Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <0ntp7.48$N4.4378@news.uchicago.edu> <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 16 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1000844041 128.135.12.7 (Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:14:01 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:14:01 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: dWNp7-25889-N4-9322@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: c662392b 9cbd8b0f 8ad241b0 990869c1 6976f05a Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:14:01 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52289 Quoth "Morgil Blackhope" in article <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de>: > Steuard Jensen kirjoitti: > >Then again, perhaps mithril is not the purest silver, as I've > >thought, but rather the only silver that is heavily contaminated > >with the Morgoth element. > Do you think there could be any connection between Morgoth and > Mithril? After all, the only place where Mithril was found was at > the Misty Mountains, which were raised by Melkor/Morgoth... Very interesting... I'm becoming increasingly convinced that mithril _does_ have a high concentration of the Morgoth element, which is responsible for its apparent magical properties. Can anyone think of specific counter-arguments? Steuard Jensen ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <0ntp7.48$N4.4378@news.uchicago.edu> <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Lines: 16 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:18:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.29.118 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000847888 12.79.29.118 (Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:18:08 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:18:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!dca6-feed2.news.digex.net!intermedia!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52266 "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message news:dWNp7.89$N4.9407@news.uchicago.edu... > Very interesting... I'm becoming increasingly convinced that > mithril _does_ have a high concentration of the Morgoth element, > which is responsible for its apparent magical properties. Can > anyone think of specific counter-arguments? Numenor. According to some texts there was apparently mithril there... and that island was quite decidedly NOT of Melkor's making. Also, Tolkien generally described mithril in very 'pure' terms - making it seem unlikely that he considered it the opposite. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 25 Message-ID: <2wRp7.101$N4.11631@news.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1000858750 128.135.12.7 (Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:19:10 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:19:10 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: 2wRp7-28676-N4-11467@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 6ea33e9f 33727e66 5d33aeff a538f40a c405434e Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 00:19:10 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.dplanet.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52291 Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" in article : > "Steuard Jensen" wrote: > > Very interesting... I'm becoming increasingly convinced that > > mithril _does_ have a high concentration of the Morgoth element... > Numenor. According to some texts there was apparently mithril > there... and that island was quite decidedly NOT of Melkor's making. Are you sure? I thought it existed before it was given to the Edain; I don't recall anything about its early history. (I could easily be forgetting something, though.) > Also, Tolkien generally described mithril in very 'pure' terms - > making it seem unlikely that he considered it the opposite. Can you recall specific examples of that? My impression of mithril _has_ been of great purity, so I suspect that there _is_ textual evidence for it, but I haven't taken the time to look for it directly. If it _is_ actually very pure, then what is the explanation for its use in magic? (Nenya in particular, but also in ithildin and, if my memory isn't deceiving me, in the Dwarves' moon letters too.) Is "active" magic possible in the absence of the Morgoth element? Steuard "Maybe the Diamond was Contaminated" Jensen ###### From: shermanlee1@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Date: 18 Sep 2001 20:48:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <0ntp7.48$N4.4378@news.uchicago.edu> <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.206.150.132 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1000871339 3972 127.0.0.1 (19 Sep 2001 03:48:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 2001 03:48:59 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52339 "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote in message news:... > "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message > news:dWNp7.89$N4.9407@news.uchicago.edu... > > > Very interesting... I'm becoming increasingly convinced that > > mithril _does_ have a high concentration of the Morgoth element, > > which is responsible for its apparent magical properties. Can > > anyone think of specific counter-arguments? > > Numenor. According to some texts there was apparently mithril > there... and that island was quite decidedly NOT of Melkor's > making. Also, Tolkien generally described mithril in very 'pure' > terms - making it seem unlikely that he considered it the > opposite. Really? Which texts were those? I saw reference to that in the MERP game, but I was never sure whether Tolkien himself said there was mithril there (Though I suspect there might have been, since Numenor seems to have been as close Paradise as Earth could know.) Shermalee ###### From: Tamim Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Date: 19 Sep 2001 11:26:53 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki Lines: 18 Message-ID: <9o9vdt$mda$3@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> <2wRp7.101$N4.11631@news.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: sirppi.helsinki.fi X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1000898813 22954 128.214.205.27 (19 Sep 2001 11:26:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 2001 11:26:53 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.54.122.107!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52331 Steuard Jensen wrote: > Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" in > article : >> "Steuard Jensen" wrote: >> > Very interesting... I'm becoming increasingly convinced that >> > mithril _does_ have a high concentration of the Morgoth element... >> Numenor. According to some texts there was apparently mithril >> there... and that island was quite decidedly NOT of Melkor's making. > Are you sure? I thought it existed before it was given to the Edain; > I don't recall anything about its early history. (I could easily be > forgetting something, though.) snip I am. It is mentioned in the UT. Numenor and Moria were the only places where mithril was found. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <2wRp7.101$N4.11631@news.uchicago.edu> <9o9vdt$mda$3@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 19 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1000903175 128.135.12.7 (Wed, 19 Sep 2001 07:39:35 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 07:39:35 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: bm0q7-907-N4-142@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 5da8f448 753d1306 2e3366f2 1d45b074 2292a5fd Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:39:35 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52283 Quoth Tamim in article <9o9vdt$mda$3@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>: > Steuard Jensen wrote: > > Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" :> > >> Numenor. According to some texts there was apparently mithril > >> there... and that island was quite decidedly NOT of Melkor's making. > > Are you sure? I thought it existed before it was given to the Edain; > > I don't recall anything about its early history. (I could easily be > > forgetting something, though.) > I am. It is mentioned in the UT. Numenor and Moria were the only places > where mithril was found. My apologies for being unclear: I was looking for evidence that Numenor was not even in part of Melkor's making. You are absolutely right that mithril was found there. Steuard Jensen ###### From: arebello64@hotmail.com (AR) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Date: 19 Sep 2001 10:29:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 29 Message-ID: <2a4798d.0109190929.672b7b2@posting.google.com> References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <0ntp7.48$N4.4378@news.uchicago.edu> <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> <9o9kp8$c0ejq$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.63.224.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1000920589 14518 127.0.0.1 (19 Sep 2001 17:29:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 2001 17:29:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.dplanet.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52332 "Morgil Blackhope" wrote in message news:<9o9kp8$c0ejq$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de>... > Conrad Dunkerson kirjoitti viestissä ... > >"Steuard Jensen" wrote in message > >news:dWNp7.89$N4.9407@news.uchicago.edu... > > > >> Very interesting... I'm becoming increasingly convinced that > >> mithril _does_ have a high concentration of the Morgoth element, > >> which is responsible for its apparent magical properties. Can > >> anyone think of specific counter-arguments? > > > >Numenor. According to some texts there was apparently mithril > >there... and that island was quite decidedly NOT of Melkor's > >making. Also, Tolkien generally described mithril in very 'pure' > >terms - making it seem unlikely that he considered it the > >opposite. > > Interesting. And Numenor was lifted from the bottom of the sea by > Osse. Maybe its just that all Mithril is buried very deep in Earth“s > core, and it has to be lifted from there first... > > Morgil In the Valaquenta it states that Osse was once recruited by Melkor but he was pursuaded, by Uinen, to speak to Ulmo who pardonned him. Yet he was always willful and destructive after that. Perhaps he willfully chose to raise a section of sea-floor that was rich in the Morgoth element and mithril ore. -AR ###### From: Tamim Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Date: 19 Sep 2001 19:45:28 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki Lines: 23 Message-ID: <9oasko$psb$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <2wRp7.101$N4.11631@news.uchicago.edu> <9o9vdt$mda$3@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: sirppi.helsinki.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1000928728 26507 128.214.205.27 (19 Sep 2001 19:45:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 2001 19:45:28 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.dplanet.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52411 Steuard Jensen wrote: > My apologies for being unclear: I was looking for evidence that > Numenor was not even in part of Melkor's making. You are absolutely > right that mithril was found there. "A land was made for the Edain to dwell in, neither part of Middle-earth nor of Valinor, for it was sundered from either by a wide sea; yet it was nearer to Valinor. It was raised by Ossė out of the depths of the Great Water, and it was established by Aulė and enriched by Yavanna; and the Eldar brought thither flowers and fountains out of Tol Eressėa." Silm. If there was evil in the Land itself it either came from osse or one of the Valar, or the land was evil already when buried beneath the sea. I don't think any part of the world was free of Melkor (evil) so the land had something of him even before it was raised. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> <2wRp7.101$N4.11631@news.uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Lines: 44 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:00:12 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.226 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000944012 12.79.23.226 (Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:00:12 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:00:12 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.dplanet.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52360 "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message news:2wRp7.101$N4.11631@news.uchicago.edu... > Are you sure? I thought it existed before it was given to the > Edain; I don't recall anything about its early history. (I > could easily be forgetting something, though.) As others have noted it was said to have been 'raised from the bottom of the Sea' for the Edain. It could be argued that it was created by Melkor long ago and there all along 'waiting to be raised', but if so it would seem to have been a poor choice as a "gift" for Melkor's enemies. And odd that a 'holy mountain' would be located in a land created by Melkor (under the theory in question). > Can you recall specific examples of that? My impression of > mithril _has_ been of great purity, so I suspect that there > _is_ textual evidence for it, but I haven't taken the time to > look for it directly. Well, only that mithril is called 'True Silver' and said to be loved by the Elves. I'd thought that there would be more, but it seems that my idea that mithril was somehow connected with the alchemical 'ideal metals' is entirely of my own construction (at least I couldn't find any support for it). > If it _is_ actually very pure, then what is the explanation for > its use in magic? The same as any other material the Elves used... sub-creation. > (Nenya in particular, but also in ithildin and, if my memory > isn't deceiving me, in the Dwarves' moon letters too.) > Is "active" magic possible in the absence of the Morgoth > element? I'd argue very much YES. Or was the Phial of Galadriel an item thoroughly corrupted by the evil of Morgoth? The Silmarils? Sam's special dirt? The Three Rings (described as 'pure' and 'unsullied')? Sam's elven rope? Lembas? Miruvor? Glamdring? Et cetera. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <0ntp7.48$N4.4378@news.uchicago.edu> <9o6anq$bg00h$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de> Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Lines: 16 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:12:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.226 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000944721 12.79.23.226 (Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:12:01 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:12:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52361 "Johnny1A" wrote in message news:b3030854.0109181948.dddf1f7@posting.google.com... > Really? Which texts were those? I saw reference to that in > the MERP game, but I was never sure whether Tolkien himself > said there was mithril there (Though I suspect there might > have been, since Numenor seems to have been as close Paradise > as Earth could know.) The 'anomalous' mithril references are to its use in the first Elendilmir and Vingilot. Of the former Tolkien specifically wrote, "For that metal was found in Numenor." (UT - The Disaster of the Gladden Fields, Note 31) ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <2wRp7.101$N4.11631@news.uchicago.edu> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 59 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1001005491 128.135.12.7 (Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:04:51 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:04:51 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: Tkpq7-15556-N4-6043@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 66dc37d8 4434ad2f 7cbe44f3 e39c06a0 3b6eb864 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:04:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!yellow.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52384 Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" in article : > "Steuard Jensen" wrote: > > If it _is_ actually very pure, then what is the explanation for > > its use in magic? > The same as any other material the Elves used... sub-creation. But there is an enormous difference between sub-creative magic and what I have elsewhere called "active" magic. Elven minstrels conjuring up visions of the topics of their songs, that's sub-creative magic, certainly. The Rings, on the other hand, are absolutely examples of "active" magic, magic intended to actually change and control _primary_ creation. I would suggest that magic in Middle-earth must make use of the Morgoth element at least to the extent that it goes beyond sub-creation. (I'd love to see detailed evidence for or against that claim, incidentally, but I really don't have time right now to go searching myself. Sorry 'bout that. :) ) > > (Nenya in particular, but also in ithildin and, if my memory isn't > > deceiving me, in the Dwarves' moon letters too.) Is "active" > > magic possible in the absence of the Morgoth element? > I'd argue very much YES. Or was the Phial of Galadriel an item > thoroughly corrupted by the evil of Morgoth? I'd say that it was a combination of sub-creative and active magic, and hence that it could not have existed without making use of the Morgoth element. That doesn't mean that it was _evil_, really: remember that rain and snow also existed only because of Morgoth's attempts to damage the world. > The Silmarils? Interesting question. Given that they were made in Aman, it seems likely that they _were_ pure, at least in substance. (The blessing of Varda may have helped to get rid of whatever contamination remained. As I indirectly suggested above, creating light may not be a particularly active form of magic. > Sam's special dirt? I'd say probably. > The Three Rings (described as 'pure' and 'unsullied')? I'd say absolutely, of a certainty: they were still made using technology learned from Sauron, and at least two were made of gold, which we know had some of the highest contamination of any element. > Sam's elven rope? Lembas? Miruvor? Glamdring? > Et cetera. Quite possible in all cases, I'd say. Good can come of evil, after all. (Of course, Lembas was made from special blessed corn given to the Elves by Yavanna, so its benefits may well have come specifically from her and not from Morgoth. The rope's magic may not have been all that "active", really.) Steuard Jensen ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> <2wRp7.101$N4.11631@news.uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Lines: 62 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:13:10 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.22.133 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1001031190 12.79.22.133 (Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:13:10 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:13:10 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52457 "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message news:Tkpq7.108$N4.5949@news.uchicago.edu... > But there is an enormous difference between sub-creative magic > and what I have elsewhere called "active" magic. Hmmm, I'd generally argue that sub-creative 'Art' could indeed be 'active' magic. However, there is a passage which makes a distinction in the case of the Rings; "Hence they fell in a measure to Sauron's deceits: they desired some 'power' over things as they are (which is quite distinct from art)... The 'Three Rings' were 'unsullied', because this object was in a limited way good..." Letters #181 If your 'active magic' is the same as this 'power' then this passage implies it is different from 'Art' (which is elsewhere linked with sub-creation). However, I think this distinction is between the 'motives' of the effect whereas your 'active' magic seems to be more a matter of the 'operation' the effect. Still, it is here implied that the Three were not works of 'Art', which I had generally thought they were. > The Rings, on the other hand, are absolutely examples of > "active" magic, magic intended to actually change and > control _primary_ creation. So, 'active magic' = 'power'... an ability to change things as they are. Would the phial then be 'power'? I'd argue that it was 'Art' because it merely took the light of Earendil's star and held it in the glass to be called forth. This is similar to other elven jewels - which the Elves invented before they came into contact with Morgoth or Sauron enough to learn 'power' from them. The Elendilmir would be in similar case - and it included mithril... but I don't suppose that proves much of anything. > I would suggest that magic in Middle-earth must make use of the > Morgoth element at least to the extent that it goes beyond > sub-creation. Hmmm... a reasonable supposition given that the 'closest the Elves came to falling to Power' was in following Sauron's instruction in crafting the Rings of Power - and we know Sauron used the Morgoth element in his 'magic'. > I'd say that it was a combination of sub-creative and active > magic, and hence that it could not have existed without making > use of the Morgoth element. That doesn't mean that it was > _evil_, really: remember that rain and snow also existed only > because of Morgoth's attempts to damage the world. Ok, but then it gets really difficult to make judgements on this. It is certainly possible that the 'Morgoth element' was needed for most of the 'magical' works of the Noldor, but if so they were able to use it without instruction (per the pre-contact creation of elvish jewels and such) and it could be used to craft items that were to all appearances 'pure' - Galadriel's phial, the crystal Arwen gave to Frodo, the Three, lembas, et cetera. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 128 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1001084458 128.135.12.7 (Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:00:58 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:00:58 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: KCIq7-26670-N4-11650@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 8f636ee8 831ba742 8d482deb 3ac4065f d6b09064 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:00:58 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52470 Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" in article : > "Steuard Jensen" wrote: ... > "Hence they fell in a measure to Sauron's deceits: they desired > some 'power' over things as they are (which is quite distinct > from art)... The 'Three Rings' were 'unsullied', because this > object was in a limited way good..." > Letters #181 > > The Rings, on the other hand, are absolutely examples of "active" > > magic, magic intended to actually change and control _primary_ > > creation. > So, 'active magic' = 'power'... an ability to change things as > they are. The quote you cite from Letter #181 above comes very close to describing my exact thoughts on magic in Middle-earth... which probably means that it was one of the sources that I read while I was forming them. :) Interestingly enough, "On Fairy Stories" has a reasonable amount of discussion of the topic as well; to quote from my Tolkien Booklist: Technically, this essay has absolutely nothing to do with Middle-earth at all. However, in one section of it Tolkien makes numerous reference to "elves" and the Art that they create... In the essay, he does not treat the elves as "real", but nevertheless it seems that his comments on elves here do apply to the elves of Middle-earth. The same ideas are, I _think_ present to some degree in a reasonable number of other sources. I'll spare the time for one reference, to the primary text on the "Morgoth element", "Myths Transformed" Text VII (and part (ii) in particular) from _Morgoth's Ring_. After discussing the presence of Morgoth's power throughout all gold, we read It was this Morgoth-element in matter in indeed, which was a prerequisite for such 'magic' and other evils as Sauron practiced with it and upon it. I see a strong connection between the term 'magic' used here (in quotes within the original text) and the confusion that Galadriel had about Sam's use of that word. In particular, I think that the two types of 'magic' in question are "Art" (of a sub-creative sort as discussed in "On Fairy Stories" and elsewhere) and magic seeking power over primary creation. I would suggest, incidentally, that the Elves themselves weren't entirely aware that _every_ bit of magic that went beyond "Art" was fundamentally akin to "the deceits of the Enemy" (or at least, that they weren't willing to admit it even to themselves). On another note, your comments have encouraged me to moderate my tendency to equate all "active" magic with a desire for power over things in the world. (See my comments on your next section in particular.) Moderate, but not abandon: as I said above, I think that all magic that affected the primary world relied at least a little on the presence of the Morgoth element. I am coming to believe, though, that some "minimally active" magic would require only the lightest touch of that negative influence to function, little enough that its corrupting effect would be minimal. > Would the phial then be 'power'? I'd argue that it was 'Art' > because it merely took the light of Earendil's star and held it in > the glass to be called forth. This is similar to other elven jewels > - which the Elves invented before they came into contact with > Morgoth or Sauron enough to learn 'power' from them. And, significantly, invented and created in Aman, whose constituent matter had been largely cleansed of Morgoth's contamination ("Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient'," [again from "Myths Transformed" Text VII(ii)]). I think that these examples of "captured light" were very close to being pure art, but they did have real-world effects (unlike the visions called to mind by Elven minstrels, as far as I know): look for example at the phial's effect on Shelob. However, as I said earlier, I suspect that only a very small touch of the Morgoth element was necessary for such artifacts to function. To address the point of mithril directly, there's a very significant paragraph from that same bit of "Myths Transformed" to cite: It is quote possible, of course, that certain 'elements' or conditions of matter had attracted Morgoth's special attention (mainly, unless in the remote past, for reasons of his own plans). For example, all gold (in Middle-earth) seems to have had a specially 'evil' trend - but not silver. Water is represented as being almost entirely free of Morgoth. (This, of course, does not mean that any particular sea, stream, river, well, or even vessel of water could not be poisoned or defiled - as all things could.) We could probably debate the meaning of this one quotation for some time. The words "but not silver" _certainly_ imply that not _all_ silver had a "specially 'evil' trend". It's pretty clear that the phrase also implies that silver was not an element that Melkor gave his "special attention", and probably that it was less contaminated than the average 'elements' in the world. I _don't_ think that this passage should be taken to mean that silver was entirely pure, but I can't object too strongly to anyone who asserts that it must have been mostly so. (I might suggest, though, that the progression from gold to silver to water in this paragraph was intended to go from most to least tainted.) I'm still intrigued by the possibility that those few deposits of silver that received Morgoth's special attention ("for reasons of his own plans", as it says in that quote) _were_ what became known as mithril. What characterizes mithril as distinct from pure silver, if not the fantastic and seemingly magical uses that it had? "All folk desired it", Gandalf says (or was it Gimli?), which could almost describe the effects of a cursed treasure hoard. And Celebrimor was clearly able to translate what he'd learned from Sauron about using the 'magical' properties of gold over to mithril when he forged Nenya. I suppose that another possibility is that Aule experimented with putting some of _his_ essence into silver, paralleling Melkor's sins just as he did when he created the Dwarves. Particularly if the whole story was the same (Eru pointing out that it wasn't a good thing and then blessing his actions anyway), that could explain the positive treatment of mithril as compared to other things. I'm still leaning toward the Morgoth element explanation myself, but it's an interesting thought. On a somewhat unrelated note, can anyone think of any examples of "active magic" after the destruction of the One? Any examples at all? An interesting thought just occurred to me... Steuard Jensen ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Lines: 137 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:30:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.90 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1001089815 12.79.23.90 (Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:30:15 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:30:15 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52456 "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message news:KCIq7.149$N4.11527@news.uchicago.edu... > In particular, I think that the two types of 'magic' in question > are "Art" (of a sub-creative sort as discussed in "On Fairy > Stories" and elsewhere) and magic seeking power over primary > creation. I'd generally thought more along the 'magia' and 'goeteia' lines, but as both were used by either side these don't provide a perfect division (despite Galadriel's phrase, 'deceits of the enemy' not all of the enemy's 'magics' were deceits, and some of the Elves own works were in fact illusions). > I would suggest, incidentally, that the Elves themselves weren't > entirely aware that _every_ bit of magic that went beyond "Art" > was fundamentally akin to "the deceits of the Enemy" (or at > least, that they weren't willing to admit it even to > themselves). Clearly they were not aware of such in the case of the Rings. However, I'd argue a different 'limit' on the bounds of what is 'Art' and what is 'Power'/'magic'. Going back to Sam's rope, I'd argue that while it was exceptionally strong and apparently responsive to the owner's desire it was not 'active magic' as you use the term (or 'Power' per letter #181) because it was not crafted out of a desire for control or a change in the way of things... it was, to the Elves, just a well made rope. It had effects beyond those of a human made rope because of elven Arts and sub-creative talents... it remained a rope, but was MORE a rope because of their efforts. Likewise with elven crystal and many other 'magics' of theirs. I prefer this view to the 'small portion of Morgoth element' because at that point the vast majority of Elven works would be founded on Morgoth's power, which seems counter-intuitive. > I think that all magic that affected the primary world relied at > least a little on the presence of the Morgoth element. I am > coming to believe, though, that some "minimally active" magic > would require only the lightest touch of that negative influence > to function, little enough that its corrupting effect would be > minimal. As I indicated above I would tend to argue against this as it would make many of the things done by the Elves (and the Valar for that matter) 'Power' rather than 'Art' - relying on Morgoth's corruption. > And, significantly, invented and created in Aman, whose > constituent matter had been largely cleansed of Morgoth's > contamination ("Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' > was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient'," [again from "Myths > Transformed" Text VII(ii)]). Well... Galadriel's phial, Arwen's crystal, the second Elendilmir, and even the Elessar were all created in Middle-earth. While this must then imply that there was some portion of the 'Morgoth ingredient' in their physical structure it would not necessarily indicate that this ingredient was a requirement for their power. > I think that these examples of "captured light" were very close > to being pure art, but they did have real-world effects But is the presence of 'real-world effects' really indicative of 'Power' rather than 'Art'? I'd argue that only certain tangible effects are 'Power'... and indeed that 'Art' and 'Power' are at root related, but differing in their purpose. For example, would not the works of the Valar (e.g. the Two Trees) be 'Art', while those of Morgoth would be 'Power'... and yet essentially the same forces in operation? Only a difference in how and why they were applied. Tapping into the Morgoth ingredient would perforce be for applications of 'Power', but I'd still think that Elves could affect the physical world with pure 'Art'. > I _don't_ think that this passage should be taken to mean that > silver was entirely pure, but I can't object too strongly to > anyone who asserts that it must have been mostly so. (I might > suggest, though, that the progression from gold to silver to > water in this paragraph was intended to go from most to least > tainted.) I largely agree. I think the point of the passage was that ALL matter in Middle-earth had at least some tiny portion of the 'Morgoth ingredient'... note that water is exceptional in being ALMOST free of it. However, that is the situation with all matter... any particular subset of matter could be more or less heavily corrupted such that some water would be heavily tainted while some gold might not be especially so. > I'm still intrigued by the possibility that those few deposits > of silver that received Morgoth's special attention ("for > reasons of his own plans", as it says in that quote) _were_ what > became known as mithril. It is possible, though I have generally assumed that mithril was either an 'alchemically pure' silver or not silver at all, but another metal which looked like it. > And Celebrimor was clearly able to translate what he'd learned > from Sauron about using the 'magical' properties of gold over to > mithril when he forged Nenya. Well, the focus of the Morgoth ingredient could as easily have been in the gemstones (which all the Great Rings save the One had) or completely independent of the material the Rings were made of. > On a somewhat unrelated note, can anyone think of any examples > of "active magic" after the destruction of the One? Any > examples at all? The crystal Arwen gave to Frodo glowed and served to heal and preserve him. Very much 'real-world effects' and somewhat similar in aim to the Rings. > An interesting thought just occurred to me... I suspect I know where you are going with it - towards the idea that the destruction of the One disrupted the focus of the Morgoth ingredient in other materials and stopped 'active magic' thereafter. In that vein you might be interested in; "But the second Elessar was made also by Celebrimbor in Eregion at the request of the Lady Galadriel (whom he loved), and it was not under the One, being made before Sauron rose again." UT, History of Galadriel and Celeborn - The Elessar This implies a couple of things... that the gemstones were the focus of Sauron's control over the Rings, and that the Elves were able to create similar (but not as powerful) items before Sauron's instruction that were not bound up with the One. From that I would argue that the Elessar was a work of 'Art' and thus free of the influence of the One... but the Rings were works of 'Power', using the Morgoth ingredient to accomplish more than could be done with 'Art' alone, and thus bound by the One. ###### From: shermanlee1@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Date: 21 Sep 2001 18:45:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.206.150.199 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1001123118 26437 127.0.0.1 (22 Sep 2001 01:45:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Sep 2001 01:45:18 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52636 sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote in message news:... > I see a strong connection between the term 'magic' used here (in > quotes within the original text) and the confusion that Galadriel had > about Sam's use of that word. In particular, I think that the two > types of 'magic' in question are "Art" (of a sub-creative sort as > discussed in "On Fairy Stories" and elsewhere) and magic seeking power > over primary creation. I would suggest, incidentally, that the Elves > themselves weren't entirely aware that _every_ bit of magic that went > beyond "Art" was fundamentally akin to "the deceits of the Enemy" (or > at least, that they weren't willing to admit it even to themselves). I remain unconvinced of this thesis myself. > On a somewhat unrelated note, can anyone think of any examples of > "active magic" after the destruction of the One? Any examples at all? > An interesting thought just occurred to me... > No examples are available, since AFAIK, Tolkien never revealed much of what happened after that. The question draws a blank for lack of data. If mithril was especially tainted with the supposed "Morgoth Element", wouldn't Gandalf have been inclined to mention this? Shermanlee ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 39 Message-ID: <15Tq7.179$N4.13477@news.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1001127357 128.135.12.7 (Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:55:57 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:55:57 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: 15Tq7-32726-N4-13419@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 984ba978 020a5302 f2e3a2aa 4ab84d26 24d7ed1e Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 02:55:57 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52592 Quoth shermanlee1@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) in article : > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote: > > I would suggest, incidentally, that the Elves themselves weren't > > entirely aware that _every_ bit of magic that went beyond "Art" > > was fundamentally akin to "the deceits of the Enemy" (or at least, > > that they weren't willing to admit it even to themselves). > I remain unconvinced of this thesis myself. Okay. :) Any particular reason why? The Elves weren't _that_ perfect, after all; I'm pretty confident that I've read comments by Tolkien saying that making the Rings was on some level wrong. Moreover, he quite often spoke negatively about magic that was aimed at gaining power. Would it be that surprising if that aspect of magic were based to some degree on Morgoth's influence? > If mithril was especially tainted with the supposed "Morgoth > Element", wouldn't Gandalf have been inclined to mention this? First off, it's not a "supposed" Morgoth element: the concept is explicitly present in several of Tolkien's late texts (including the latest Silmarillion draft, as I recall) and as far as I know isn't contradicted in any of them. Unless I'm missing something, it's as trustworthy as anything else that wasn't published during Tolkien's lifetime. As for your point here, Gandalf's omission in this case may or may not be significant: he also neglected to mention that gold was especially tainted with the Morgoth element, and we _know_ that that's true. There are rather a lot of things that Gandalf didn't mention, whether because he didn't know them or because it wasn't important or useful to do so at the time. And, as I've said before, Morgoth's evil certainly had positive effects in other cases; many of the Elves' uses of the Morgoth element may have been entirely positive. Maybe in many cases, the corrupting influence of the Morgoth element was present only in the temptation to the Elves to use it too often. Steuard Jensen ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 92 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1001130466 128.135.12.7 (Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:47:46 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:47:46 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: CRTq7-33044-N4-13398@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 232366c0 38b57455 c283f99a 42d314a2 8e300178 Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 03:47:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52596 Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" in article : > "Steuard Jensen" wrote: > It is possible, though I have generally assumed that mithril was > either an 'alchemically pure' silver or not silver at all, but > another metal which looked like it. I had generally assumed something like the latter, but as I've never been entirely happy with that I'm interested in exploring other possibilities. This Morgoth element notion is intriguing, anyway. :) > > And Celebrimor was clearly able to translate what he'd learned > > from Sauron about using the 'magical' properties of gold over to > > mithril when he forged Nenya. > Well, the focus of the Morgoth ingredient could as easily have been > in the gemstones (which all the Great Rings save the One had) or > completely independent of the material the Rings were made of. Very true. On the other hand, the emphasis on gold in the relevant essay in _Morgoth's Ring_ ("Myths Transformed" Text VII(ii)) seems unlikely to have been chose at random. After explicit comparisons and contrasts between the One Ring of Sauron and Morgoth's Ring--"the whole of 'Middle-earth'"--Tolkien writes Sauron's power was not (for example) in gold as such, but in a particular form or shape made of a particular portion of total gold. Morgoth's power was disseminated throughout Gold, if nowhere absolute (for he did not create Gold) it was nowhere absent. (It was this Morgoth-element in matter, indeed, which was a prerequisite for such 'magic' and other evils as Sauron practised with it and upon it.) As with many other things, there are many possible interpretations of this. It's possible that Tolkien completely shifted gears, and after talking about the Ring(s) decided to use gold as an example without intending any direct connection between the two topics. I personally find it more likely that this whole quote was meant to apply to the Ring, in addition to its broader implications. In particular, I think that the final parenthetical remark implies a strong connection between the magic of the Ring and the gold from which it was made. Yes, the gemstones could have been contaminated as well in the Rings that had them, but I find it more likely that the basic mechanism behind the One and the other Rings was the same. > > On a somewhat unrelated note, can anyone think of any examples of > > "active magic" after the destruction of the One? > The crystal Arwen gave to Frodo glowed and served to heal and > preserve him. Very much 'real-world effects' and somewhat similar > in aim to the Rings. It served to heal and preserve him? I thought it was just a "placeholder", something akin to getting the kids a new gerbil if the old one passes away. Am I forgetting something more explicit about its "powers"? > > An interesting thought just occurred to me... > I suspect I know where you are going with it - towards the idea that > the destruction of the One disrupted the focus of the Morgoth > ingredient in other materials and stopped 'active magic' thereafter. Hey, it was an idea. :) But I'd forgotten the quote that you mention below (embarrassing, that given that I really like the Elessar essay and that I've given this quote a lot of thought in the past), and I'm not entirely certain which way its evidence points. It does sound (from the rest of this essay) like the second Elessar had "active" magical properties, so I think I'll have to give up on this particular line of thought, anyway. Ah well... the mystery of why the Rings stopped working when the One was destroyed remains perhaps the most significant missing piece in the puzzle of how exactly they worked in the first place. I'll keep thinking about it. :) > In that vein you might be interested in; > "But the second Elessar was made also by Celebrimbor in Eregion at > the request of the Lady Galadriel (whom he loved), and it was not > under the One, being made before Sauron rose again." UT, History of > Galadriel and Celeborn - The Elessar > This implies a couple of things... that the gemstones were the focus > of Sauron's control over the Rings, Where'd you get that? No offense meant, of course, but if anything I would think that this quote implied that the gemstones were _not_ the focus of Sauron's control over the Rings. Whatever allowed him to influence the Rings, the Elessar didn't have it. (That may have been more a matter of the Rings' "operating system" than of their composition, of course, but in that case this quote doesn't imply anything either way.) Steuard Jensen ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3ba5091c.8945323@news.usenet.com> Subject: Re: Is Mithril Evil? (was Re: Mithril) Lines: 117 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:39:23 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.22.250 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1001158763 12.79.22.250 (Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:39:23 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:39:23 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.72!wnfilter2!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52584 "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message news:CRTq7.183$N4.13352@news.uchicago.edu... > I personally find it more likely that this whole quote was meant > to apply to the Ring, in addition to its broader implications. Hmmm, good point. Yes, I agree that it seems likely that Tolkien was here mentioning the corruption of 'Gold' overall specifically in reference to the Ring and how Sauron was able to create it. Note however, that this speaks specifically to the One. In fact, it might even work as a good basis for another issue you mention later (see below). > Yes, the gemstones could have been contaminated as well in the > Rings that had them, but I find it more likely that the basic > mechanism behind the One and the other Rings was the same. I'm going to suggest that the use of gold was important in the One because of Sauron's purposes... but not as directly so in the other Rings. The Elves did not know precisely what they were doing when crafting the Rings. It seems unlikely to me that they were deliberately 'concentrating the Morgoth ingredient' or even that they would fail to notice it if that were how the Rings worked. I'd argue instead that they might have, under Sauron's direction, been able to use their 'Art' to tap into the Morgoth ingredient in OTHER things without really knowing what it was. > It served to heal and preserve him? I thought it was just a > "placeholder", something akin to getting the kids a new gerbil > if the old one passes away. Am I forgetting something more > explicit about its "powers"? Hmmm... I'd have to look to see if there were anything clearer, but there is at least; "'When the memory of the fear and the darkness troubles you,', she [Arwen] said, 'this [the white gem] will bring you aid.'" RotK, Many Partings Also he wore it always and would often hold it. On the anniversary of his poisoning by Shelob Farmer Cotton found him taken ill and clutching the gem. That along with Arwen's description of it always made me think it was meant for healing. > Ah well... the mystery of why the Rings stopped working when > the One was destroyed remains perhaps the most significant > missing piece in the puzzle of how exactly they worked in > the first place. Getting back to Tolkien's words about the Morgoth ingredient being particularly strong in gold and a requirement for Sauron's magic... apparently in direct reference to the Ring; couldn't this be a clue as to how the One worked? By using an item that is thoroughly imbued with the Morgoth ingredient and filling it with power Sauron gained a great measure of control over the Morgoth ingredient in all matter. The other Rings had some degree of such control through the powers of the Elves who crafted them, but would not necessarily be as heavily imbued with the Morgoth ingredient (and hence the Three were not as malign as the One or even the other Rings which Sauron captured and corrupted). Still, if the Great Rings worked by influencing the Morgoth ingredient in matter and Sauron then effectively 'took ownership' of that ingredient in creating the One it could explain why the other Rings were bound to the One >and< why they worked before the creation of the One, but not after its destruction... the 'Morgoth ingredient' was no longer just 'freely present' to be acted upon, it had been seized and concentrated with the creation of the One, and once the One was gone it was no longer accessible. > Where'd you get that? No offense meant, of course, but if > anything I would think that this quote implied that the > gemstones were _not_ the focus of Sauron's control over the > Rings. Whatever allowed him to influence the Rings, the Elessar > didn't have it. Sorry, should have explained the steps of my reasoning rather than jumping directly to the conclusion; The passage states that the Elessar was not bound by the One BECAUSE it was created during the time after the fall of Morgoth before Sauron reappeared. If such gemstones could not be bound by the One at all why would Tolkien even mention that this one was not? Why would he explain its freedom through the time it was created rather than just by its nature? The implication seems to be that Tolkien thought this gemstone COULD have been under the control of the One if it had been created using knowledge that the Elves gained from Sauron... even though it wasn't a Ring at all. Hence, the form of the object might not be that important or the gemstones in the Rings would seem to be the focal points. Your quotation about gold applies to the One, but it was a different matter... a clear and obvious concentration of the Morgoth ingredient whereas the other Great Rings could not be so blatantly imbued or the Elves would have likely noticed something. The purpose of the Elessar was essentially the same as the Three, and indeed it could be considered a 'partial blueprint' for them. The difference being that Sauron's knowledge (most likely of how to manipulate the Morgoth ingredient) gave the Rings much greater power. Tolkien seems to imply that had Celebrimbor known those secrets at the time he could have made the Elessar in the same form, but with greater power and bound to the One. On the 'gemstones = focus' argument also note that the most notable feature of the construction of the 'lesser Rings' is that they did NOT have gemstones - further suggesting to me that it is the gems which are the focus of the power and the link through which the Rings are controlled (though if Sauron could control the lesser Rings, of which we probably know too little to judge, that might imply that the round metal portion was the source of the vulnerability and the gemstone portion was the source of the potency - except in the One which came by it in another way).