Tolkien General Discussion II

[Ngugi]

@ Mhaedros & Gr1m'

However appealing it might seem it has no support in lore. The only Dwarven kings are those who is a head of an entire House.
Belegost, Nogrod and Khazad-dûm had a king, each the "capital" mansion of their House, and then after Khazad-dûm turned into Moria the only king among Durin's Folk is the same royal line while no king of either Friebeard or Broadbeams are recorded among their folks after their mansions fall.
Nowhere any Dwarven lord or chieftain (and there are many of those) take up the title King unless they are the king of a House. Not even the "rogue" Petty Dwarves are hinted to ever had one.

[Gr1m_4c3]

@ Mhaedros & Gr1m'

However appealing it might seem it has no support in lore. The only Dwarven kings are those who is a head of an entire House.
Belegost, Nogrod and Khazad-dûm had a king, each the "capital" mansion of their House, and then after Khazad-dûm turned into Moria the only king among Durin's Folk is the same royal line while no king of either Friebeard or Broadbeams are recorded among their folks after their mansions fall.
Nowhere any Dwarven lord or chieftain (and there are many of those) take up the title King unless they are the king of a House. Not even the "rogue" Petty Dwarves are hinted to ever had one.

I guess the logic of such a role kind of depends on what you hold as true canon to Middle-Earth. If we go by the Seven Rings to Seven Kings rule, then strictly speaking there still needs to be kings for each house. If, however, we use seven Dwarf-Lords, then obviously the dynamic for who recieves the rings and why changes immensely.

I probably didn't make myself clear on this point, but if (keyword) the rings were given to Dwarven kings, then yes, I would argue the Firebeards and Broadbeams still had a king of sorts, though it would be an honorific title of little consequence, and thus unworthy of mention in the history of Khazad-Dum.

[smoesville]

Even Thorin did not claim the title of king until he had a kingdom to rule (however briefly). I believe to dwarves a king is more than just a ruler unlike for Men, hence the fact Balin was Lord of Moria, it was probably inconceivable for him to usurp the god given title of king (though not mentioned i'm pretty sure the dwarves were as religious as the most pious in Númenore since they were taught how to work metal and stone by a god it was probably like a form of prayer in a way).

[Ngugi]

I concur on that, well put; the matter simply comse down to weither we should read that it was Kings who got the rings or lords, and that "kings" in such case is simply "an easy way of putting it" hehe.

Perhaps the king of the Firebeards and the king of the Boradbeams was simply to unimportant, either themselves living in the realm of Durin's Folk or with their people doing so making them unimportant being reason tehy are not recorded in history; which on the other hand make it wierd that Sauron would given them a Ring, and mroe plausauble he'd given more Rings to more important royal families of otehr Houses, ironically ^^

[Gr1m_4c3]

I concur on that, well put; the matter simply comse down to weither we should read that it was Kings who got the rings or lords, and that "kings" in such case is simply "an easy way of putting it" hehe.

Perhaps the king of the Firebeards and the king of the Boradbeams was simply to unimportant, either themselves living in the realm of Durin's Folk or with their people doing so making them unimportant being reason tehy are not recorded in history; which on the other hand make it wierd that Sauron would given them a Ring, and mroe plausauble he'd given more Rings to more important royal families of otehr Houses, ironically ^^

Alright, next step then. Kings or Lords? (Feel free to raise a new argument if you want btw, I'm just finding this discussion really fascinating )

Obviously the quotes boil down to the following two lines, both of which are from the very same chapter, no less:

Seven the Dwarf-kings possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons have consumed - Gandalf

Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their hall of stone,

Now, at face value, the canonical value of these lines is difficult to argue. But, if we look at the context of these lines, it becomes a little more clear.

Gandalf's quote is delivered as factual, expositional information. It's important to note that it is not delivered in a speculative matter , nor is it a fact that is disputed (to my knowledge) at any other point by anyone in the story. On the other hand, the Elven-verse in the Black Speech is rhythmic structure/meter - it's artistic language, in which creative liberties are taken. Obviously, repeating the word 'king' in two consecutive lines is kind of a no-no, so a bit of wordplay in that case seems convenient. Furthermore, consider the fact that there are seven Rings of Power given to the Dwarves, and seven distinct houses of the Dwarves. Is this a coincidence? It seems very convenient. Tolkien probably wanted to keep the number of the rings of power for each race an odd number, but why seven exactly? After all, there are no five rings (though the numerology is interesting, five Istari? Definately something worth looking into IMO).

Of course we'd have to look back into the creative development of the Dwarven houses and the development of the lore surrounding the Rings of Power...and I don't have access to the expanded notes, so there's only so much input I can give on that. Still, it seems very convenient that there just so happens to be seven rings for the seven kings.

Still, why Dwarf Kings and not Dwarf-lords? Surely a simple conflicting line isn't all we have to go on? Let's look at the other rings for a moment, where again we have somewhat conflicting information on the distribution of the Nine:

...Kings, sorcerers and warriors of old...

...te shapes became terribly clear. He was able to see beneath their black wrappings. There were five tall figures: two standing on the lip of the dell, three advancing. In their white faces burned keen and merciless eyes; under their mantles were long grey robes; upon their grey hairs were helms of silver; in their haggard hands were swords of steel...

..Two of the figures halted. The third was taller than the others: his hair was long and gleaming and on his helm was a crown.

Again, I could be missing something (in fact I have a niggling suspicion that I've missed something in the appendices that will blow this argument apart entirely), but I quoted a Knife in the Dark for a very important reason - the Nazgul, save the Witch-King, do not wear crowns. This is important when you put it in relation with the quote from the Silmarillion, because suddenly there seems to be no conclusive evidence (despite the movies making us believe otherwise and playing a trick on our memories - and I admit it got me too ) that the Nine were given to only kings. If the Nine were given to kings only, then we could extrapolate that despite the prose, Sauron only gave rings of power to the kings each race, and thus the Seven would be distributed amongst the Seven Houses, as they would be the only dwarven kings to account for in Middle-Earth at the time (at least, that we can logically imagine based on Tolkien's writings)

Instead, we have a clear picture that Sauron did not seek to corrupt only rulers, but perhaps instead he sought the greatest and strongest examples of each race that he could find, in which case of course he would ignore the crippled houses of the Firebeards and the Broadbeams in favour of mightier members of more prosperous houses. Remember as well that Sauron intended to corrupt the Dwarves in the same way as he did with Men but failed in that regard, producing only instead a lust for prosperity and wealth.

Of course, the information I've given here is only what I could find on really short notice, so forgive me if I missed anything, or made too many logic leaps here, but ultimately the point of this is mainly to outline both sides of the discussions to establish a good jumping-off point for the inevitable response. Personal opinion? The numerology just seems incredibly convenient, and again, niggling suspicion that I missed something regarding the Nine being kings is really bothering me, so personally I'll put my vote down for the Seven being given to the head of each house of Dwarves.

Which means I'll probably be wrong.

[smoesville]

I can't recall but does it actually mention how many rings Sauron recovered of the Dwarves?I have the number three in my head but i don't know where it came from

[Feanaro Curufinwe]

I can't recall but does it actually mention how many rings Sauron recovered of the Dwarves?I have the number three in my head but i don't know where it came from

It's from Gloin informing the Council of Elrond of Sauron's offer to Dain, most probably.

[Ngugi]

3, including Durin's, while 4 were destroyed

[smoesville]

So it can be taken as given that some of those would have been from the East. I know it's probably not written but could all three be from the West? I really have problems reconciling the history we know and some of the facts about the dwarves. Is it possible that there are more kingdoms in the East (like the Iron Hills and the Lonely Mountain) and perhaps they are less precious of the title in the East.

Mostly though i agree with Ngugi, it's poetic licence (Tolkien likes sevens) and likely as not it's the lords of each house rather than an actual king so in answer to your original question; give them the ring if you like, there really isn't any lore for or against though i think more than two rings for the dwarves might be a bit much. Since 4 of 7 were destroyed and there is no mention of any fire drakes except Smaug (who is not noted for consuming any rings) in the West then that would imply that all four rings that were destroyed were from the East.

It makes a kind of sense though, those three rings were closer to Sauron so he would have had a better chance of saving them from dragons. On that note i think it likely that Scatha was one of the dragons that took a ring but because he wasn't a fire-wyrm he would not have been able to consume it so Saurons agents could have got hold of it.

It's from Gloin informing the Council of Elrond of Sauron's offer to Dain, most probably.

It is i think, i just couldn't remember the exact wording off hand and if any other appendices etc. mentioned it in more depth then it's likely that someone here (Ngugi ) would know.

[smoesville]

I think we can all agree that Gandalf is a meddling jackass who always gets things wrong Not really though he is not infallible like all of the Wise. It is possible that he said "kings" just to make it simpler, instead of "Lords and Kings".

One thing that might weaken the argument is actually in the verse about the rings itself, look at line three on the Nazgul, it doesn't say anything about them being kings, though the quote you have from the Sil points to at least two (could even just be the WK). Interestingly the verse also throws doubt on the actual wording, the elven rings were only worn by two kings, Gil-Gilad and Celebrimbor though Gil-Gilad wore two of them before handing them onto others (Círdan and Elrond) and Celebrimbor gave his to Galadriel.

''Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."

[Gr1m_4c3]

I think we can all agree that Gandalf is a meddling jackass who always gets things wrong Not really though he is not infallible like all of the Wise. It is possible that he said "kings" just to make it simpler, instead of "Lords and Kings".

Good point - dialogue-wise it'd be fairly clunky. Unfortunately there's very little said on the matter of the Seven at all (at least in that chapter), so we only have that line to really call upon as relevant.

One thing that might weaken the argument is actually in the verse about the rings itself, look at line three on the Nazgul, it doesn't say anything about them being kings, though the quote you have from the Sil points to at least two (could even just be the WK).

I could be wrong (and probably am), but I think Khamul was described as a king in some context...I'll have to do some research on that if need be, but I don't think it's hugely necessary. That line refers to the Nazgul all as one collective, hence the use of plurals on all three, so you could argue that there was as dramatic a ratio as 1/1/7 or any other combination of warriors, kings and sorcerers. It's not conclusive, but it does seem to indicate that the Nine were gathered from various walks of life for different qualities.

Interestingly the verse also throws doubt on the actual wording, the elven rings were only worn by two kings, Gil-Gilad and Celebrimbor though Gil-Gilad wore two of them before handing them onto others (Círdan and Elrond) and Celebrimbor gave his to Galadriel.

The reason I didn't bring up the Three is that they were completely out of Sauron's influence - having never touched them himself, he had no control over their powers or distribution, which is why they are so fundamentally different from the others - he could only influence them when wielding the One, because they were created by the crafts Sauron himself bestowed on Celebrimbor and the Gwaith-i-Mirdain. Therefore, it's kind of pointless to use the Three as an example in this context, because they can't be construed as relevant in regards to the discussion on distribution by Annatar/Sauron.

[muller227]

The poem itself is not a good basis for the determination of the title or rank of those who initially received the Rings. Celembrimbor in no place I can remember is refered to as a King and neither for that matter is Cirdan. Nain is a great dwarflord at the time of Thror and they are of the same house of Kings. So while seven houses for seven rings is convenient I don't think it practical given the dwarven histroy I know(which is limited).

Gil-Galad never wore a ring though he did take the two into safekeeping, he had in fact expressly forbid the making of such items. Those who first donned the Rings were of the Gwaith-i- Mirdain, they were the ones who became aware of Sauron. After which Celembrimbor beelined for the lady asking her what to do? At that time she took Nenya, and the other too were sent to Gil-Galad, who kept them safe until he departed for the War of the Last Alliance when he gave them over too his two greatest Lords Elrond and Cirdan.

Nor I think did Sauron give all the Rings too the dwarves, one at least was given directly by Celembrimbor too Durin. As for the destruction by Dragons this actually makes sense as they have been around for around 4500 years prior to the destructiuon of Smaug. It is ffair too say for a good part of ring history we have a fair number of Dragons, who had a shot at them.

Edit:
The white counsel seems to have been a fairly inept organization slow moving, nor do I think do they have any great power left in war. Thranduil's realm is still in recovery at the time of the fall of Minas Ithil, Lothlorien is not a powerful realm militarily nor are the Western Elves militarily powerful enough to assault a great fortress so far from their homes. I cannot remember was the white Counsel around at the time of Arvedui and the fall of Minas Ithil?

[smoesville]

Smoking loads of weed But also there is more evil in ME than just Sauron and the return of his servant doesn't really mean the return of the man himself.

[FC Groningen]

Smoking loads of weed But also there is more evil in ME than just Sauron and the return of his servant doesn't really mean the return of the man himself.

I can get that, including that the southrons and easterlings didn't need much of an excuse to fight Gondor. Yet, I think it's a different situation regarding the Nazgul as it is clearly stated that these guys rise and fall with their master as their fate is bound to the One Ring. It is also assumed here that Sauron kept the 9 rings himself at all times, instead of being carried by the Nazgul. That should also indicate that Sauron would have these 9 somewhere in his possession. Including all events that took place in the 3rd age, you'd say people were able to put 1 and 1 together or at least suspect it.

About the military possibilities; Remember that the White Counsil managed to drive Sauron from Dol Guldur when it was too late. Sauron indeed prepared for the move and fled, but it didn't come automatically. I believe Gandalf stated in 1 of the books that it was particulary because of Saruman and his powers that Sauron was driven away.

Also note that the people were expecting or were fearing the return of Sauron. The Towers of Teeth and Cirith Ungol for example were built to prevent the enemy from returning to Mordor. So in other words, the return of Sauron was expected, but the moment signs arose, nothing was done against it.


edit: Even if all these events didn't provide proof of direct involvement of Sauron, wouldn't it be very stupid to just leave it that way? You take a very big and unnecessary risk by not investigating any further and I personally think it's partially (or perhaps more) because of this, Sauron could become as strong as he was at the start of the Lord of the Rings triology.

[Ngugi]

Well, it should be noted Sauron actually spent much of his time during the Third Age in the East and thus as easily could got it from one of the four houses in the East.

The poety of the Rings is a bad source of course, as it has not a historical but cultural creation, from after Sauron had captured and handed the Rings out.
On the more solid side we have that the Dwarven Ring-wearers are more often not said to been given to kings but lords, however the fact that it's mentioned once in Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age made me unsure if the comments in LotR could be taken as tradition rather than fact.
On the other hand also in Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age they are refered to only in connection to the Seven Hoards, and those just as well might be all legend as well, since they are never confirmed - how would that be known for sure, if the other four were in the far east?

@ FC
The Nazgûl perhaps was not known to die when the Ring end, just as the 3 were not known to stop 'working' when the One .
But non the less the Easterlings and Haradrim did not need Sauron to fight against Gondor. They had their own greed or wish for freedom (Gondorian colonizers, shame on you ) to encourage that.
For example;

More ominous were rumours from the further East: the Wild Men were restless. Former servants and worshippers of Sauron, they were released now from his tyranny, but not from the evil and darkness that he had set in their hearts. Cruel wars raged among them, from which some were withdrawing westward, with minds filled with hatred, regarding all that dwelt in the West as enemies to be slain and plundered.
- UT; The History of Galadriel and Celeborn

Orcs and other also raged on even without a Dark Lord, they just become organized that way

[Gr1m_4c3]

Ngugi, I think you answered your own question regarding the credibility of the Seven Hoards if some were in the Far East with the example you gave regarding rumours of restlessness - If the eastern Dwarves held such legendary riches, then by the same means we hear about rumours in the Far East, the same legends of Dwarven wealth would have reached the West. There's obviously some passage of information, albeit limited, with the regions beyond the mapped areas of Middle Earth, and rumours of incredible wealth are kind of inherently worthy of widespread gossip.

EDIT: Muller, do you have a source for Nain having one of the rings? It's past midnight and for the life of me I can't recall off the top of my head ever reading that.

Also, in regards to Celebrimbor, I think there's a conflict with that passage from Sil and the Appendices of LOTR - something about Celebrimbor giving up the Seven to Sauron while being tortured?

Though for the life of me I have no idea where my ROTK book is, so I can't source a direct quote on that, but I'd imagine the canon of the appendices takes precedent over the Sil in this instance.

EDIT 2: Scratch my remark regarding Celebrimbor - only relevant example of his dying doesn't mention the Seven at all, and I found a passage regarding the close friendship between the Dwarves and the Elven-smiths, but still no mention of them giving Durin his ring directly.

[muller227]

Ngugi, I think you answered your own question regarding the credibility of the Seven Hoards if some were in the Far East with the example you gave regarding rumours of restlessness - If the eastern Dwarves held such legendary riches, then by the same means we hear about rumours in the Far East, the same legends of Dwarven wealth would have reached the West. There's obviously some passage of information, albeit limited, with the regions beyond the mapped areas of Middle Earth, and rumours of incredible wealth are kind of inherently worthy of widespread gossip.

EDIT: Muller, do you have a source for Nain having one of the rings? It's past midnight and for the life of me I can't recall off the top of my head ever reading that.

Also, in regards to Celebrimbor, I think there's a conflict with that passage from Sil and the Appendices of LOTR - something about Celebrimbor giving up the Seven to Sauron while being tortured?

Though for the life of me I have no idea where my ROTK book is, so I can't source a direct quote on that, but I'd imagine the canon of the appendices takes precedent over the Sil in this instance.

EDIT 2: Scratch my remark regarding Celebrimbor - only relevant example of his dying doesn't mention the Seven at all, and I found a passage regarding the close friendship between the Dwarves and the Elven-smiths, but still no mention of them giving Durin his ring directly.

I never meant for it too be understood that Nain had a ring, he point in fact did not have one which is why the Dwarves of the Iron Hills probably faired better than most other Dwarves. Those seven rings could not dominate a dwarf or fade them but they were undoubtedly bad, bad Karma. I pointed out that Nain was a great dwarf lord of the house of Durin. If he exists in and of himself then other great dwarflords logically can exist in attachment to other Kings houses. The seven therefore need not necessarily be given too Dwarven Kings only. No you are correct Nain never held a ring. It is in UT btw the Tale of Galadriel and Celeborn that it is mentioned that Durin III directly receives ring from Celembrimbor.Pg 238 in my copy

[Gr1m_4c3]

I never meant for it too be understood that Nain had a ring, he point in fact did not have one which is why the Dwarves of the Iron Hills probably faired better than most other Dwarves. Those seven rings could not dominate a dwarf or fade them but they were undoubtedly bad, bad Karma. I pointed out that Nain was a great dwarf lord of the house of Durin. If he exists in and of himself then other great dwarflords logically can exist in attachment to other Kings houses. The seven therefore need not necessarily be given too Dwarven Kings only. No you are correct Nain never held a ring. It is in UT btw the Tale of Galadriel and Celeborn that it is mentioned that Durin III directly receives ring from Celembrimbor.Pg 238 in my copy

Alright, had to flick between that chapter and the appendices t get a clearer idea of what exactly happened re: Celebrimbor and the Seven, but the important line is this:

But the Seven and the Three he could not find. Then Celebrimbor was put to torment, and Sauron learned from him where the Seven where bestowed.

Then there's a commentary that calls back to Appendix A of LOTR, Section III 'Of Durin's folk' regarding the legend that Durin's ring was the first of the Seven and bestowed to him by Celebrimbor himself.

So, yes, this is a long-winded way of me saying you were right.

[Gr1m_4c3]

IIRC, Saruman was a major thorn in the side of the White Council by then, and encouraged inaction on a lot of things, often arguing with Gandalf simply because Gandalf supported the idea. He was growing increasingly petty even then. The other members of the White Council were Elves as well, and Elves in the Third Age are notorious for being slow to act on anything, and especially wary of military conflicts that could shorten their time in Middle Earth. Their immortality was definately beginning to make them fearful of dying and going to the Halls of Mandos.

[Ngugi]

@FC etc
Fearing is one thing, knowing is another.
Not even people with real foresight, like Elrond, did know more than it was a possibilty that Sauorn would return.

And the Nazgûl would not need Sauron to be around and doing things, as far as anyone knew, just that the One was not destoyed which the Wise knew It was not.

Edit: Example on expections on Nazgûl capacity on their own, perception of Sauron's return and the Council's inactivity:

(...)
Now the Shadow grew ever greater, and the hearts of Elrond and Mithrandir darkened. Therefore on a time Mithrandir at great peril went again to Dol Guldur and the pits of the Sorcerer, and he discovered the truth of his fears, and escaped. And returning to Elrond he said:
‘True, alas, is our guess. This is not one of the Úlairi, as many have long supposed. It is Sauron himself who has taken shape again and now grows apace; and he is gathering again all the Rings to his hand; and he seeks ever for news of the One, and of the Heirs of Isildur, if they live still on earth.’
And Elrond answered: ‘In the hour that Isildur took the Ring and would not surrender it, this doom was wrought, that Sauron should return.’
‘Yet the One was lost,' said Mithrandir, ‘and while it still lies hid, we can master the Enemy, if we gather our strength and tarry not too long.'
Then the White Council was summoned; and Mithrandir urged them to swift deeds, but Curunír spoke against him, and counselled them to wait yet and to watch.
(...)
- Silmarillion; Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age