Elrond and Cirdan - ulterior motive?

Hi Lincoln,

I agree with you that the most obvious readings of TLOTR indicate that Gandalf or Elrond or Glorfindel would not resist the temptation of the Ring. Also, that they themselves believe this to be correct.

I think that, later on, (after having published) this began to bother Tolkien. He increasingly (it seems to me) didn't like it that the Ring seemingly had an inevitable corruptive power. I think he did not think this fit very well with Catholic doctrines of free will. I don't think he would have had the same trouble if Elrond, Gandalf, or Glorfindel had doubted their ability to resist the temptation to ending suffering through power (even knowing the corruptive dangers). That would have just been the well known story of beings falling into temptation. However, TLOTR reads as though the Ring itself can enslave people, even without such temptations. Frodo has no real ambitions to use the Ring for any particular purpose. He does not really claim the Ring on Mt. Doom due to falling into temptation. It is more like the Ring just takes him over and enslaves him to preserve itself.

I think that Tolkien had problems integrating his work of art with his Catholic beliefs in this regard.
 
Interesting point, Flammifer. I suppose the way I've always rationalized it in my head is that the Ring seems to calibrate its temptations to its potential bearers (I realize I'm ascribing more intentionality to the Ring than we have precedent for; I want to emphasize that I'm speaking metaphorically). With Hobbits and Hobbit-like creatures, and interestingly with Isildur, it presents itself primarily as a beautiful treasure to possess, and secondarily as a highly useful treasure in some cases. Both Boromir and Galadriel - in different ways - it promises glory, and the opportunity to rule over a new golden age. To Saruman, it offers wisdom and enlightened leadership. To the more humble Faramir, it casts itself as the agent of Gondor's salvation. To Gandalf, we can infer, it promises the ability to help the weak and end their suffering. We don't know what temptations would be most likely to move Elrond or Glorfindel (perhaps something akin to Gandalf, perhaps something else), but I always figured they must have some lever the Ring could pull if entrusted to their care.

The only person in the trilogy truly immune to the Ring's seduction is Tom Bombadil (perhaps Goldberry as well), because he's completely carefree and lacking in ambition. As we'll see in several pages, or about 4-6 months, this is a handicap as well as an asset, as it means he'd be useless as a Ring guardian; I think this complication to Tom is an important insight on Tolkien's part.

Another great insight is how most or all of the Ring's temptations are cast in the best possible light. So often, people are drawn into committing evil by good intent. The Ring could be used to do so much good: but the power it wields is the power to dominate and enslave others - "One Ring to rule them all" - and is therefore inherently evil. And as Martin Luther King Jr. observed: "the end is preexistent in the means, and, ultimately, destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends."
 
I've never read Frodo's ultimate failure as the Ring simply taking over for self-preservation.
It always seemed to me that the final capitulation was exactly that: Frodo choosing (Free Will) to not destroy the Ring. He certainly suffered through relentless assaults upon his will, and as such I feel that if the Ring had the power to simply take over it would have done so earlier than this point.

Frodo's success as a Ringbearer (and failure as a Ring destroyer) was that he was only powerful enough to resist all the way to the Cracks of Doom, and he appears to have been humble enough that temptation always seemed to be in the direction of survival, rather than exercise of power. Of course, we only have his word for that, as he wrote the account and was free to excise anything he didn't want to include.

I don't see a conflict with Catholic thinking in regard to the behaviour of the One (with it filling a similar role to Satan in regards to being a tempter).
The Nine might have been problematic, but only if they weren't handed out to ambitious, grasping men who were more than happy to submit to the evil of Sauron in exchange for power.
 
Hi Anthony,

It definitely could be read as the Ring tempting Frodo to not destroy it, and Frodo choosing that through free will. That would certainly be one explanation. However, we don't get any of those Ring induced rationalization monologues when he does claim it. Also, we don't really see any strong motivation from within Frodo himself to claim it. Why? If it has become too 'precious' for him to destroy, that seems more like Ring induced enslavement of Frodo's will, or, perhaps, Ring induced addiction, more than something that Frodo would consciously want.

It is the lack of any rationale for Frodo to claim the Ring, other perhaps than that possessive bond which seems to have existed between the Ring and Frodo, (and the Ring and Bilbo), since early in the story, which makes me wonder whether Frodo is acting under free will. That bond itself seems more Ring induced, than Ring tempted.

Frodo himself blames the Ring, when he snatches it from Sam in the tower of Cirith Ungol, "Forgive me! After all that you have done. It is the horrible power of the Ring. I wish it had never never been found."

This does not sound like Frodo having been tempted to covet the Ring. Frodo at least, thinks that it is the power of the Ring which compels him to covet it.
 
I would add that, according to the Catholic philosophical tradition, a choice made under such circumstances cannot be called absolutely free. Freedom is understood as relative to proximity to the Ultimate Good--that is, to God. The closer we are to Him, and to an understanding of his nature, the more often we will choose him. To do otherwise is to be the opposite of free. To quote Aquinas: Freedom “is by its nature ordered to the good, and tends to evil only by defect.” Freedom is not to hold both good and evil in opposite hands, and let our whims dictate preference. So, according to this tradition, it's a logical impossibility for Frodo to freely claim the Ring.

All of which is to say, the Ring tempting Frodo--rendering his freedom "defective"--does not contradict Catholic orthodoxy, to my understanding.
 
Last edited:
Hi Beech27,

If the Ring is tempting Frodo, then I agree that this does not contradict Catholic orthodoxy.

What if the Ring is not tempting Frodo, but compelling him?

I think that the passage at the Crack of Doom can be read either way. We get no explanation in this passage as to why Frodo decides to claim the Ring rather than destroy it. We know (from 'Sauron Defeated' in THOME) that Tolkien at one time drafted this scene with an explanation which involved Frodo deciding to seek power and domination, but this was rejected in the final version.

If we don't get any explanation in the passage, but we want to figure out WHY Frodo claims the Ring (a fairly central event in the book), then, it seems to me that all we have to go on is what we know about Frodo and the Ring from earlier in the book.

We have almost never seen any evidence that Frodo is tempted, or could be tempted to claim the Ring in order to get power and domination. The closest he comes to that is when he thrice threatens to use the Ring to dominate Gollum, once outside the Black Gate, after Smeagol has begged Frodo to give him back the Ring rather than take it into Mordor, again, at the pool in Henneth Annum, to get Smeagol to leave his fish and come, so he would not be shot by the Rangers, and finally, on the slopes of Mt. Doom, occasioned by Gollum attacking and trying to seize the Ring. Grander temptations of power and dominance would be quite alien to anything we have seen of Frodo so far. When Frodo has put on the Ring, or been tempted to put on the Ring, his usual temptation, or impulse, is to hide or escape, not to dominate.

The main effect of the Ring on Frodo (and on Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo, before him, and even to Sam) is to make itself 'precious' to its holder. Frodo's possessiveness towards the Ring seems to grow over time. It starts early. In Bag End, when Frodo hands the Ring to Gandalf, "slowly....It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it." Frodo does hand the Ring "at once", to Tom Bombadil, but he did it, "to his own astonishment", as though he was surprised at how uninhibited he felt in doing so. Frodo offers the Ring freely to Galadriel, but we don't know how readily he would have gone through with his offer had she accepted. Then he resists giving the Ring to Boromir, though more because it is a bad idea than through possessiveness.

However, his threat to dominate Gollum with the Ring, though couched in concern for Gollum's 'danger', may be indicative of growing possessiveness. "But I warn you, Smeagol, you are in danger.... Give it back to Smeagol you said. Do not say that again!... The desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Smeagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command." Frodo calling the Ring 'The Precious', even in imitation of Gollum, may also indicate that he is beginning to think of it that way himself. If the Ring could 'master' Gollum, why couldn't it 'master' Frodo as well?

Then, we have the passage in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, between Frodo and Sam. Even Sam feels a touch of possessiveness towards the Ring. "Now it had come to it, Sam felt reluctant to give up the Ring...", which he rationalizes (in a 'Ring induced rationalization' kind of way) as, "...and burden his master with it again."

Frodo's response seems to indicate that possessiveness towards the Ring has him firmly in its grip. "'You've got it?' gasped Frodo. 'You've got it here? Sam, you're a marvel!' Then quickly and strangely his tone changed. 'Give it to me!' he cried, standing up, holding out a trembling hand. 'Give it to me at once! You can't have it!'" Sam replies, "...'If it's too hard a job, I could share it with you, maybe?'" "'No, no!', cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's hands. 'No you won't, you thief!'"

So, WHY does Frodo say, "I will not do this deed," at the Crack of Doom?

I think the most supported readlng is because the Ring has become too 'Precious' for him to destroy. (Though a case could be made for Frodo being tempted and corrupted into a desire for domination through his three threats to Gollum). Frodo groped for the tongs to fish the Ring out of his little fire in Bag End, after Gandalf threw it in. Is he really capable of throwing the Ring into the Fires of Doom now, when the possessiveness has grown much greater?

But, is Frodo tempted to feel possessive of and protective towards the Ring. Or, does the Ring compel its holders to feel possessive of it?

We can read Frodo's refusal to destroy the Ring as caused by the temptation to possess it, or by the compulsion to possess it. When Frodo says, "The Ring is mine", is Frodo claiming the Ring, or is the Ring claiming Frodo?


 
Hi Flammifer,

I think a valid counterpoint here is Bilbo's behaviour in the Hall of Fire, where we are given a view of the effect of the Ring on its bearer.
We (through Bilbo and the narrative) can see how the Ring messes with one's perception to make one's choice seem justified.

After all, if you are approaching the edge of a cliff and something has twisted your perception such that you don't see it, it could be argued that you were compelled to commit suicide, or it could be said that you chose to jump.
The facts don't change, only the perspective and the conclusion.

Bringing this back to Frodo at the Cracks of Doom, we must also consider that before the end the Ring essentially becomes his whole existence.
Just after the fall of the Witch-King we get this:
‘Well no, not much, Sam,’ Frodo sighed. ‘That’s away beyond the mountains. We’re going east not west. And I’m so tired. And the Ring is so heavy, Sam. And I begin to see it in my mind all the time, like a great wheel of fire.’
Click to expand...
and then before the final ascent of Mount Doom:
‘Do you remember that bit of rabbit, Mr. Frodo?’ he said. ‘And our place under the warm bank in Captain Faramir’s country, the day I saw an oliphaunt?’
‘No, I am afraid not, Sam,’ said Frodo. ‘At least, I know that such things happened, but I cannot see them. No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark. Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.’
Click to expand...
In this context the choice becomes less intellectual ('I choose to attempt dominance') and more externally directed ('I choose not to end the only existence that I now perceive') and yet not what I would describe as compulsion ('You will not destroy me, and here's your script')

There is a fine line here between denial of choice and subversion of choice, and the latter can look like the former from a certain perspective.
 
Hi Anthony,

I think your post brings up a few other possible hypotheses. The effect of the Ring on Frodo could be like an addiction (rather than a temptation or compulsion). It could also be like a personality destroying disease or drug (somewhat like Alzheimer's).

If we saw the possessiveness engendered by the Ring as an addiction, then it could be somewhat akin (morally) to a compulsion, in that Frodo was not tempted to bear the Ring by any short term rewards (such as might be evidenced by opiates, alcohol, or nicotine, for example). He bore the Ring out of duty. If we saw the Ring as 'addictive', it would be hard to see Frodo making a morally corrupt 'choice' to seek the rewards while risking the addiction, as, he obviously saw no rewards from bearing the Ring. Likewise, if an addiction, it would be through the inescapable effect of the Ring, rather than through 'temptation'.

If we saw the effect of the Ring like some sort of personality altering or destroying disease, this also would not be as a result of 'temptation'.

So, although Frodo's statements, at the Cracks of Doom, sound like he is making a 'free will' choice to claim the Ring, there are several possible readings which could indicate otherwise.

It is fascinating that Tolkien left the question of why Frodo claims the Ring so unexplained. (Especially when we know that he rejected an earlier draft that did explain it. These ambiguities are part of what makes the book so great, I guess).

I can see valid evidence to support all of these readings (temptation, compulsion, addiction, mental disintegration/personality takeover/possession), and am not at all certain that any one is better supported than the others.

Which readings might be better suppositions partly depends on an interpretation of how much 'agency' the Ring has. Which is also a difficult question.

I guess it will be interesting to see how Prof Olsen and the class deal with these questions when we finally get there.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that viewing the Ring like an addiction removes the choice component. It certainly makes giving in to the addiction an easier choice than rejecting it, but it doesn't completely remove the choice, or the responsibility for that choice.
 
Hi JJ48,

Some addictions come as the result of a choice. Some people might choose the short term effects of say drugs, alcohol, or nicotine, risking the possibility of addiction, and that might be a free will choice for which some moral culpability could be assigned, if addiction resulted.

However, there are no short term tempting effects of bearing the Ring, that effect Frodo. He does not see any benefits from bearing the Ring (to himself). So, it is hard to see him being tempted into addiction.

Also, people who choose to smoke, drink, or do drugs, do so knowing that these substances can possibly cause addiction. When Frodo starts bearing the Ring, neither he, nor anyone else, has any real idea that the Ring might be addictive (assuming that it is).

If the question is whether it is possible to resist addiction, well, sometimes yes, and sometimes no. The Ring, however, if addictive, might be so surreptitiously addictive and extremely addictive that it is not physiologically or psychologically possible to reject it.

So, I think in the context of Frodo, the Ring, and TLOTR, it is possible that the Ring could be addictive in a way that removes the choice component.

There seem to me to be three compulsive ways in which the Ring could be acting that might over-ride Frodo's free will. They overlap a bit:

1. Compulsion: A limited command that over-rides Frodo's will. Such as, "I am precious. You cannot destroy me."

2. Addiction: A creeping control which results in something like; "I have become an integral part of you. We cannot be separated."

3. Possession: "I have taken you over. You are my puppet and slave."

Of course, for any of these to be what is happening, the Ring would need to have considerable power (which we know it does), and a varying degree of 'agency' (perhaps less for addiction, somewhat more for compulsion, lots for possession), which is a lot less certain.
 
Boethius.

I'm an alcoholic. I've been sans alcohol for seven years now. Speaking from personal experience, with cigarettes, alcohol, etc., in the end one has to make the choice to live without them. To do the things you enjoy that you mistakenly thought couldn't enjoy without them. Alcoholism is very prevalent in my family history on both my mother and father's side, so, one could say I am genetically more inclined to have an addictive personality (which I do) but in the end it is my choices that determine my outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top