Q: I’ve read all your Q&As and you do a wonderful job. During their first talk on the day Frodo awoke in Elrond's House in "Many Meetings," Gandalf was explaining the safety of Rivendell and the balance of powers. Then he said, "Indeed there is a power in Rivendell to withstand the might of Mordor, for a while: and elsewhere other powers still dwell. There is power, too, of another kind in the Shire." What was he talking about? The intangible power of naive, gossiping little hobbits? Or their unmeasured strength 'in a pinch'? Or was there some other kind of power? Tom Bombadil had a high opinion of Farmer Maggot. Did Tom have some reach over the Shire, or were hobbits like Maggot more than they seemed? Can you offer any insight? What kind of "power" did the Shire have that would have caused it to survive longer like "an island under siege?" Thanks. And kudos for the wonderful, wonderful site!

–Bungo

A: You answered it yourself, methinks. Gandalf is talking about the ability of Hobbits to be resourceful and uncannily brave spirits when roused. They possess endurance that is bottomless, as we see in Samwise. Almost like the sleeping Ents who become a remarkable force when stirred up to defend themselves, if you like. It is not suggested that Tom had any influence over the lands of the Shire, but rather that the collective strength of Hobbit-kind could be the Shire’s great, yet untested, asset. Tolkien often alludes to the power of self-will throughout the story, and in Hobbits he gives us the ideal vessels: they are small of stature but remarkably large in spirit.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: One more question. At the Flight to the Ford, how could Aragorn and the hobbits have had TIME to run on foot at least a half a mile and build a fire decent enough to come away with flaming brands to wave at the remaining Nazgûl? This has always been a very weak link to me. Especially since Frodo was riding like the wind and then only hesitated in the water for a moment or two. Thanks.

–Bungo

A: My first answer is that Aragorn is a Ranger, and excellent camping skills are among his many talents. Therefore I can easily believe it took him only a minute or less to actually kindle the fire, then it might take a minute to really get going, and then they could dip branches into it. Have you ever built a fire? It really does not take long for the wood to start blazing–and they would not be carrying logs as thick as their heads. Probably they were branches no wider than big kindling. Secondly, I think there is more time baked into the text than you think at first glance. After reading carefully, my order of events is:

1) Glorfindel turns and listens to the road behind them, then shouts "Fly! The enemy is upon us!" This is, by description in the text, one mile from the Ford–which is a longer way than you think. J

2) The white horse springs forward down the road, hobbits run after, Glorfindel and Aragorn bring up the rear.

3) Halfway across the space between the trees and the Ford, they first hear and see the Black Riders–a total of five behind them. Frodo and the white horse slow to a walk–apparently still half a mile from the Ford.

4) Glorfindel calls for Frodo to ride, but he does not do so, he waits a minute until Glorfindel commands the horse. At this point, we could assume if we wished that Aragorn has gone beside the road to begin kindling his fire. It doesn’t say anything more about him specifically. The hobbits, Glorfindel, and Aragorn are between Frodo and the five Riders at this point, so it may seem prudent to Aragorn right at this moment to get the hobbits off the road lest they be run down, and to start kindling the fire that will aid their deliverance.

5) Glorfindel commands the horse, and Frodo is borne away. The Riders pursue, they cry out, their cry is answered, and the last four Riders emerge from the rocks and trees away on the left–closer to the Ford. Two ride straight towards Frodo–and presumably they had some distance to cover, while the other two galloped "madly" towards the Ford to cut of his escape. Bear in mind that I would guess Frodo still had at least half of a mile left to go to the Ford, so even a running horse would take a little bit of time to make it.

6) Frodo makes it to the Ford, splashes across in front of the face of the foremost Rider. He stops, turns and looks back, to see all Nine Riders lined up on the western bank which he has just left behind. Now begins a standoff of sorts. The first Rider urges his horse into the water, but it won’t go at first. Frodo commands them to go back, they command him to come and be taken to Mordor. The first Rider forces his horse into the water, followed by two more.

7) Frodo sasses them with the names of Elbereth and Lúthien, and the leader takes the time to raise his hand and strike Frodo dumb. His sword breaks. The elf-horse starts to freak out. The lead Black Rider is almost to the shore.

8) THEN all hell breaks loose. The Ford tumbles the Riders away, and THEN the others run down to the bank with their flames to force the rest of the Riders into the water.

So between #4 and #8, I think Aragorn probably had enough time to create enough fire for a few torches. Hope this satisfies you as well. J

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: Lately, I've been reading through Tolkien's Letters and came across something that made me blink. At the end of Letter No. 144, Tolkien describes Galadriel as being "in Eldamar beyond the Sea, long before Ungoliant came to Middle-earth...." My question is: did any Ainur descend into Arda after the Great Awakening of the Elves or is the preconceived notion that Ungoliant is Ainur (Maiar) false? If Ungoliant is a Maiar who was corrupted by Melkor (and then turned on him), how would you tie the knot on this loose thread?

–Elessar_Elessar

A: Ungoliant did not come to Middle-earth until after the darkening of Valinor. Previously she had made her abode in "the dark region of Avathar. That narrow land lay south of the Bay of Eldamar, beneath the eastern feet of the Pelóri," according to The Silmarillion. The term "Middle-earth" does not refer to all of Arda, but to the large continent in which the tales of Elves and Men unfolded.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: What was with Gandalf's/Mithrandir's staff? For most, a staff is either a physical weapon or a prop, yet for Gandalf and Saruman, it seemed to be the center of their power. In The Two Towers, Gandalf tells Saruman, "Your staff is broken," and Saruman cried out, as if in pain. Also, in the Hall of Théoden, Háma demanded that Gandalf leave his staff and when he objected, saying that he needed his prop for he was old (not exact words), Háma said that a staff may be more than a prop in the hands of wizard. What is a staff, a source of power, a way to focus the power, or a way to store magical energy?

–Merlin

A: To a wizard’s purpose, it could be a symbol of office and power at the same time. We tend to think of "magical artifacts" in the manner of Dungeons & Dragons, trying to give a physical trait of power/magic to such a staff. But in Tolkien’s creation, the Istari each had a unique staff of their own, and it was part of the whole package. Break the staff and you break the wizard, as we see in two instances during the Trilogy. Given that Saruman was greatly dismayed at the destruction of his, we can gather that each wizard, as a powerful individual, relied on his staff as a resource and a tool for their own personal strength. I also point out that mortal men such as Háma had some knowledge of this symbiotic relationship between wizards and their staves. Even within the legends of Middle-earth, the "old legends" inform the behavior of the participants.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: Hi! I was wondering what the significance of the number 3 is in LOTR. Tolkien uses this number very frequently throughout the book. Everywhere you look in the book, you can find references to #3 in dates, ages, etc... I have counted over 83 times in Fellowship alone. Even the books are a Trilogy! I was wondering if there is any significance to this number (possibly a reference to the Bible?) since Tolkien seems so fond of it.

–Jake N.

A: Three has long been considered a special number, both in the Bible and elsewhere, and farther back in time, but I’m afraid I don’t know much research on the subject. The books are a trilogy only because the publisher wanted to print them that way–Tolkien wrote them as one long story divided into six "books." I think we could safely attach significance to the three Elven rings, but beyond that I would have to say I very much suppose any reference to "3" in dates and ages was probably not of much importance.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: I wanted to know who, in Gondolin, bore Orcrist, Thorin's sword in The Hobbit.

–Círdan

A: All we know of Orcrist is what Elrond tells us–it was "a famous blade." One can only conjecture that its bearer was one of the two most famous lords of Gondolin whose names we know, Ecthelion of the Fountain who slew Gothmog Lord of Balrogs, or–more interestingly, in view of Tolkien's later writings–Glorfindel of the House of the Golden Flower, who, it is thought, returned to Middle-earth and dwelt in Rivendell when Thorin brought the blade there.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: Is there any confirmation that Thorongil is Aragorn other than the clear implication in the Appendices to The Return of the King?

–Michael Caballero

A: The Index says simply this is Aragorn’s alias. Tolkien intended the reader would make the connection between Thorongil’s mention in Appendix A and the "Star of the North Kingdom," which Aragorn wore proudly. When you read the passage "….for he was swift and keen-eyed, and wore a silver star upon his cloak," you can safely assume this is the Star of the Dúnedain, and that Thorongil was Aragorn’s assumed name. In The History of Middle-earth VIII, ‘The War of the Ring,’ Christopher Tolkien confirms it. He notes that this silver brooch worn by the Rangers of the North was handed down to Aragorn, and the people of Gondor identified it with ‘Thorongil,’ mysterious servant to Ecthelion.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: I love The Lord of the Rings, but it has always bugged me a bit that the forces in the War of the Ring don't have a more compelling reason to go to war. There are no grand slogans to rally around, like "Remember the Alamo" or "Death before Taxation" or anything like that. I mean, you can say all you want about Evil and the Forces of Darkness and all that, but what really is so bad about Sauron, and what are the good guys fighting to defend? Is it freedom? Is it property rights? Is it agrarianism? (I've always thought that Tolkien held a dim view of the Industrial Revolution). What do the experts think? And does Tolkien ever address this in his letters or elsewhere?

–Bradley Sick

A: Well, I guess if I can say all I want about Evil and the Forces of Darkness and it still won’t convince you, then there’s no sense my trying to answer your question! J But I’ll give it a shot anyway. "What is really so bad about Sauron?" Simply put, he is trying to conquer all of Middle-earth. He wants all of the Free Peoples under his sway and the land plunged into a great Darkness. Agrarianism plays a part–Tolkien did indeed decry the Industrial Revolution, and he equated the use of machines and such as part of the Darkness–remember it is the evil machines that belch out smoke and such at Isengard and also, presumably, in Mordor. But it is basically to keep Sauron from setting himself up as the evil slave-driving ruler of the known world. Gandalf and Frodo touch on this a little bit:

"It would be a grievous blow to the world, if the Dark Power overcame the Shire; if all your kind, jolly stupid … ridiculous Bagginses, became enslaved." Frodo shuddered. "But why should we be?" he asked. "And why should he want such slaves?" "…your safety has passed. He does not need you–he has many more useful servants–but he won’t forget you again. And hobbits as miserable slaves would please him far more than hobbits happy and free."

You see? Sauron wants the peoples enslaved to his will solely because he wants them enslaved to his will. I have touched on this a little bit in my Counterpoints, when I talk about the nature of evil. The Ring is the last link in the chain that will allow Sauron to spread his conquering hand over the face of Middle-earth and turn all people into his slaves–it is this, nothing more or less, that the Free Peoples and the Armies of the West are fighting against.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: Greetings, lore-masters. I have no doubt that this question has previously been posed and answered, but I haven't seen it yet, so here goes. Why couldn't Gandalf read the runes on Orcrist and Glamdring when he found them in the trolls' cave in The Hobbit? He'd only been wandering around Middle-earth for time-out-of-mind. I find it hard to believe that Elrond could so easily translate something that baffled Gandalf, especially given Gandalf's impressive command of languages in LOTR.

–Chris Drew

A: Gandalf could undoubtedly read the letters and could have given Thorin & Co. the names of the swords, but even Gandalf may not have known the histories of these blades. So it would have been natural to defer the reading of the runes (which seems to have had an element of ceremony to it) to a lore-master such as Elrond.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: Although Morgoth was banished, is it possible that Sauron still serves Morgoth in some way? I personally believe that he still holds some allegiance to the banished Vala. Consider this excerpt from Akallabêth: "But Manwë put forth Morgoth and shut him beyond the World in the Void that is without; and he cannot himself return again into the World, present and visible, yet the seeds that he planted still grew and sprouted bearing evil fruit, if any would tend them. For his will remained and guided his servants, moving them ever to thwart the will of the Valar and to destroy those that obeyed them." Also: "Beyond all lay the Ancient Darkness. And out of it the world was made. For Darkness alone is worshipful, and the Lord thereof may yet make other worlds to be gifts to those that serve him, so that the increase of their power shall find no end." And Ar-Pharazôn said: "Who is the Lord of the Darkness?" and Sauron said, "It is he whose name is not now spoken; for the Valar have deceived you concerning him. Yet he that is their master shall yet prevail, and he will deliver you from this phantom; and his name is Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom, and he shall make you stronger than they." Do you think that it is possible that Sauron hoped somehow to use his power with the Ring to contrive Morgoth's return by Morgoth's command?

–Raymond Walker

A: Good old Morgy. He’s the kind of person that you meet once at a party and never forget the rest of your life. His influence over his many servants lingers forever, most especially over Sauron. Being the new Dark Lord was Sauron’s way of holding the torch for Morgoth, absolutely, and his alignment with the wishes of his master is what forces all the histories of Middle-earth into motion.

But who can know the limits of Sauron’s ambition? It’s truly fascinating to think how far Sauron would go, beyond the utter destruction of Middle-earth and the enslavement of the Free Peoples. Would he find a way to assail Valinor? Would he really try to get past the Doors of Night, and face down Eärendil? We know the Second Prophecy of Mandos tells us Morgoth will return, someday, from beyond the Doors but I doubt Sauron’s involvement. If and when Morgy returns it will be more because of the weakening of the Valar ("when the world is old and the Powers grow weary") than anything else. We may see for ourselves someday.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: Doesn't it seem a little strange that Gandalf doesn't seem to know Beorn and is in fact somewhat intimidated by him? Wouldn't an Istari, whose main job is to combat evil forces in Middle-earth, have made nice with a being as powerful as Beorn long years before?

–Chris Drew

A: I can postulate two answers to this. One is based on Tolkien’s actual frame of mind in writing the two books, The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. The other is a try at answering it in a theoretical way based on what we know from the text.

The first of these answers is simply this: At the time of the writing of Hobbit, Tolkien really did not have much of an inkling that Gandalf was a Maiar from Over-sea, that he was an Istari with incredible power for good whose job was to fight Sauron. At that time Sauron was merely "the Necromancer" and didn’t play much more of a part than a dark shadow on the edge of the story–because that’s all it really was, a story. He didn’t have the importance of Hobbits or Dwarves sketched out in his head yet, and to write it the way he did was amusing for kids, Hobbit’s target audience–so write it that way, he did. Gandalf is not too much more than the guide and guardian angel of Bilbo and the Dwarves during Hobbit. He takes on his greater significance at the start of Lord of the Rings–as, of course, does Sauron, while Beorn fades back into a singular invention for amusement in Hobbit.

Now, as far as trying to fit it into the mythology, then I would simply say: Beorn was not his job. Remember that Beorn says he is acquainted with Radagast, and on that credit he accepts Gandalf as what he says he is. He fits more into Radagast’s province of animals and naturalism than into Gandalf’s fight against Sauron. Rather than being intimidated by him, however, I think Gandalf simply knew that the Dwarves would be intimidated by him, and therefore chose his way of introducing them so as to minimize that effect–and, Gandalf himself states that he doesn’t really think Beorn would have helped them without the story he used to get their feet in the door, so to speak. So this means of introduction was for the benefit of the Dwarves and Beorn, not because Gandalf himself was particularly afraid of Beorn. I think that for Gandalf, Beorn was a curiosity that he was pleased to finally be able to study. Remember he follows the bear-tracks almost back up to the mountains. This suggests that he is interested and wants to learn more about Beorn.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: In The Hobbit, Thorin the dwarf seems to value the Arkenstone of Thráin very much. I was wondering if there was any back-story on the Arkenstone, or any other information on it other than what was found in The Hobbit.

–Jake N.

A: No; although it seems likely that the Arkenstone is, from a literary standpoint, an echo of the Silmarils in Tolkien's imagination. In a sense, Tolkien "mined" his own material for The Hobbit in the same way as he "mined" Beowulf for motifs such as stealing a cup from a dragon.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: I have a question regarding what really happened to the Nine Mortal Men who took a ring from Sauron in their transition from human beings to Nazgûl. Did they gradually shrivel up until they became walking skeletons which in turn disintegrated so that they could only be properly seen with the Ring on? Also at which point in the transformation did their eyes start glowing red?

–Chris

Q: In The Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf tells Frodo that if you possess the Ring for long you will fade into the shadows and become like the Ringwraiths. If this is so, then why didn’t the Ring have any effect on Gollum if he used it for so many hundreds of years?

–stu_crane@yahoo.com.au

A: Two questions about shrinkage and fading! Welcome to the Lord of the Laundry website. To the point, we don’t really know about the physical process of deformity that beset the Nine Kings doomed to become Ringwraiths. Gandalf says that becoming part of the Wraith-world involved fading. Not to be confused with disintegrating flesh that resembled a decaying body. Maybe grotesque changes really did come over the Nine Men while they were still alive, but mainly I think their use of the Nine Rings was continuous and compulsive, like a drug. The more they wore the Rings, the more they became "thin and stretched," as Gandalf states. Ergo, the quicker they faded, soon becoming invisible. Who knows when the glowing eyes started.

Gollum suffered from use of the Ring, obviously. It may be that Sméagol used it only occasionally over the years, unlike the Nine Kings before him who succumbed to their own Rings, but how can you say it had no effect?? The Ring twisted and sickened his original Hobbit-body so as to become almost unrecognizable. If you had given Gollum another few centuries (as the with the Nine Kings) then yes, he would have faded permanently. Remember that the One Ring was not made to extract the same effect as the Nine.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: I enjoy your Q&A section very much! Something has been bothering me for a while: Why would Aragorn take Gollum all the way to the Wood Elves’ realm after his capture? Why not take him to Lórien or even to Rivendell? Lothlórien is closer, but Rivendell would be the best place for him to go as this is the site for the Council of Elrond. Maybe it's because Aragorn is already on that side of the Great River. I don't think it's ever explained in the text.

–JD

A: "Closer" to where? J Gandalf never says where Aragorn caught Gollum. The entire passage is too long to quote exactly, but Gandalf says that at first the Wood-elves tracked him, after the trail came back from Dale and Esgaroth, back through Mirkwood. Then he says Gollum turned aside instead of coming to the Shire. He turned south on the western edges of Mirkwood and the Wood-elves were no longer able to track him. Gandalf surmises that at this point Gollum went to Mordor, but at the time neither he nor the Wood-elves had any reason to speculate where he was going, and Gandalf says he made a mistake in letting him go without continuing to trail him. Later, when Bilbo left the Shire and Gandalf saw by his behavior the true importance of the Ring, he had Aragorn take up the trail with him again. "Together we sought for Gollum down the whole length of Wilderland, without hope, and without success. But at last, when I had given up the chase and turned to other parts, Gollum was found. My friend returned out of great perils bringing the miserable creature with him." It doesn’t say from where he returned. My guess is that Mirkwood was a convenient middle ground to meet on–for example, if Aragorn were returning up the Great River from the south (as it might be if he had caught Gollum lurking around the Dead Marshes or some such), Gandalf would be able to travel east to Mirkwood to meet him. Otherwise Aragorn would have had to cross the Misty Mountains with Gollum in tow–and I’m sure everybody agreed that the sooner he could be dropped off and left in a safe place, i.e. in prison with the Wood-elves, the better. Remember that Rivendell and/or Lórien weren’t exactly set up to be prisons, but the Wood-elves have those caves… as our friends Bilbo and the dwarves know only too well.

–Anwyn

Update

Alert reader James J. Richard (working without his books in front of him, even!) has reminded me to check the appendix before I hastily state that we don’t know where Aragorn captured Gollum. As it turns out, it was the Dead Marshes, and I am now spooked, as that is the second time in a month or so that I have postulated an answer without citing supporting material that turned out to be correct. I think my Lord of the Rings texts are turning into Borg implants. Anyway, thank you, James. "Tale of Years" states that in year 3017, Gollum was released from Mordor and "taken by Aragorn in the Dead Marshes, and brought to Thranduil in Mirkwood." My reasoning above still stands–Mirkwood was likely a good middle ground to meet in, preventing Aragorn from the necessity of crossing the mountains with Gollum and preventing Gandalf a long trip south.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: There is something which has really been confusing me. I'm reading The Silmarillion for the first time. In chapter 18, Of The Ruin Of Beleriand And The Fall Of Fingolfin, the chapter talks about much of what happened during this time, especially in the area of Hithlum/Dor-lómin/Gondolin/Tol Sirion. In fact the entire book of The Silmarillion has, at least thus far, dealt with Beleriand and only alludes to the lands East of Ered Luin a few times. Specifically, what is bothering me is the passage which reads:

For nigh on two years after the Dagor Bragollach the Noldor still defended the western pass about the sources of Sirion, for the power of Ulmo was in that water, and Minas Tirith withstood the Orcs.

Hello? Minas Tirith? Isn't that over in Gondor? I thought we were talking about the Northern lands of Beleriand, where the river Sirion starts? I thought it was a misprint until I read a little further and saw it again:

(Sauron) took Minas Tirith by assault, for a dark cloud of fear fell upon those that defended it; and Orodreth was driven out, and fled to Nargothrond. Then Sauron made it into a watchtower for Morgoth, a stronghold of evil, and a menace; and the fair isle of Tol Sirion became accursed, and it was called Tol-in-Gaurhoth, the Isle of Werewolves.

It goes on to say that "No living creature could pass through that vale...."

So we're definitely talking about the vale between the mountains of Ered Wethrin and Ered Gorgoroth. Yet again a third (and I believe last) time: "And amid the tale of defeats of that time the deeds of the Haladin are remembered with honour: for after the taking of Minas Tirith the Orcs came through the western pass, and maybe would have ravaged even to the mouths of Sirion." So, what is going on here, or am I missing something completely obvious?

–Fatty Lumpkin

A: The solution is simple–the Minas Tirith of The Silmarillion, on the isle of Tol Sirion, was as different from the Minas Tirith of Gondor as Cairo, Egypt is from Cairo, Illinois. Remember, Minas Tirith's original name was Minas Anor, the Tower of the Sun, and was built by the Dúnedain after the fall of Númenor; it was re-named "Minas Tirith", which simply means "Tower of Guard" or "Watchtower", during the reign of Eärnur, the last of the old Kings of Gondor.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: Why is Turin Turambar named the conqueror of fate? And why is he named among the gods? (In reference to Turgon's answer about the Second Prophecy of Mandos.)

–Srivastava

A: "Turambar" means "Master of Doom" in the High-elven speech, and is the name that Túrin assumed when he dwelt among the woodmen of Brethil. "…he arose, and he thought that he would remain in Brethil hidden, and put his shadow behind him, forsaking the past. He took therefore a new name, Turambar..." It was a name under which Túrin thought to defy the curse of Morgoth upon Húrin's kin (and is in contrast to his previous alias of "Agarwaen son of Úmarth" (Bloodstained, son of Ill-fate). As you know, things did not work out as planned.

In the Quenta Silmarillion (which is the version of The Silmarillion immediately pre-dating the writing of Lord of the Rings), as reported in "The Lost Road" (The History of Middle-earth, Volume V), Mandos prophesies a Ragnarokian Last Battle in which Túrin comes from the halls of Mandos; "and the black sword of Túrin shall deal unto Morgoth his death and final end; and so shall the children of Húrin and all Men be avenged." The prophecy then tells of a renewed Arda, with the light of the Trees restored by Fëanor and Yavanna from the Silmarils. "But of Men in that day the prophecy of Mandos doth not speak, and no Man it names, save Túrin only, and to him a place is given among the sons of the Valar."

Tolkien changed some parts of this myth after Lord of the Rings was completed (for example, the notion of the "sons of the Valar" was explicitly rejected), and so we are left to our own judgement as to whether this prophecy concerning Túrin's final fate is "true" (in our personal interpretation of Tolkien's cosmos) or not.

–Ostadan