, as Aragorn knew this story, but the information was guarded as a topmost secret and unless Elrond or Cirdan met Gollum and gave him this information, the poor, old, twisted Hobbit could have learned that Sauron had only nine fingers in just one way, he SAW it for himself after his capture by the Ocs and his interrogation by a physically formed Dark Lord in Barad Dur.
I think the liberities P. Jackson and his movie crew took with Tolkien's story leads to the mistaken belief that Sauron was non-physical in his form during the Ring Quest period (or nothing but an Eye), and the "botched," film representation of Sauron's last fight makes it seem that the loss of the Ring was an open, public event witnessed by thousands, and most likely widely recorded as history -- when, in fact, only the two Elves, Elrond and Cirdan, and one "soon to die" Man, Isildur, ever knew what actually occurred when the Ring was taken. There was NO written or oral history of this event for Gollum to make use of, and in the book there was no "picture" of Sauron melting into mist for Boromir to recognize, nor did Boromir, in the book, know the story of the shards of Narsil...
LOL - well, Elanor, that's my best take on this matter, anybody else got a better? PLEASE!
Shesh, it is very dangerous indeed to get involved on these TR boards.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:49:22 GMT -6
From: Elanor Sent: 12/10/2002 10:49 AM Thorkel, Many thanks, that will take a minute to fully digest. I knew I was opening myself up on that one, but didn't know where to begin in finding info to contadict myself. While there are many things Tolkien leaves to the imagination, such as the Entwives, it appears that this topic is not one of them. It was nice to see a big juicy post in this study. LOL keep shining elanor * * * From: Storrmrider Sent: 12/10/2002 4:28 PM Thorkel: I enjoyed your analysis. It makes a lot of sense. Hhhhmmmm......could it possibly be that the "lidless eye" is a part of Sauron's newly manifested shape? It is the part that is most predominant because it is searching for The Ring. When Gollum was tortured by Sauron this could have been when he saw Sauron's shape which had only nine fingers. Stormrider * * * From: Glorfindle Sent: 12/11/2002 3:15 AM Very interesting thoughts, ideas and info. Could it be possible that Gollums long possession of the ring, longer than anyone save Sauron himself, and his proximity to orcs and other evil folk, and overhearing their conversations, and perhaps even the tortuous invasions into his mind that Sauron most likely subjected him to, be cause for him to be more intuitive about the mind, form and history of the Dark Lord? Granted, this may be pushing things a bit, but even Frodo seemed to develope an intuitive sense about Sauron through the power of the ring. * * * From: DaleAnn Sent: 12/11/2002 5:44 AM Thorel wrote: Lara, I was thinking that Sauron could definitely project an "image" of himself into poor Gollum's mind, as you suggest, but why a "nine-fingered" image? The lack of a finger marks Sauron as a vulnerable creature, someone TOOK his finger, beat him... Deliberately projecting an image of himself as "marred and dismembered" would simply advertize that he had once been bested and might, therefore, be bested again -- not an image a supreme egotist like Sauron would want to project, I think! I'd like to present an alternate view that is purely conjecture. Perhaps, Sauron himself prefered to see his maimed hand to inflame his own emotions of anger and malice. Rather than an advertisement to be bested again...Sauron may be showing Middle-earth that even though they took his Ring and finger, he is still strong and will never be bested again.
I think the reason he took this shape again rather than developing a different one is because it was easiest. He had been this shape before and it probably took little thought to maintain. ---DA
* * * From: Thorkel Sent: 12/12/2002 5:10 AM Stormrider, RE: the Lidless Eye -- "It is the part that is most predominant because it is searching for The Ring."
Great thought there, Stormrider, I like that! The "Eye" is certainly the perfect image by which to express "seeking" and Tolkien implies several times that the "Evil Eye," "Red Eye," "Great Eye," and "Eye of Barad-dur" represent Sauron's focussed Will, a projection of His "searching vision" far beyond the normal range of sight (as Men and Elves know it). If the "Eye" is "real" in any sense, surely it is as a metaphor for Sauron's keenly powerful mind. It serves the Dark Lord almost as a sort of tool, a kind of telescopic device that may function along the same lines as the palantiri. Here (sheer speculation only!) I wonder if the Ithil Stone (now perhaps better called the "Morgul" Stone?) is being used when Sauron's "vision" leaps out across the Middle-earth landscapes to seek the concealed minds of the High Elven rulers, to seek Frodo and the Ring, and so many other things? Does the searching mind of Galadriel appear in Sauron's mind as a "White Eye"? See FotR, 471 - 472 where Galadriel implies she can see into Sauron's mind just the way he is attempting to see into hers. Do Saruman and Denethor project their own seeking minds through their palantiri as "eyes"?
Perhaps, Sauron being arguably the most powerful entity DIRECTLY acting in Third Age Middle-earth AS a "persona" OF Middle-earth (rather than Eru's more passive, but much more powerful, "behind the scenes" presence) would have no need of a palantir to focus and strengthen his own far-seeing Maia vision?
Another argument against the Eye actually being the real shape of Sauron may be found in a kindred use of the concept of a "Seeing Eye" at Amon Hen. Here the "Hill of Seeing," where "The Eye of the Men of Numenor" is said to function, does not, by context, refer to a physical eye, but is an obvious metaphor. From the passages in FotR pp. 518 - 519 it seems quite plain that this seat upon the hill is some focal point of power that allows people sitting there to see further into the distance than normal vision will carry. At this place of power, Frodo, with the Ruling Ring to futher focus and enhance his perceptions, can see all the way "through" the mountains into Mordor... but no one thinks to say that Frodo has BECOME shaped like the "Eye of the Men of Numenor" and that the episode must be interpreted to mean that there is a real, physical Numenorean Eyeball there... LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:51:05 GMT -6
From: Thorkel Sent: 12/12/2002 5:42 AM Glorfindle: You advance a very subtle argument here, I'll try to deal it as best I am able, but part of it is probably beyond our abilities to logically resolve!
1. Even if Gollum could fully understand all the hodge-podge mixtures that the Orcs spoke (the way Sam understands Orc speech at Cirith Ungol when he wears the Ruling Ring) just where could the Orcs have learned that Sauron had only four fingers on one hand? This would argue that Sauron was in direct contact with Orcs who could see him as he was -- which is quite possible, maybe even probable, but I know of no statement in Tolkien to the effect that he dealt, face to face with Orcs -- likewise I know of no direct statement that would rule out such contact (does Shagrat, RotK, 222 - 223 "hint" that Sauron himself would interview Orcs taken for punishment, or interrogation to the Black Pits?). Then, if Orcs had such visual contacts with their Master, I suppose Gollum might have gotten his information about the missing finger not from his OWN sight of the Black Hand (as he tells it to Frodo) but from conversing with or listening to the Orcs. But this would still be a positive argument FOR Sauron's existence as a humanoid shaped creature with 9 fingers, not an argument for his being shaped like a Great Eyeball... does this make sense?
2. Could Gollum have had heightened senses, even extra-sensory perceptions or intuitions resulting from his long keeping of the Ring? I would think, YES! But we would need then to find some way of substanstiating this through a quote from JRRT that speaks directly to, or strongly implies, that this was the case. I've not found such, but have not really been looking for one either. Have you got such a passage in mind? * * * From: Thorkel Sent: 12/12/2002 7:07 AM DaleAnn: Re: "Perhaps, Sauron himself preferred to see his maimed hand to inflame his own emotions of anger and malice."
I find your first proposition a bit hard to accept in just one swallow, (especially as I suspect a "tongue-in-cheek" effort here!) but must admit that I can find no direct JRRT citation to refute it... nor any to support it either! LOL!
But, your second proposition is, I think, more promising in its academic potential (a value judgment I can easily make because it bolsters my own thoughts on this matter).
cf DA: "I think the reason he took this shape again rather than developing a different one is because it was easiest. He had been this shape before and it probably took little thought to maintain."
Now this I like very, very much! Eloquently stated, and what's more, directly to the point!
At the outset of this subtopic I'd like first to present a somewhat speculative thread of my own that ties into the matter of "fading" in Middle-earth, just as I think your statement implies, DaleAnn.
When the world was newly created it seems to have had a great deal of energy bound up in it. Entire continents are raised and cast down, the wars of the "powers" (Valar) break the shape and form of the planet several times. But gradually these great forces are balanced or used up, and by the time the Children of Iluvatar are awakened, the earlier vast tumults have been sufficiently tamed to allow the lesser lifeforms (Elves, Men, Dwarves, simple beasts, plants etc.) to survive. Morgoth settles into one "preferred" shape and mainly appears thereafter as an anthropomorphic giant of dark aspect; the Maiar likewise tend to become bound to just a few forms, perhaps having a favored, "default" shape that is the most easily assumed, and economical to maintain; all based on the anthropomorphic (see Letter 200, p. 260).
It would seem, then, that the energy-expensive, rampant shape-shifting, fleshing and dematerializing that fills the pages of the Silmarillion, largely subsides through the Second and Third Ages of Middle-earth. By the time of the Second Age proper all the mortal lands of Middle-earth, maybe even all Arda, have grown much less wildly magical than they had been in the Elder Days. At the end of the "War of Wrath" which ushers in the Second Age, the contesting Valar cause a continental mass, Beleriand to fall beneath the waves. But in the Second Age itself, even the Valar no longer have the power to cast down continents and re-shape the world, they must call upon Eru to reform Arda, drown the Island of Atalante, and "bend" the straight-way of the oceans into a global sphere. In the Third Age this diminishment of power continues, and the "fading" Maiar can no longer appear as clouds of mist, can no longer alter their forms into animal shapes, and certainly can no longer raise up mountain chains -- their original "mights" seem, therefore, to have ebbed and faded as the earth aged.
All things are made smaller, then, less potent, less "magical" as a function of time's passage in Middle-earth, (even Tom Bombadil is somehow constrained to stay within a smaller realm where his great magics may yet function). Sauron in the Third Age is not the great power he was in the Silmarillion: the chief lieutenant of Morgoth, and a master of MANY shifting shapes. He is not, after the sinking of Numenor, even so magically potent as he was in the Second Age, when he could at least still alter his physical shape to appear as something he was not, beautiful, and good (Letter 153: 190). In the later half of the Third Age, having suffered the general fading that is the lot of all who stay in the mortal realms of Arda, Sauron, with or without his Ring could no longer form his physical being as anything other than an evil, dark, and terrible expression of the humanoid shape.
"It was thus [in humanoid form] that Sauron appeared in this shape. It is mythologically supposed that when this shape was 'real', that is a physical actuality in the physical world and not a vision transferred from mind to mind, it took some time to build up. It was then destructible like other physical organisms. But that of course did not destroy the spirit, nor dismiss it from the world to which it was bound until the end. After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to rebuild, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Numenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit..." (Letter 200: 260).
I think Tolkien could also have added here that Sauron rebuilt so quickly his preferred, default, humanoid form (NOT AN EYEBALL SHAPE!!! LOL!) after the Fall of Numenor because the Ruling Ring was still in his possession. Nonetheless he did not have enough power, even with the Ring, to rebuild his splendid appearing, humanoid body -- but he did the best he could in creating his Dark Lord form, the shape he used to fight Elendil, Isildur, and Gilgalad. After losing his Ring to Isildur, and being greatly weakened anyway by the general "fading" processes, Sauron took almost 1200 years to re-clothe his spirit in Dol Guldur, and reappear as the humanoid, Dark Lord. But even so, he did not have the power to erase the visual sign of his maiming by Isildur, and had only four fingers on one of his regenerated hands.
So, DaleAnn, I think it more likely that Sauron did not affect a "maimed appearance" out of some psychological stubborness, or challenge to self and others. I believe the second choice you offer us is a much more likely explanation: "I think the reason he took this [humanoid, Dark Lord] shape again, rather than developing a different one is because it was easiest. He had been this shape before and it probably took little thought to maintain."
Precisely!!!
I would only add the emphasis here, that with all the losses of his original Maia might during the long ages of Middle-earth history, and without the power resevoir of the Ruling Ring, this blackened, nine-fingered, humanoid shape was the ONLY one he could assume! (see also Letter 211: 277 - 284, esp. p. 280).
Post Scriptum:
I am checking through all the sources available that deal with the Third Age Shape of Sauron. From my (admittedly incomplete) search, I can find no direct statement that Sauron's "real, physical" presence is the actual Eye shape. In the Silmarillion's "Akallabeth" and the chapter titled "Of the Rings of Power" we are told that Sauron, in the Second Age, appeared as a beautiful humanoid; and that after the fall of Numenor Sauron could no longer appear fair and beautiful, but was still humanoid in shape, burningly black, and larger than common Men and Elves, but NOT gigantic (see also Letter 153: 190 and esp Letter 246: 332 -- In the war of Frodo's quest, Tolkien says: "Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic").
Whew, No "disembodied" Eyeballs mentioned so far! * * * From: Thorkel Sent: 12/29/2002 3:49 PM A minor addition. "The Encyclopaedia of Arda" is now using the estimated date of 2240, Third Age, for the "birth" of Smeagol/ Gollum. I am not sure what JRRT source they mined for this information, but as they are generally very careful in such matters of detail I assume this later date will stand.
For the arguments I set out above, this later date would, I think, actually make Gollum's possible knowledge of the Fall of Sauron even more a matter of vague, historical rumour.
The earlier date, ca 1100 is based on the rising power of the Necromancer's Spirit when Sauron (unknown as yet by that particular name) first seems to have had enough of an impact on the physical world to bring his "re-fleshing" presence to the notice of the "Wise." At this time, Sauron's pull on the Ring could be expected to have awakened IT's own awareness, and set IT to looking for the nearest available "victim-bearer," by happenstance -- Deagol and Smeagol. * * * From: Gythia Sent: 12/29/2002 5:03 PM I like the idea of the fading of magic over time-- it would certainly explain how middle earth turned into our modern earth! As for Sauron's form, I am inclined to see phrases like "lidless eye" and "black hand" as kennings, poetic-sounding metaphors that were used a lot in ancient times and with which Tolkien would have been quite familiar. An example would be "fishes bath" meaning the sea. Many kennings were traditional and understandable to the people of the time, but make no sense to us moderns without an explanation. An example of this is the name of the tree of life, Yggdrasil, meaning steed of Ygg, that is Odin, a reference to his self-initiation by hanging. No one pictured the tree as a horse, it was understood as a metaphor. Many kennings were also puns, the way we modern people might refer to a certain political leader as "shrubbery." Also familiar to Tolkien from the mythology he studied would be the idea that once lost, the body part of a god stays lost, as a kind of emblem. Thus we have Odin the One-Eyed and Tyr the One-Handed. So even if Sauron has no physical form during LOTR he could still be referred to as missing a finger on that basis.
On the question of how Gollum came by the knowledge that Sauron lost his ring, perhaps the ring itself told him. Or if not, then maybe it was Gandalf. Gandalf learned Gollum's tale in direct speech with Gollum. Gandalf has a tendency to think out loud and talk to himself. Maybe he mentioned that this ring may have been Sauron's out loud in Gollum's presence. In any case Gollum certainly seems to know that the ring does belong to Sauron, or at least that Sauron wants it.
As to there being no Maiar in other than humanoid form... does a Balrog count as humanoid because it has 2 arms, 2 legs, and a face? Balrogs are "of Morgoth", therefore they are servants of a Vala. Servants of a Vala are Maiar. The Balrog is a Maia. (Whee, I actually got to use a syllogism!)
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:51:54 GMT -6
From: Thorkel Sent: 12/30/2002 4:33 AM Greetings, Gythia! Welcome to TR.
Great, more fun with Gollum, and syllogisms too!
I agree that Tolkien could be "kenning" us along with all his alternative terminologies (Great Eye, Red Eye; White Hand; etc), but a kenning based upon a "Nine-Fingered" Sauron would still be a bit hard to explain without an actual, physical presence upon which to base this metaphor. The knowledge that Sauron lost a finger in the final battle of the Second Age was, as mentioned above, known only to Isildur, Cirdan and Elrond. Would one of these three have made up such a kenning, and then revealed it to Gollum some 2500 years later? We have no use, or mention of Sauron having only 9 fingers, UNTIL Gollum delivers this statement to Frodo and Sam, and what is the point of a literary device like a kenning that has no currency, and no audience?
An interesting point you bring up, Gythia, concerns just when Gollum might realistically be expected to realize that his "Precious" was the One Ring? Certainly Gollum had no such understanding in the Hobbit, and there were very few persons in the Third Age who even knew there was a Ruling Ring. Sauron and presumably the Nazgul (if they still had independent memories!) would know, and on the side of "good" the Elven Wise and the Istari would know that there had been a Ruling Ring, now lost, and perhaps a few loremasters from Gondor (Boromir seems to have know of the Ring's existence, but not its history, and was not even aware that Isildur had taken it). But NO one, either "good" or "evil" knew that Gollum's ring was in fact the One Ring. Perhaps the first to realize just what Gollum once had possessed was Gandalf, who was suspicious of the Ring's nature as early as 3001, but only certain in April of 3018, the year the Fellowship was formed. Meanwhile, Gollum gravitated towards Mordor, reaching its bounds in 2980, and after a protracted sojourn in the shadows, he is only captured in 3009 and taken before Sauron. So, I suppose Sauron would, after interrogations and tortures, soon be able to piece together the tale of Gollum's ring and would, by the same processes of ratiocination used by Gandalf, know that it was the Ruling Ring. I rather think that at this time Gollum would first learn just what it was that he had once borne -- his Precious was indeed the One.
Consequently, I am arguing that Gollum got his "up-close" and personal interview with Sauron (where he first saw the "physical" form of Sauron with 9 fingers) a good deal before Gandalf had a chance to interrogate the ruined Hobbit himself. Sauron kept poor Smeagol in the dungeons of Barad-Dur for eight long years before releasing him in 3017. Poor Smeagol! Out of the frying pan -- only to be captured by Aragorn and tortured by Gandalf with the "fear of fire." In this case, even a careless wizard would not be likely, I think, to let slip vital information he did not want Gollum to have. When you mention, Gythia, that "Gandalf has a tendency to think out loud and talk to himself" I would counter that he never does so in front of enemies! Even Sam, Merry, and Pippin have a hearty respect for Gandalf's ability to keep secret things secret, and mention that they got their knowledge of the Ring by accident (Bilbo slipped it on to avoid meeting Lobelia while Merry was watching), not, I think, from Gandalf's mumblings. LOL!
One point you make about the Ring itself "telling" Gollum of its own nature, seems unlikely to me, but I certainly have no direct statement to explicitly remove this from the realm of possibility. But, I think there is nothing, likewise, to confirm the idea that the Ring somehow conveyed this data directly to Gollum -- have you run across any citations here that might support this kind of "full persona" for the Ring? I know the Ring "talks" in the movie, but does it "talk" in Tolkien's Middle-earth? Beats me, maybe there is something in one of the auxiliary volumes?
Excellent point concerning the Balrog, Gythia! (Smacks myself on the forehead, I does!) You bet! The Balrog is stated to be of the same "order of being" as the Maiar-Ainur, though, as a "spirit of fire" it may not necessarily be a servant of either Morgoth's or Sauron's -- debate still rages concerning just how subordinant the "demons of fire" might have been to Melkor. But I think you strike gold here in showing us that the Moria Balrog alone of the Maiar class entities (is Bombadil a Maia?) has retained a certain ancient "plasticity" of form. It is a bit hard, I agree, to consider it a strictly "humanoid" form, though it is described as "manlike" in SOME respects. If we could accept the Balrog as being able to shift its shape, we might be more sure that it is the exception to the "humanoid" rule, but the usual citation proffered to demonstrate that the Balrog "changes-skin" is, I think, problematic. Just what does Gandalf mean to say when he tells us that the Balrog "changed" its characteristics during their fight?
"His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake." (TT - "The White Rider" p. 134)
This quote does not explicitly say that the Balrog turned into a slimy snake, nor does it demand we see a "blob" of slime where once there was a "manlike" form, but I suppose one could interpret it "literally" instead of metaphorically? I am still holding to the position that EVEN the Balrog was close enough to "humanoid" in form that it will fit (with some discomfort!) into the constraining limits of the proposed rule: no animal, vegetable, meteorological, or "body part" forms are attested for Maiar in the Third Age... I hope.
Thanks a lot, Gythia -- and I LIKE your poetry, more please!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:53:27 GMT -6
From: Glorfindle Sent: 12/30/2002 8:45 AM Thank you Thorkel. Your musings and scholarly investigations into these ideas have been both a pleasure to read and also a fine example of why TR is the best site for stimulating discussion of Tolkien and his works. I now have so much to think about, it will be some time before I can post something to add to this great line of thought. Glor * * * From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 1/7/2003 10:51 AM Thorkel, I second Glor in his praise, wonderfully researched and stated argument regarding Saurions form, and Gollums insight into his maimed hand. I want to add that from the "Hobbit" alone and references to the Necromancer, and not the Eye make a great case for Sauron having a human form. Having said that this hand buisness still has me musing as to just how Gollum would have such insight. I suspect more of a representation than actual knowlege. I suspect compared to the White Hand (Saruman), Gollums Black Hand (Sauron)statement saying: "He has only four, but they are enough." might be an allusion to his insight into the other struggles for the Ring of which Bilbo and Sam have no knowlege. I mean why didn't Gollum say nine fingers? Therefore alluding to Frodo's destiny quite nicely. No he says "Four" and offers a symetry betwixt the two striving dark powers of the time. Just musing mind you! In all, it is indeed an interesting study and perhaps we may find a logical explaination for it yet. I know I will continue to look.
I look forward eagerly to more of your insights and well written studies.
Anar kaluva tielyanna, Iarwain * * * From: Thorkel Sent: 1/10/2003 12:32 AM Glorfindle and Iarwain:
Thank you both for the compliments! This has been a "fun" topic (at least for me!) and I've been able to use the various comments brought up on this format by all the participants to re-stimulate my Tolkien researches... LOL, even ordered more reading material so I can keep up with DaleAnn, "Morgoth's Ring" is in the mail, and today I just got a copy of Leslie Ellen Jones' "Myth & Middle-earth," just starting it now -- looks like a more polished version of her Barnes and Noble class notes, VERY READABLE, a smooth, flowing style... I'll see if she has any opinions on the substantial form of Sauron in the Third Age.
Iarwain, re: the "nine-fingers" kenning, yeah, I would have expected JRRT to use that precise language as well, a foreshadowing of Frodo's eventual maiming, the "price" of Ring, a price even exacted from Sauron? Maybe JRRT thought that the "nine-fingers" bit would be too obvious, or too close to allegory? * * * From: Colleen Sent: 1/26/2003 5:43 PM Wow, this tread certainly gave me a lot to consider. I'm new to TR and have spent the last few days trying to catch up with the TT study. I think I'm almost there. I tend to think that Gollum did see a form of Sauron when he was being tortured. While Sauron may not have had a solid, physical form, he may have been somewhere between a formless state and a solid state -- a shadow of his former/future self. As his power grows, so does his physical presence. On another note. I didn't notice this detail the first time I read the book, but now, knowing the ending, it has much more meaning and even, perhaps, prophecy. (as many details in these books). Colleen
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:55:05 GMT -6
From: Storrmrider Sent: 2/10/2003 10:37 PM Thorkel wrote: Stormrider, RE: the Lidless Eye -- "It is the part that is most predominant because it is searching for The Ring." Great thought there, Stormrider, I like that! The "Eye" is certainly the perfect image by which to express "seeking" and Tolkien implies several times that the "Evil Eye," "Red Eye," "Great Eye," and "Eye of Barad-dur" represent Sauron's focussed Will, a projection of His "searching vision" far beyond the normal range of sight (as Men and Elves know it). If the "Eye" is "real" in any sense, surely it is as a metaphor for Sauron's keenly powerful mind. It serves the Dark Lord almost as a sort of tool, a kind of telescopic device that may function along the same lines as the palantiri. Here (sheer speculation only!) I wonder if the Ithil Stone (now perhaps better called the "Morgul" Stone?) is being used when Sauron's "vision" leaps out across the Middle-earth landscapes to seek the concealed minds of the High Elven rulers, to seek Frodo and the Ring, and so many other things? Does the searching mind of Galadriel appear in Sauron's mind as a "White Eye"? See FotR, 471 - 472 where Galadriel implies she can see into Sauron's mind just the way he is attempting to see into hers. Do Saruman and Denethor project their own seeking minds through their palantiri as "eyes"? How did I miss this paragraph?!?! This is a very interesting thought-the Lidless Eye using the Morgul Stone to go to far reaches of Middle Earth to spy on the Elves and to seek out Sauron's one and only desire-The Ring! Hmmmm…very interesting, but I have some doubts that Sauron appeared in the palantír as the lidless eye. When Pippin looked into the Stone of Orthanc, he did not say that he saw an eye. Pippin's words were: "I took the ball and looked at it, and I saw things that frightened me. I wanted to go away, but I couldn't. And then he came and questioned me; and he looked at me. He did not speak so that I could hear words. He just looked, and I understood. Then he seemed to see me, and he laughed at me. It was cruel. It was like being stabbed with knives." Pippin actually said "he came and he looked at me." This makes me believe that it was some physical being that Pippin saw. Maybe it was not one of substance, perhaps more of a shadow or that of an apparition, but some sort of body-like appearance; otherwise Pippin would have said something. As far as Galadriel and Sauron seeing into each other's minds, why would they see each other as eyes? Sauron and Galadriel knew each other in the earlier ages. When the rings were made, it states in the Silmarillion that Sauron wanted to sway the Elves to his service because they were the Firstborn and had the greater power (than Men). Sauron "went far and wide among them, and his hue was still that of one both fair and wise." Wouldn't you picture someone you were telepathically seeing as the vision you remembered of that person? Although I can picture Sauron gazing into Galadriel's, Saruman's, and Denethor's eyes and then zooming into their minds through their eyes (and they would look into Sauron's mind the same way).
Stormrider
* * * From: Glorfindle Sent: 2/10/2003 11:10 PM There are obviously layers upon layers of thought in this regard. I would assume each would see things in all manners of capability according to their own levels. Why would Sauron hide behind any aparition to Galadriel or Gandalf with their prior knowledge of him? My final belief on the matter is that everyone in ME saw him according to how they should see him, according to both their power and his. Couple that with the influence of the Ring, and you got one distorted picture of an out of control circus. "To weild a Ring of Power, is to be alone". * * * From: rivers Sent: 2/11/2003 2:00 AM I'm not sure if this is the right place to post but does anyone else notice that the embodiment of evil and the hero of the story both share the loss of a finger and both are destroyed by the destruction of the ring. Is Tolkien's message that even in victory that we mirror our enemies. I have always felt that after being chased from Mirkwood Sauron took physical form when he set up camp once again in Mordor. This is also close to a thought I have always had concerning mortal shells. That no matter what the outside resembles we should look more for beauty from within as often evil hides under beautiful guise to betray the eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 24, 2009 18:56:21 GMT -6
From: BelfalasBoy Sent: 2/11/2003 5:05 AM Hello Everone.. The idea of an "eye" is being used by Tolkien to tap into a deep unconscious... it is represented in all religions, and Tolkien is too some degree a "rip-off artist" in that all his images are taken from and adapted from elsewher... in this case the "evil eye" wards off evil.. is the protecting, omnipresent watch of God over the workings of a deceptive satin... is survives in Meduiteranean countries... where it is often painted on sail boats, cars etc.. to ensure a safe journey. Therefore, as this is a Catholic thing, Tolkien may only have been too away of this. Such primitive and backward devices to mind-control and superstition are always going to be vestigially present in Catholic cultures. The main thing to remember about Sauron is that he is "Sauron the Deceiver", who rent apart Numenor... He can take whatever guises wishes to manipulate the weak - the Lord of the Rings Mirrors how the Ring acts upon its victims himself, but actually... is this power to take a beneficial shape stripped from him after the 2nd Age... I cannot remember? He is an old entity, First Leiutenant to Melkor, and clearly learns a few tricks from him through the 1st Age. He is the replaceement evil force in Arda... providing balance to the forces of good. Strangely, the Valar send out only the 5 istari as a reponse to this threat...and as such only one of these rescues the day by a thread, so the Valar are weary of Middle Earth at this stage in the History of ME? Its strange.. the Valar are more like Norse Gods than anything.. they are not all powerful, they make mistakes and are often caught showing "human" failings... they work and live closely with the Eldar, and are often petty, vengeful, pathetic... an interesting parallel to the Halls of Valhalla. Clearly this was the effect Tolkien was trying to Mirror (Doom of Mandos etc...) BB * * * From: rivers Sent: 2/12/2003 12:57 AM Yes it is as clear as mud Belfalas I don't see Norse as much as I do a Greek pantheon although both share the ability to make mistakes or maybe even Egyptian as all the valar are set against one as Egyptian gods all ganged up on set. The parallels are immense and I would have to agree with Glor that there are layers upon layers of meaning to be interpreted and enjoyed. However I still wonder at the outcomes of Sauron and Frodo both lost spiritual and physical being while in ME one immediately and the other over time. I believe Sauron was physically manifested in Mordor and perhaps used the symbol of the lidless eye as a marker for his evil horde. The lidless eye itself is layered as it represents Saurons ability to see afar as well as in Gollum's case to see what he knew through torture and of course the overwhelming task of looking for his power. As I dont profess to know what J.R.R. wanted to get across exactly I can only wonder at his meaning and absorb the opinions of others to make it that much more enriching. * * * From: Colleen Sent: 4/27/2003 10:10 PM Stormrrider wrote: This is a very interesting thought-the Lidless Eye using the Morgul Stone to go to far reaches of Middle Earth to spy on the Elves and to seek out Sauron's one and only desire-The Ring! Just a thought, what if the Lidless Eye is the Morgul Stone? Colleen
|
|