Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
According to Wikipedia this is something that Tolkien speculated about but never actually committed himself to. Given that there are no other instances of elves reincarnating and being sent back to Middle Earth I think it can't be regarded as proper canon. I think it makes a bit of a nonsense of the themes of the Silmarillion if it happened.
And as I recall, reincarnation isn’t really what Tolkien speculated/described for Glorfindel. I think he described it as re-embodiment—that he died and his spirit went to the Halls of Mandos, that the Valar rewarded his valor by restoring his body and allowing him to dwell in Valinor, and Manwë later sent him to Middle Earth to take part in the fight against Sauron.
Tolkien didn't just speculate about this for Glorfindel. He canonically* stated that his elves were small "i" immortal. A significant enough physical trauma could "kill" them temporarily, but they were granted new bodies in Valinor after a purgatorial time in the Halls of Mandos. The amount of time spent in Mandos' care was proportional to the amount of sin the elf in question has to work off.
Can you point to where Tolkien said all Elves who had died (I seem to recall at least one or two who died of grief) or been killed were eventually re-embodied?
He explicitly said that some were not - Feanor being a case in point.
Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
According to Wikipedia this is something that Tolkien speculated about but never actually committed himself to. Given that there are no other instances of elves reincarnating and being sent back to Middle Earth I think it can't be regarded as proper canon. I think it makes a bit of a nonsense of the themes of the Silmarillion if it happened.
And as I recall, reincarnation isn’t really what Tolkien speculated/described for Glorfindel. I think he described it as re-embodiment—that he died and his spirit went to the Halls of Mandos, that the Valar rewarded his valor by restoring his body and allowing him to dwell in Valinor, and Manwë later sent him to Middle Earth to take part in the fight against Sauron.
Tolkien didn't just speculate about this for Glorfindel. He canonically* stated that his elves were small "i" immortal. A significant enough physical trauma could "kill" them temporarily, but they were granted new bodies in Valinor after a purgatorial time in the Halls of Mandos. The amount of time spent in Mandos' care was proportional to the amount of sin the elf in question has to work off.
Can you point to where Tolkien said all Elves who had died (I seem to recall at least one or two who died of grief) or been killed were eventually re-embodied?
He explicitly said that some were not - Feanor being a case in point.
More pointedly he stated that Fëanor had so much work of redemption to do that the amount of time required for the purgation of his sins in the Halls of Mandos (a.k.a. elf purgatory) would take as much time as the world had left to exist. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but I think it's an important qualifier.
Another interesting case involves Míriel, Fëanor's mother. After giving birth to her only child she essentially got tired of life and voluntarily separated her soul from her body. Giving up on embodied life is depicted by Tolkien as somewhat sinful, which seems to take the position that elves are supposed to be embodied within Arda from the time they're born until the end of the world. Some of Tolkien's later writings, published as part of The History of Middle-earth twelve volume set, claims that after the deaths of both Finwë and Fëanor Míriel decided to be re-embodied in Valinor. An uncharitable reader might conclude that Míriel left her body to get away from her husband and son and that once they both showed up in the Halls of Mandos she decided to leave.
I understood that Feanor is due to be re-embodied at the Dagor Dagorath. I think it also prophesied that Turin will fight Morgoth and kill him, which seems eminently fair.
I understood that Feanor is due to be re-embodied at the Dagor Dagorath. I think it also prophesied that Turin will fight Morgoth and kill him, which seems eminently fair.
Yes, Fëanor's re-embodiment is on the Middle-earth end times check list.
Galadriel (February 14, 3019) »
I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired to ask what you offer. For many long years I had pondered what I might do, should the Great Ring come into my hands, and behold! it was brought within my grasp. The evil that was devised long ago works on in many ways, whether Sauron himself stands or falls. Would not that have been a noble deed to set to the credit of his Ring, if I had taken it by force or fear from my guest?
And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!
I pass the test. I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel.
This is, of course, the most famous of the [ refusals of / claims on ] the Ring. As with Gandalf, Galadriel has thought about the Ring a lot and done a lot of self-examination about the Ring's likeliest path to corrupting her. With Gandalf it was pity. With Galadriel it's ambition. We are told in The Silmarillion that when the Noldor were planning their flight from Valinor Galadriel wanted to accompany them because she "yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will". That desire for rule is at the heart of what the Ring offers (dominion over others) and is at the heart of Tolkien's idea of evil.
Normally five to six days, depending on the year. (The spring equinox in the Northern Hemisphere can fall on March 19th, 20th or 21st.)
But yes, I think there can be little doubt that the timing of Passover, and therefore the Christian paschal feasts, are linked to the spring equinox. (And the idea of Jesus’s conception on March 25th is linked to the idea of his death on that date.) I think there’s a similar link with Christmas and the winter solstice.
Just on the subject of Elves and Men. Something that has always struck me as fascinating is Tolkiens view of these - and how they were jealous of each other.
So the elves live for thousands of years, and when they die they go to Mandos. Men are jealous because of their long lives.
But they are fundamentally bound to Arda. They are created beings, and when Ea ends, they will no longer exist. So disembodying - truly dying - is just a bringing forward of the inevitable end, however wrong this is. And this is because the elves are supposed to be bound to Ea, bound to the creation for its entire existence. It is along existence, but it is a bound existence.
Men, on the other hand are not. And elves are jealous of men who can escape Arda- because when men die, they do not go to Mandos, they leave Arda. They are then in the hands of Eru. That is a privilege. The chance to leave ones body (at a time of ones choosing, for many) and move to a higher plane - this is the destiny of Men, and this si something greater than the destiny of Elves.
I agree with all of that except--I can't recall Tolkien ever saying anywhere that the elves would end with Arda, simply that they were bound to it during its existence--and what happened after the end was not known. Got a citation for them ceasing to exist with Arda?
Men, on the other hand are not. And elves are jealous of men who can escape Arda- because when men die, they do not go to Mandos, they leave Arda. They are then in the hands of Eru.
It's my understanding that men do go to Mandos and are judged. They just go somewhere else outside the circles of the world afterwards.
I agree with all of that except--I can't recall Tolkien ever saying anywhere that the elves would end with Arda, simply that they were bound to it during its existence--and what happened after the end was not known. Got a citation for them ceasing to exist with Arda?
This is one of the possibilities discussed in the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth (translation: "the debate of Finrod and Andreth"), which takes the form of a discussion between Finrod Felagund, king of Nargothrond, and Andreth, an older mortal woman from the House of Bëor. Finrod speculates that this may be so, but does not know for sure.
'Now none, of us know, though the Valar may know, the future of Arda, or how long it is ordained to endure. But it will not endure for ever. It was made by Eru, but He is not in it. The One only has no limits. Arda, and Eä itself, must therefore be bounded. You see us, the Quendi, still in the first ages of our being, and the end is far off. As maybe among you death may seem to a young man in his strength; save that we have long years of life and thought already behind us. But the end will come. That we all know. And then we must die; we must perish utterly, it seems, for we, belong to Arda (in hröa and fëa). And beyond that what? "The going out to no return," as you say; "the uttermost end, the irremediable loss"?*
'Our hunter is slow-footed, but he never loses the trail. Beyond the day when he shall blow the mort, we have no certainty, no knowledge. And no one speaks to us of hope.'
*Cf. Laws and Customs,: 'The new fëa, and therefore in their beginning all fëar, they [the Eldar] believe to come direct from Eru and from beyond Eä. Therefore many of them hold that it cannot be asserted that the fate of the Elves is to be confined within Arda for ever and with it to cease.
In other words the Eldar know, to the extent that such things can be known, that men are not bound to the circles of the world but that elves are. They also know, again to the extent such things can be know, that at some point Arda will end. There is no certainty about what will happen to beings bound to Arda when there is no Arda, but non-existence has to be at least entertained as a possibility.
Just to clear things up, the terms hröa (plural hröar) and fëa (plural fëar) refer to body and spirit respectively, which the elves consider to the the two parts of their existence.
Okay, so it’s one of the standard positions taken regarding the fair folk in our world—namely, that nobody knows. Which is very traditional and proper of Tolkien!
Though I would argue, just as there are those who would argue the same for “real” elves, faerie, etc, if they exist, that their hope lies in the character of their creator, “who hates nothing he has made”; and therefore their situation is not much worse than that of humanity in a pre-Christian setting (when the very specific aspects of our hope haven’t been communicated yet). Neither has any details, but relying on the known character of God / Eru Iluvatar is pretty much as good as having a direct promise. (Besides, wasn’t there a place in the Silmarillion where we are told that elves and men will be included in a greater music before Eru at the end? Which sounds like it’s after the ending of Arda.)
Okay, so it’s one of the standard positions taken regarding the fair folk in our world—namely, that nobody knows. Which is very traditional and proper of Tolkien!
Though I would argue, just as there are those who would argue the same for “real” elves, faerie, etc, if they exist, that their hope lies in the character of their creator, “who hates nothing he has made”; and therefore their situation is not much worse than that of humanity in a pre-Christian setting (when the very specific aspects of our hope haven’t been communicated yet). Neither has any details, but relying on the known character of God / Eru Iluvatar is pretty much as good as having a direct promise. (Besides, wasn’t there a place in the Silmarillion where we are told that elves and men will be included in a greater music before Eru at the end? Which sounds like it’s after the ending of Arda.)
Sorry - it is a long time since I read all of the History of Middle Earth, so I have to rely on what I recall. And yes, Men do go to Mandos, but not permanently, only as part of their journey.
I mean, I am not worried about being judged by Mandos so I missed that one out. (Some of that may be a lie).
I think it is as @Crœsos said - that there is a strong tradition of the elves being bound to the world and so that implies that they are - at least effectively - ended when the world ends. I think the principle still applies - that the elves are limited by the world, whereas men are not. And the elves are jealous of this.
It is totally true that the mythology is incomplete, contradictory, and sometime confusing, as it should be. So it is always about understanding and interpretation.
Boromir (February 26, 3019) »
It is by our own folly that the Enemy will defeat us. How it angers me! Fool! Obstinate fool! Running wilfully to death and ruining our cause. If any mortals have claim to the Ring it is the men of Númenor, and not Halflings. It is not yours save by unhappy chance. It might have been mine. It should be mine. Give it to me!
Boromir's claim on the Ring is based on strategic concerns and history. His strategic assessment is that the quest is doomed to fail and deliver the Ring to Sauron. His historical judgment is that the men of Númenor (his people) have an enduring claim on the Ring via Isildur. He approaches the question of the Ring as a soldier, although he eventually ends up where most such questions do, that the Ring should be his.
Just as a side note, I don’t think Tolkien would create such a horrible fate as annihilation for the spirits of sapient free-willed beings like the Elves. I think the other comments make more sense than that.
Just as a side note, I don’t think Tolkien would create such a horrible fate as annihilation for the spirits of sapient free-willed beings like the Elves. I think the other comments make more sense than that.
Is non-existence a horrible fate? This is all getting very meta considering we're discussing the ultimate fate of literary characters who, by definition, don't exist in the strictly literal sense of the term.
I think it is as @Crœsos said - that there is a strong tradition of the elves being bound to the world and so that implies that they are - at least effectively - ended when the world ends. I think the principle still applies - that the elves are limited by the world, whereas men are not. And the elves are jealous of this.
I’m not sure it’s that the Elves’ tie to the world means they are cease to exist when the world does. I seem to recall that he said at some point something to the effect that the doom of the Elves was to be bound to Arda until Arda’s story is complete. I take that to mean that once Arda’s story is complete, the Elves are released from what binds them to Arda.
Just as a side note, I don’t think Tolkien would create such a horrible fate as annihilation for the spirits of sapient free-willed beings like the Elves. I think the other comments make more sense than that.
Is non-existence a horrible fate? This is all getting very meta considering we're discussing the ultimate fate of literary characters who, by definition, don't exist in the strictly literal sense of the term.
Yes, I’ve never quite understood the idea that ceasing to exist is a terrible fate. But given, as you say, that we’re talking about literary characters, the relevant question is probably whether Tolkien would have considered ceasing to exist a horrible fate. (That is, assuming Tolkien indeed conceived of that being what happened to the Elves.)
Just as a side note, I don’t think Tolkien would create such a horrible fate as annihilation for the spirits of sapient free-willed beings like the Elves. I think the other comments make more sense than that.
Is non-existence a horrible fate? This is all getting very meta considering we're discussing the ultimate fate of literary characters who, by definition, don't exist in the strictly literal sense of the term.
If one did exist before, not just as an imaginary character--yes, ceasing to exist is a ghastly concept, especially in the kind of Christian worldview Tolkien held. Myself, I'd rather go to Hell than cease to exist.
Hmm - but the Elves are definitely jealous of Mens destiny to leave Arda. I always took this to mean that they never would.
But, as always, the far future is not something that was made clear or obvious. It is possible that they would eventually leave, but also that "the end of Arda" meant also the end of all things. That existence would be finished.
This is all getting very meta considering we're discussing the ultimate fate of literary characters who, by definition, don't exist in the strictly literal sense of the term.
I think that, while is seems very meta, Tolkien was trying to express ideas in his writing. Maybe that our short lives were only part of us, and our bigger fate was grander. That those who seem to have it all now may not in a bigger picture.
Hmm - but the Elves are definitely jealous of Mens destiny to leave Arda. I always took this to mean that they never would.
But, as always, the far future is not something that was made clear or obvious. It is possible that they would eventually leave, but also that "the end of Arda" meant also the end of all things. That existence would be finished.
Not in Tolkien’s theology—and Middle-Earth is supposed to be our world, just in the far, far distant past.
Just as a side note, I don’t think Tolkien would create such a horrible fate as annihilation for the spirits of sapient free-willed beings like the Elves. I think the other comments make more sense than that.
Is non-existence a horrible fate? This is all getting very meta considering we're discussing the ultimate fate of literary characters who, by definition, don't exist in the strictly literal sense of the term.
If one did exist before, not just as an imaginary character--yes, ceasing to exist is a ghastly concept, especially in the kind of Christian worldview Tolkien held. Myself, I'd rather go to Hell than cease to exist.
That might be something of a minority view - all the people with no belief in an afterlife who nevertheless choose assisted dying when available and call for it when it is not, for example, imply many would prefer oblivion over terrible suffering. I know I would.
Just as a side note, I don’t think Tolkien would create such a horrible fate as annihilation for the spirits of sapient free-willed beings like the Elves. I think the other comments make more sense than that.
Is non-existence a horrible fate? This is all getting very meta considering we're discussing the ultimate fate of literary characters who, by definition, don't exist in the strictly literal sense of the term.
If one did exist before, not just as an imaginary character--yes, ceasing to exist is a ghastly concept, especially in the kind of Christian worldview Tolkien held. Myself, I'd rather go to Hell than cease to exist.
I definitely have a Christian worldview—one that I think is similar to Tolkien’s—and I don’t consider it a ghastly concept at all. I would consider the traditional/popular concept of Hell much more ghastly.
The parting of Elrond and Arwen - half elven who chose different kindreds - "for they were sundered by the Sea and by a doom beyond the end of the world".
One of the moments in Appendix A that rings true is that after Aragorn dies Arwen says that the elvish view, that humans are lucky to be able to leave Arda and that it is weird of them to fear death, is not actually much comfort when it comes to dying oneself.
On the other hand Arwen is in an unusual and tragic position: not only has she given up her personal immortality, the family and Third Age world she knew has vanished and the mortal love she exchanged it all for has died too. I find it one of the saddest moments in all of Tolkien!
Faramir (March 7, 3019) »
But this much I learned, or guessed, and I have kept it ever secret in my heart since: that Isildur took somewhat from the hand of the Unnamed, ere he went away from Gondor, never to be seen among mortal men again. Here I thought was the answer to Mithrandir’s questioning. But it seemed then a matter that concerned only the seekers after ancient learning. Nor when the riddling words of our dream were debated among us, did I think of Isildur’s Bane as being this same thing. For Isildur was ambushed and slain by orc-arrows, according to the only legend we knew, and Mithrandir had never told me more.
What in truth this Thing is I cannot yet guess; but some heirloom of power and peril it must be. A fell weapon, perchance, devised by the Dark Lord. If it were a thing that gave advantage in battle, I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it. Alas that ever he went on that errand! I should have been chosen by my father and the elders, but he put himself forward, as being the older and hardier (both true), and he would not be stayed.
But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.
Here is Faramir rejecting the Ring, and rather deftly psychoanalyzing his older brother's desire for it at the same time. His reasons for rejecting the Ring are that it's "from the hand of the Unnamed" and Faramir knows that anything from Sauron is bad juju. He's obviously well educated and doubtless knows many tales about how good intentions can be thoroughly undermined by corrupt compromises. Whereas Boromir desired victory at any price, Faramir regards some prices as too great to pay for victory.
Denethor (March 10, 3019) »
For Boromir was loyal to me and no wizard’s pupil. He would have remembered his father’s need, and would not have squandered what fortune gave. He would have brought me a mighty gift.
This completes our House of the Stewards trifecta of statements on the Ring. Denethor is asserting his (entirely notional and hypothetical) claim on the Ring in terms of necessity (or "need", to use his term). He's in a pretty tight place, so this is understandable. He later expands on his hypothetical Ring plans, stating "it should have been kept, hidden, hidden dark and deep. Not used, I say, unless at the uttermost end of need, but set beyond his grasp, save by a victory so final that what then befell would not trouble us, being dead." The whole "kept but not used" sounds a lot like the kind of easily subverted good intentions implicit in Faramir's statement.
I can completely understand where Denethor is coming from. In fact Denethor's plan is the only rational one. After all it ought to be impossible to destroy the Ring because it exerts such a baleful influence over its bearer, and in fact Frodo does find it impossible to destroy the Ring. So the only thing that can rationally happen is for Frodo to fail, basically delivering the Ring right into Sauron's hand. And furthermore Gandalf knows this, and Denethor knows that Gandalf knows! So no wonder Denethor is so angry with Gandalf.
Gandalf's only excuse is that he has a deeper sort of knowledge, more like faith, that this is the right thing to do, whereas Denethor's plan is not the right thing to do. It is like Fiver in the warren of the snares - he cannot explain why he is right, he just knows that he is right even though this makes all the other rabbits annoyed and upset. He cannot rationalise his insight because it has no rational basis.
I can completely understand where Denethor is coming from. In fact Denethor's plan is the only rational one. After all it ought to be impossible to destroy the Ring because it exerts such a baleful influence over its bearer, and in fact Frodo does find it impossible to destroy the Ring. So the only thing that can rationally happen is for Frodo to fail, basically delivering the Ring right into Sauron's hand. And furthermore Gandalf knows this, and Denethor knows that Gandalf knows! So no wonder Denethor is so angry with Gandalf.
Gandalf's only excuse is that he has a deeper sort of knowledge, more like faith, that this is the right thing to do, whereas Denethor's plan is not the right thing to do. It is like Fiver in the warren of the snares - he cannot explain why he is right, he just knows that he is right even though this makes all the other rabbits annoyed and upset. He cannot rationalise his insight because it has no rational basis.
Denethor's plan is also impossible, and was rejected as such at the Council of Elrond. The options were "to hide the Ring forever; or to unmake it". Absent a set of highly contingent circumstances (the arrival of the Rohirrim and the capture of the Black Fleet) Denethor wouldn't have been able to keep the Ring hidden for even another week after he made that statement. I'm not sure choosing the impossible option that actually solves the problem is a worse or less rational choice than the equally impossible option that seeks to dump the problem on future generations.
Gandalf also chides Denethor for this statement:
Not used, I say, unless at the uttermost end of need, but set beyond his grasp, save by a victory so final that what then befell would not trouble us, being dead.
It's pretty clear that "us" in that statement refers only to Gondor.
If the ring is not destroyed, Sauron will find it and get it. Especially if it's in so obvious a place as Minas Tirith. Sending it to be destroyed may be a fool's errand, but it alone has the chance to get rid of Sauron once and for all. If it fails, it is in the same place as every other plan. They will all fail. Only Frodo's way has a chance of succeeding.
To put it another way: only one plan has greater than a 0% chance of succeeding. And that is the one that Frodo undertakes.
TT posted: 'It is like Fiver in the warren of the snares - he cannot explain why he is right, he just knows that he is right even though this makes all the other rabbits annoyed and upset. He cannot rationalise his insight because it has no rational basis.'
I love this. A splendid link between two of my favourite books. I'm trying to think of other examples in literature where (Gandalf's and Fiver's intuition) this happens (help!).
Rationality is not all it's cracked up to be in 'real life' either. It's medicine, not food!
As Croesos has skipped an example of someone offering to give up the Ring, I'm taking the liberty of commenting on it.
Frodo (February 14, 3019) »
'You are wise and fearless and fair, Lady Galadriel,' said Frodo. 'I will give you the One Ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.'
Galadriel has just told Frodo that if he succeeds in destroying the Ring Lothlorien will fade away, which prompts him to offer it to her. There are two possible readings I think. One is that this is an act of humility on Frodo's part that stems from an entirely selfless desire to preserve Lothlorien. A darker possibility that occurs to me is that the Ring would in fact rather be with Galadriel, who is far more powerful and possibly easier to tempt, and so is prompting Frodo with self-doubt and the desire to pass his responsibility onto someone else.
Given that the Ring on either hypothesis has not influenced Frodo's attitudes yet otherwise, I think the darker possibility is wrong. Also, while the Ring can influence its owners to lose it, I don't think there are any other possible cases of it influencing its owners to pass it on. Although Frodo's offer could well be a mixture of virtuous and less virtuous motives stemming from his own personality without the influence of the Ring.
Galadriel certainly takes Frodo's offer as selfless and made of his free will, which may influence how she responds.
As Croesos has skipped an example of someone offering to give up the Ring, I'm taking the liberty of commenting on it.
Frodo (February 14, 3019) »
'You are wise and fearless and fair, Lady Galadriel,' said Frodo. 'I will give you the One Ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.'
I did miss that one, which definitely counts as rejecting the Ring, albeit unsuccessfully.
Although Frodo's offer could well be a mixture of virtuous and less virtuous motives stemming from his own personality without the influence of the Ring.
Galadriel certainly takes Frodo's offer as selfless and made of his free will, which may influence how she responds.
As I noted earlier being the Ringbearer comes with a "will probably be murdered by Nazgûl" clause, which could very well be a self-interested motive in passing the thing along.
I'm pretty sure "fear of being murdered by Nazgul" is completely absent from Galadriel's motivation. She's much more worried about what will happen if she wins! Her canonical flaws are to do with pride and ambition, not fearfulness.
I'm pretty sure "fear of being murdered by Nazgul" is completely absent from Galadriel's motivation. She's much more worried about what will happen if she wins! Her canonical flaws are to do with pride and ambition, not fearfulness.
Totally agree here. Yes, maybe she didn't want to have to face Sauron, knowing that she would lose (a pride thing). She is happier to have her little empire and her fame from all of this, than to face the big fight and probably lose - that is her pride.
But yes, she knows that if she took it, she would become a new Sauron, and she knows she would be hated by her kind. She has pride (appropriate) in what she has achieved, but knows her limitations. She is the one person (maybe) who sees the reality of what will happen, what the possibilities are, and properly acknowledges how slim the chances are.
Croesos can speak for himself but I think he was suggesting that Frodo's sense of self-preservation may have been one motive in offering the Ring to Galadriel. (I think there's maybe room for it but that were a major factor it would be more likely that he offered the Ring up earlier in the scene.)
Sam Gamgee (March 12, 3019) »
Let me see now: if we're found here, or Mr. Frodo's found, and that Thing's on him, well, the Enemy will get it. And that’s the end of all of us, of Lórien, and Rivendell, and the Shire and all. And there’s no time to lose, or it’ll be the end anyway. The war’s begun, and more than likely things are all going the Enemy’s way already. No chance to go back with It and get advice or permission. I can’t just wait here and hope Faramir comes and finds us. No, it’s sit here till they come and kill me over master’s body, and gets It: or take It and go. Then take It, it is!
Like a lot of other characters Sam's statement on the Ring is pragmatic. Unlike just about everyone else, Sam's pragmatism isn't focused on what the Ring can do for him, but rather on what is his best option for moving the quest forward. He's not looking for the strength or power to do good, or to defend his people, just to make sure the Ring doesn't get taken by Sauron's forces and that it keeps moving towards Orodruin.
I also like how Sam uses capital letters when referring to the Ring.
Or perhaps the second comment is the Ring itself expressing a preference. It's already tried and failed to persuade Sam that he's cut out to be a Dark Lord.
Regarding Frodo offering the Ring to Galadriel, there is a third possibility, which she herself refers to: revenge for her testing of Frodo at their first meeting. I don't personally think Frodo is that petty, but who knows what was going through Tolkien's mind when he wrote that bit.
Croesos can speak for himself but I think he was suggesting that Frodo's sense of self-preservation may have been one motive in offering the Ring to Galadriel. (I think there's maybe room for it but that were a major factor it would be more likely that he offered the Ring up earlier in the scene.)
Oh yes! Sorry I read that the wrong way the first time.
Normally five to six days, depending on the year. (The spring equinox in the Northern Hemisphere can fall on March 19th, 20th or 21st.)
But yes, I think there can be little doubt that the timing of Passover, and therefore the Christian paschal feasts, are linked to the spring equinox. (And the idea of Jesus’s conception on March 25th is linked to the idea of his death on that date.) I think there’s a similar link with Christmas and the winter solstice.
Thank you. I've never known the equinoxes being other than 22 March/September.
The date of the equinoxes moves around a bit due to leap years. This year they are March 20th and September 22nd. It's always slightly longer from March-September than September-March because the Earth is further from the Sun in June and moves slower.
The date of the equinoxes moves around a bit due to leap years. This year they are March 20th and September 22nd. It's always slightly longer from March-September than September-March because the Earth is further from the Sun in June and moves slower.
Frodo Baggins (March 25, 3019)
I have come, but I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!
This is the culmination of the quest of Mount Doom and illustrates Tolkien's idea that, at its strongest, the lure of power is irresistible. Tolkien himself commented that the Ring's power at the place of its forging was at its greatest and any other ringbearer in Middle-earth (including the ones we've already discussed) would have similarly been unable to cast it into the fire.
Frodo Baggins (March 25, 3019)
I have come, but I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!
This is the culmination of the quest of Mount Doom and illustrates Tolkien's idea that, at its strongest, the lure of power is irresistible. Tolkien himself commented that the Ring's power at the place of its forging was at its greatest and any other ringbearer in Middle-earth (including the ones we've already discussed) would have similarly been unable to cast it into the fire.
Comments
He explicitly said that some were not - Feanor being a case in point.
More pointedly he stated that Fëanor had so much work of redemption to do that the amount of time required for the purgation of his sins in the Halls of Mandos (a.k.a. elf purgatory) would take as much time as the world had left to exist. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but I think it's an important qualifier.
Another interesting case involves Míriel, Fëanor's mother. After giving birth to her only child she essentially got tired of life and voluntarily separated her soul from her body. Giving up on embodied life is depicted by Tolkien as somewhat sinful, which seems to take the position that elves are supposed to be embodied within Arda from the time they're born until the end of the world. Some of Tolkien's later writings, published as part of The History of Middle-earth twelve volume set, claims that after the deaths of both Finwë and Fëanor Míriel decided to be re-embodied in Valinor. An uncharitable reader might conclude that Míriel left her body to get away from her husband and son and that once they both showed up in the Halls of Mandos she decided to leave.
Yes, Fëanor's re-embodiment is on the Middle-earth end times check list.
This is, of course, the most famous of the [ refusals of / claims on ] the Ring. As with Gandalf, Galadriel has thought about the Ring a lot and done a lot of self-examination about the Ring's likeliest path to corrupting her. With Gandalf it was pity. With Galadriel it's ambition. We are told in The Silmarillion that when the Noldor were planning their flight from Valinor Galadriel wanted to accompany them because she "yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will". That desire for rule is at the heart of what the Ring offers (dominion over others) and is at the heart of Tolkien's idea of evil.
Of course, it's 3 days past your Spring equinox,
But yes, I think there can be little doubt that the timing of Passover, and therefore the Christian paschal feasts, are linked to the spring equinox. (And the idea of Jesus’s conception on March 25th is linked to the idea of his death on that date.) I think there’s a similar link with Christmas and the winter solstice.
So the elves live for thousands of years, and when they die they go to Mandos. Men are jealous because of their long lives.
But they are fundamentally bound to Arda. They are created beings, and when Ea ends, they will no longer exist. So disembodying - truly dying - is just a bringing forward of the inevitable end, however wrong this is. And this is because the elves are supposed to be bound to Ea, bound to the creation for its entire existence. It is along existence, but it is a bound existence.
Men, on the other hand are not. And elves are jealous of men who can escape Arda- because when men die, they do not go to Mandos, they leave Arda. They are then in the hands of Eru. That is a privilege. The chance to leave ones body (at a time of ones choosing, for many) and move to a higher plane - this is the destiny of Men, and this si something greater than the destiny of Elves.
So it leaves a strange tension between them.
It's my understanding that men do go to Mandos and are judged. They just go somewhere else outside the circles of the world afterwards.
This is one of the possibilities discussed in the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth (translation: "the debate of Finrod and Andreth"), which takes the form of a discussion between Finrod Felagund, king of Nargothrond, and Andreth, an older mortal woman from the House of Bëor. Finrod speculates that this may be so, but does not know for sure.
In other words the Eldar know, to the extent that such things can be known, that men are not bound to the circles of the world but that elves are. They also know, again to the extent such things can be know, that at some point Arda will end. There is no certainty about what will happen to beings bound to Arda when there is no Arda, but non-existence has to be at least entertained as a possibility.
Just to clear things up, the terms hröa (plural hröar) and fëa (plural fëar) refer to body and spirit respectively, which the elves consider to the the two parts of their existence.
Though I would argue, just as there are those who would argue the same for “real” elves, faerie, etc, if they exist, that their hope lies in the character of their creator, “who hates nothing he has made”; and therefore their situation is not much worse than that of humanity in a pre-Christian setting (when the very specific aspects of our hope haven’t been communicated yet). Neither has any details, but relying on the known character of God / Eru Iluvatar is pretty much as good as having a direct promise. (Besides, wasn’t there a place in the Silmarillion where we are told that elves and men will be included in a greater music before Eru at the end? Which sounds like it’s after the ending of Arda.)
Agreed!
I mean, I am not worried about being judged by Mandos so I missed that one out. (Some of that may be a lie).
I think it is as @Crœsos said - that there is a strong tradition of the elves being bound to the world and so that implies that they are - at least effectively - ended when the world ends. I think the principle still applies - that the elves are limited by the world, whereas men are not. And the elves are jealous of this.
It is totally true that the mythology is incomplete, contradictory, and sometime confusing, as it should be. So it is always about understanding and interpretation.
Boromir's claim on the Ring is based on strategic concerns and history. His strategic assessment is that the quest is doomed to fail and deliver the Ring to Sauron. His historical judgment is that the men of Númenor (his people) have an enduring claim on the Ring via Isildur. He approaches the question of the Ring as a soldier, although he eventually ends up where most such questions do, that the Ring should be his.
Is non-existence a horrible fate? This is all getting very meta considering we're discussing the ultimate fate of literary characters who, by definition, don't exist in the strictly literal sense of the term.
Yes, I’ve never quite understood the idea that ceasing to exist is a terrible fate. But given, as you say, that we’re talking about literary characters, the relevant question is probably whether Tolkien would have considered ceasing to exist a horrible fate. (That is, assuming Tolkien indeed conceived of that being what happened to the Elves.)
If one did exist before, not just as an imaginary character--yes, ceasing to exist is a ghastly concept, especially in the kind of Christian worldview Tolkien held. Myself, I'd rather go to Hell than cease to exist.
But, as always, the far future is not something that was made clear or obvious. It is possible that they would eventually leave, but also that "the end of Arda" meant also the end of all things. That existence would be finished.
I think that, while is seems very meta, Tolkien was trying to express ideas in his writing. Maybe that our short lives were only part of us, and our bigger fate was grander. That those who seem to have it all now may not in a bigger picture.
Not in Tolkien’s theology—and Middle-Earth is supposed to be our world, just in the far, far distant past.
That might be something of a minority view - all the people with no belief in an afterlife who nevertheless choose assisted dying when available and call for it when it is not, for example, imply many would prefer oblivion over terrible suffering. I know I would.
Here is Faramir rejecting the Ring, and rather deftly psychoanalyzing his older brother's desire for it at the same time. His reasons for rejecting the Ring are that it's "from the hand of the Unnamed" and Faramir knows that anything from Sauron is bad juju. He's obviously well educated and doubtless knows many tales about how good intentions can be thoroughly undermined by corrupt compromises. Whereas Boromir desired victory at any price, Faramir regards some prices as too great to pay for victory.
This completes our House of the Stewards trifecta of statements on the Ring. Denethor is asserting his (entirely notional and hypothetical) claim on the Ring in terms of necessity (or "need", to use his term). He's in a pretty tight place, so this is understandable. He later expands on his hypothetical Ring plans, stating "it should have been kept, hidden, hidden dark and deep. Not used, I say, unless at the uttermost end of need, but set beyond his grasp, save by a victory so final that what then befell would not trouble us, being dead." The whole "kept but not used" sounds a lot like the kind of easily subverted good intentions implicit in Faramir's statement.
Gandalf's only excuse is that he has a deeper sort of knowledge, more like faith, that this is the right thing to do, whereas Denethor's plan is not the right thing to do. It is like Fiver in the warren of the snares - he cannot explain why he is right, he just knows that he is right even though this makes all the other rabbits annoyed and upset. He cannot rationalise his insight because it has no rational basis.
Denethor's plan is also impossible, and was rejected as such at the Council of Elrond. The options were "to hide the Ring forever; or to unmake it". Absent a set of highly contingent circumstances (the arrival of the Rohirrim and the capture of the Black Fleet) Denethor wouldn't have been able to keep the Ring hidden for even another week after he made that statement. I'm not sure choosing the impossible option that actually solves the problem is a worse or less rational choice than the equally impossible option that seeks to dump the problem on future generations.
Gandalf also chides Denethor for this statement:
It's pretty clear that "us" in that statement refers only to Gondor.
To put it another way: only one plan has greater than a 0% chance of succeeding. And that is the one that Frodo undertakes.
I love this. A splendid link between two of my favourite books. I'm trying to think of other examples in literature where (Gandalf's and Fiver's intuition) this happens (help!).
Rationality is not all it's cracked up to be in 'real life' either. It's medicine, not food!
Given that the Ring on either hypothesis has not influenced Frodo's attitudes yet otherwise, I think the darker possibility is wrong. Also, while the Ring can influence its owners to lose it, I don't think there are any other possible cases of it influencing its owners to pass it on. Although Frodo's offer could well be a mixture of virtuous and less virtuous motives stemming from his own personality without the influence of the Ring.
Galadriel certainly takes Frodo's offer as selfless and made of his free will, which may influence how she responds.
I did miss that one, which definitely counts as rejecting the Ring, albeit unsuccessfully.
As I noted earlier being the Ringbearer comes with a "will probably be murdered by Nazgûl" clause, which could very well be a self-interested motive in passing the thing along.
Totally agree here. Yes, maybe she didn't want to have to face Sauron, knowing that she would lose (a pride thing). She is happier to have her little empire and her fame from all of this, than to face the big fight and probably lose - that is her pride.
But yes, she knows that if she took it, she would become a new Sauron, and she knows she would be hated by her kind. She has pride (appropriate) in what she has achieved, but knows her limitations. She is the one person (maybe) who sees the reality of what will happen, what the possibilities are, and properly acknowledges how slim the chances are.
Like a lot of other characters Sam's statement on the Ring is pragmatic. Unlike just about everyone else, Sam's pragmatism isn't focused on what the Ring can do for him, but rather on what is his best option for moving the quest forward. He's not looking for the strength or power to do good, or to defend his people, just to make sure the Ring doesn't get taken by Sauron's forces and that it keeps moving towards Orodruin.
I also like how Sam uses capital letters when referring to the Ring.
Here's Frodo re-staking his claim to the Ring, and going from "you're a marvel" to "you can't have it" in the space of about two heartbeats.
Regarding Frodo offering the Ring to Galadriel, there is a third possibility, which she herself refers to: revenge for her testing of Frodo at their first meeting. I don't personally think Frodo is that petty, but who knows what was going through Tolkien's mind when he wrote that bit.
Oh yes! Sorry I read that the wrong way the first time.
Thank you. I've never known the equinoxes being other than 22 March/September.
Thanks, all these little pieces!
Every time I go out I will now think of chapter 10 Return of the King. The Black Gate opens
This is the culmination of the quest of Mount Doom and illustrates Tolkien's idea that, at its strongest, the lure of power is irresistible. Tolkien himself commented that the Ring's power at the place of its forging was at its greatest and any other ringbearer in Middle-earth (including the ones we've already discussed) would have similarly been unable to cast it into the fire.
Does anyone else hear it in Orson Bean's voice?