That The Ring Changes Size

[Arnthro]

I do not remember when or who brought up the notion but in one of the recent classes someone was wondering why Sauron would imbed this ability of size changing into the One Ring.

Would it be simply that because within Sauron's abilities himself is the changing of appearance (size and shape, etc.) therefor the Ring would adopt that attribute?
Even if Sauron didn't actually intend this function of size changing to be imbued in the Ring, the fact that Sauron's being is part of the Ring's forging may simply make it so.
Just a thought.

 

[Jim Deutch]

Would it be simply that because within Sauron's abilities himself is the changing of appearance (size and shape, etc.) therefor the Ring would adopt that attribute?

Sauron lost that ability in the downfall of Numenor, but that was after his crafting of the One Ring. I think you're on to something! Why and how this ability to expand turned into a trickiness with falling off a finger where it had been tight might be interesting to think about. Bilbo complained of it, and it led directly to Isildur's death.

Was it all Providence? Isildur's death may have saved him from a worse fate (though "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" indicates that he was ready by then to give up the Ring to the Wise). And perhaps Gollum's loss of the Ring happened by it slipping off his finger (though I don't think we're ever told). All "as it was meant to be"?

Or was it all the Ring's own malignity? Gandalf suggests that it left Gollum of its own accord, hoping for a better host, and that the Providence was all in Bilbo's unlikely finding of it. I think tDotGF also suggested that the Ring itself betrayed Isildur, though it's not clear if that was meant literally or metaphorically. Just how much sentience to attribute to the Ring is an ongoing question (I lean towards "almost none").

 

[Arnthro]

Yeah! I was thinking about how Sauron lost that ability but I decided not to mention it because I wasn't sure if the ability lost was more along the lines of not being able to look pleasant (thus easier to deceive), essentially becoming always evil and dark looking.....
I suppose one could make the case that from Sauron with the Ring then to the Necromancer at Dol Guldur and then to the Eye that Sauron still has the ability to change form and appearance, perhaps with more restrictions and less control over the ability but still a changing of forms nonetheless, as he is trying to regain his strength.

 

[amysrevenge]

Well, as a fat guy who has only fattened in the last decade, I can tell you that you don't need magical shapeshifting powers in order for you to need a resized ring. I had to get my iron ring replaced a year or two back because the one I had didn't fit so good anymore.

On a more practical note - as someone who has regularly worn an unexpected number and variety of rings on various fingers, if I was making a pile of magic rings without having any magic ring bearers specifically in mind and therefore without having any specific diameters to go for, "resizing to fit the owner" would be slightly above "invisibility" and slightly below "immortality" on my list of desired abilities.

 

[Forodan]

Yeah! I was thinking about how Sauron lost that ability but I decided not to mention it because I wasn't sure if the ability lost was more along the lines of not being able to look pleasant (thus easier to deceive), essentially becoming always evil and dark looking.....
I suppose one could make the case that from Sauron with the Ring then to the Necromancer at Dol Guldur and then to the Eye that Sauron still has the ability to change form and appearance, perhaps with more restrictions and less control over the ability but still a changing of forms nonetheless, as he is trying to regain his strength.

The Akallabeth in the Silmarillion says he lost the ability to assume a fair form, but it doesn't say he lost all ability to shape-change. Still, it was Christopher Tolkien, not JRR himself, who had final approval on that passage. So it's not as canonical as something in LotR or the Letters.

But Sauron was not of mortal flesh, and though he was robbed now of that shape in which he had wrought so great an evil, so that he could never again appear fair to the eyes of Men, yet his spirit arose out of the deep and passed as a shadow and a black wind over the sea, and came back to Middle-earth and to Mordor that was his home. There he took up again his great Ring in Barad-dûr, and dwelt there, dark and silent, until he wrought himself a new guise, an image of malice and hatred made visible; and the Eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure.

Interesting note: The implication of this passage "he took up again his great Ring in Barad-dûr" is that he left it behind when he traveled to Numenor. Could that have been Christopher trying to cover a potential plot hole?

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Putting the movies aside, where is it stated that the Eye is physical form and not just a metaphorical label?

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Anthony,

I'm not sure that the Eye of Sauron is just a metaphorical label? It is certainly perceptible. It is what Frodo sees when he looks into the Mirror of Galadriel. Though interestingly, Pippin, when confronted by Sauron in the Palantir, does not perceive an eye, but a 'him'. "He just looked, and I understood." So Pippin does not mention the Eye as his perception of Sauron, though he does mention the look.

Sauron's eye seems to be one of the ways in which he projects his power (as per his 'look' at Pippin) and his perception (As when Frodo claims the Ring on Mt. Doom, "The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made.")

Sauron's Eye, is of course, also metaphorical, and used as a symbol of Sauron, as in the fiery eye emblem worn by his Orcs.

However, I think the Eye is more than metaphor. It can be perceived. It has at least a perceptual reality. I don't think that there is a physical fiery eye sitting atop the tower at Barad-dur, but I do think that Sauron's own eyes (in whatever form of being he is encased) are significant to his means of magical perception and power. Those who encounter him seem to regard his eyes or look as a highly significant feature. Thus, it is not surprising that his symbol is an eye, and that Frodo perceives him as an Eye?

 

[Forodan]

Putting the movies aside, where is it stated that the Eye is physical form and not just a metaphorical label?

Frodo's vision in Galadriel's Mirror is clearly a metaphor. Sauron has a relatively normal body, however terrible his eyes may be. Gollum has met him in person and says he is missing a finger in "The Black Gate is Closed". Which is rather interesting, since clearly Sauron has the ability to form a completely new body after being killed. He is apparently subject to 'traumatic' injuries that stick with him through shape changes. But then Morgoth had the same problem...

“Tales out of the South,” Gollum went on again, “about the tall Men with the shining eyes, and their houses like hills of stone, and the silver crown of their King and his White Tree, wonderful tales. They built very tall towers, and one they raised was silver white, and in it there was a stone like the Moon, and round it were great white walls. O yes, there were many tales about the Tower of the Moon.”
“That would be Minas Ithil that Isildur the son of Elendil built,” said Frodo, “It was Isildur who cut off the finger of the Enemy.”
“Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough,” said Gollum shuddering. “And He hated Isildur’s city.”
“What does he not hate?” said Frodo, “But what has the Tower of the Moon to do with us?”

And Tolkien confirms this in the Letters. #246...

Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Forodan,

I suggest that Frodo's vision is not exactly a metaphor.

A 'metaphor' is a figure of speech that refers to one thing by mentioning another. Frodo does not use 'metaphor' to relate what he sees in Galadriel's mirror. He actually sees a fiery EYE. "In the black abyss there appeared a single Eye that slowly grew until it filled nearly all the mirror.... The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of it's pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing."

Frodo is not using metaphor here. He is describing what he actually saw in the mirror of Galadriel. This is perception, not a figure of speech or a rhetorical device.

True, Sauron himself is not exactly a fiery Eye. But that is how Frodo perceives his will in the mirror. That is not exactly 'metaphor'.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

I'd suggest that the Mirror is speaking in metaphor here, but that's incomplete as Galadriel also refers to 'the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine.' So I guess what Frodo sees in the Mirror is Galadriel's metaphor made into an image.

This makes a certain sense, as it is Galadriel's Mirror and Sauron is searching and seeking for her too.

Edit: Another data point is Bilbo describing the Ring in Book 1 Ch1: 'Sometimes I have felt it was like an eye looking at me.'

 

[Arnthro]

Putting the movies aside, where is it stated that the Eye is physical form and not just a metaphorical label?

I'm glad you brought this up because even though I read the books before I saw the movies I sometimes get my mind caught in the imagery from the movie interpretations.

Though I will stand by my suggestion that based on what I read of Sauron in the Silmarillion (without taking the time to find the quotes because I have a toddler to look after at the moment) that the Ring adopted Sauron's ability to change appearance/form because the Ring is forged with Sauron's soul/essence/etc.

 

[Jim Deutch]

The implication of this passage "he took up again his great Ring in Barad-dûr" is that he left it behind when he traveled to Numenor.

In Tolkien's Letters, #211 indicates that Sauron did take the Ring to Numenor, and goes on to say we need not boggle at the idea of his spirit carrying the physical Ring back to Barad-Dur. Of course, I do boggle, but that's what the letter says!

"Though reduced to a 'spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of domination minds now largely depended."

As a Maia, Sauron would naturally be able to interact with the physical world of Ea without requiring a physical body to do so: that's how they formed Arda in the first place, only later taking on the "raiment" of physical bodies. I suppose that's why JRRT says we shouldn't boggle. But nobody who hasn't read The Silmarillion would have any idea of that!

 

[Forodan]

Hi Forodan,

I suggest that Frodo's vision is not exactly a metaphor.

A 'metaphor' is a figure of speech that refers to one thing by mentioning another. Frodo does not use 'metaphor' to relate what he sees in Galadriel's mirror. He actually sees a fiery EYE. "In the black abyss there appeared a single Eye that slowly grew until it filled nearly all the mirror.... The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of it's pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing."

Frodo is not using metaphor here. He is describing what he actually saw in the mirror of Galadriel. This is perception, not a figure of speech or a rhetorical device.

True, Sauron himself is not exactly a fiery Eye. But that is how Frodo perceives his will in the mirror. That is not exactly 'metaphor'.

A 'metaphor' is a figure of speech that refers to one thing by mentioning another.

Yes, it is a Greek word, meta-phoros -- "meta" is "beyond" and "phoros" is "carrying", the extending (carrying) of a meaning beyond its usual context.

It can apply to words, or to other media. One thing can be implied by representing it with another. There is such a thing as a visual metaphor. We use them constantly in our "Graphical User Interfaces" on digital devices. The concept of metaphor has long since been 'carried beyond' the sense of mere words. Merriam-Webster has "an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor" as meaning #2. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor)

Since Sauron is not physically a huge eye, it would need a pretty abstruse point to make the difference between lexical and visual metaphors important enough to call Frodo's vision something other than a metaphor.

 

[Flammifer]

A 'metaphor' is a figure of speech that refers to one thing by mentioning another.

Yes, it is a Greek word, meta-phoros -- "meta" is "beyond" and "phoros" is "carrying", the extending (carrying) of a meaning beyond its usual context.

It can apply to words, or to other media. One thing can be implied by representing it with another. There is such a thing as a visual metaphor. We use them constantly in our "Graphical User Interfaces" on digital devices. The concept of metaphor has long since been 'carried beyond' the sense of mere words. Merriam-Webster has "an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor" as meaning #2. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor)

Since Sauron is not physically a huge eye, it would need a pretty abstruse point to make the difference between lexical and visual metaphors important enough to call Frodo's vision something other than a metaphor.

Yes, Forodan, The Eye could be a metaphor. But it also might not. (Which is why I said it is not exactly a metaphor). If the Eye is symbolic of something else, for example, symbolic of Sauron, which it might be when used on the shields of Sauron's orcs, then it might be a metaphor.

However, this is not clear. When Frodo sees the Eye in the Mirror of Galadriel, is this a metaphor for Sauron? Is this actually Sauron's real eye? (We assume he has eyes, regardless of what his entire form might be.) (Also, there is not - that I can recall - in TLOTR, any suggestion that the Eye is huge.) Is this a metaphor for Saurons will? Is it a metaphor for Sauron's perception?

Really, a metaphor should be using something to describe something else. As in, 'he was the black sheep of the family', or as in a picture of a chain used as a visual metaphor for strength, or a strong connection. Using part of something, to describe the whole thing might not be exactly a metaphor. A picture of the head of a horse, I suggest, is not exactly a metaphor for the whole horse, even though the observer thinks 'horse'. Just like a passport photo of someone's face is not really a metaphor for the person. It is just a (partial) representation.

So, while it is possible that the Eye that Frodo sees is a metaphor for Sauron, it is also possible that it is just a partial representation of Sauron. Perhaps even a dramatized partial representation of Sauron (if we were to conjecture - on no evidence - that Saurons real eye would not be 'rimmed with fire'.)

I guess another way to consider whether the Eye is a metaphor, is to turn the visual into verbal and see if it flies? If we said, 'their love was an anchor chain', that would be a metaphor that compared one thing to another and made sense. If we said, 'Dave was an eye', would anyone know what that was supposed to mean? So, if we said, 'Sauron was an eye', would it make any more sense?

Not all symbolic representations of something else are metaphors. Suppose there was a knight, Sir Sydney Hightower, who's heraldic device on his shield, and on the surcoats of his retainers was a tall tower. Would that be a metaphor? Probably not. It would just be a visual literal interpretation of his name.

We guess that Sauron has eyes. We understand, from Pippin, that they have an impressive and powerful effect (the look). The fact that an eye is symbolic of Sauron for his orcs, does not necessitate it being a metaphor. It could be just representative of one of his distinguishing features.

So, I am not sure that the Eye is a metaphor.

 

[amysrevenge]

Synecdoche is where the part represents the whole. So Sauron being represented by just his (actual) eye would be that. Sauron being represented by the symbol of an eye would be a metaphor.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi amysrevenge,

Would the symbol of an eye on the shields of the orcs necessarily be a metaphor? A passport photo of someone's face is not the actual face, but I don't think most would say that the passport photo is a metaphor for the person. It is just a partial representation of the person.

If a child draws a picture of her mommy, and the picture is a circle with a squiggle of yellow circles on top, and the child is drawing mommy's curly blond hair as a prominent identifying feature, is the picture a metaphor of Mommy? No. The picture is a representation of Mommy.

For something to be a metaphor, something different has to be used to signify something else. Using a part of something to represent the thing is not a metaphor. (Apparently it is a synecdoche).

If the Orcs use a picture of Sauron's eye on their shields to identify themselves as Sauron's troops, is that a metaphor? No. No more than if they drew a picture of all of Sauron (whatever he might look like) on their shields.

I suspect that Sauron's Eye is one of his very notable and identifying features. Therefor, the EYE is not a metaphor for Sauron. It is a synecdochal partial representation of Sauron.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Actually, I'd suggest that Sauron's actual eye is also a metaphor, as his physical being is not one with his essential being. He can (or at least could) slough or change his physical form at will without it reducing his being at all. Theoretically, he could (and may have) taken on a physical form that did not include eyes, and yet still be able to 'see'.

More important here is the context. Frodo reports what he sees in Galadriel's Mirror, not what he sees directly in the physical world. This introduces a filter that must not be ignored. I posit that this filter is Galadriel's perception of things, which may at times be metaphorical. Sauron seeks her but does not find her. In that context Sauron is the Eye (metaphor), not just something with eyes.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Anthony,

Good thoughts, but, remember. we have two visions of Sauron. One by Frodo in Galadriel's mirror, and one by Pippin in the Palantir.

From Pippin's vision we can assume that Sauron has eyes, as Pippin clearly reports Sauron's compelling 'look'. We can also assume that Sauron does not appear to Pippin as one fiery Eye. He sees Sauron as 'him' not as 'eye'.

So, true, that when Frodo sees Sauron as EYE in Galadriel's mirror, this might be metaphor. However, it might also be Sauron's eye. Thus synecdoche, rather than metaphor.