Did Ulmo know that the Ring was in the river?

[CirdanLinweilin]

But there's nothing in the book itself which tells us this?

Tolkien in his Letters confirms it himself.


CL

 

[TrackerOrc]

Tolkien in his Letters confirms it himself.


CL

As I said in my previous post, I think we are in the realms of The Canon debate, which to mmy mind will probably never be finished.
My take on these things is that LoTR itself has to be paramount; I think we need to give less weight to a private letter, even though the letter may contain fairly concrete profos of whatever the subject matter is.
I've always thought that Tolkien put whatever he wanted in the books, and left out anything he didn't want - he had ample time to revise and edit the works and I can only reiterate that if he wanted a direct example of divine intervention he would have written it in. That he didn't, to me speaks volumes.

 

[Alcuin]

That being so, He [Tolkien] STILL confirmed Eru caused Gollum's dip. -__-

Gollum had his chance at redemption and muffed it. I am going to be rude and cite two long passages from Letters of JRR Tolkien. First from Letter 181:

The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo’s … sanctification. … Frodo … “apostatized” – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he sh[oul]d have been executed as a traitor… I did not foresee that … we should enter a dark age in which the … disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and … present us with the … problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.

But at this point the “salvation” of the world and Frodo’s own “salvation” is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him… He did … injure him in the end – but by a “grace”, that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one c[oul]d have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his “forgiveness”, he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. … Into the ultimate judgment upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. … Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be “damnable”. … But we who are all “in the same boat” must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. … By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob’s lair. After that he was lost.
​

Then Letter 192, the letter just after the one you cite, CL:

I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one’s power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not “arrange” the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) … But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur, and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

…Frodo “failed”. … [T]he power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however “good”; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.
​

But where does it say that the "other forces" have to be Eru, or a religious impulse? Couldn't we equally well say that it is "fate"? Whatever fate means to an individual?

I think there is considerable and ancient confusion between the omniscience of a Being outside Time, to whom all the events of Time are immediately visible and comprehensible, and predestination for creatures under free will. To a creature passing through Time, the difference can seem almost a mockery: why would the Author of the story permit a situation in which a creature fails? Is that not predestination? To which Tolkien answers, the creature makes its own decisions, and “failure” or “success” depends upon other matters. In Frodo’s case, his failure was rectified by Gollum’s intervention. In Gollum’s case, his failure led to his literally overstepping his bounds. But Tolkien also surmises that, had Gollum remained faithful, when Frodo claimed the Ring, he would have seized it plunged into the Cracks to Doom anyway. (And I cannot find the citation tonight, though I believe it is also in Letters.) I suppose you can argue that Gollum was “destined” to die destroying the Ring; but with the Ring destroyed, Gollum would soon die, as he foresaw.

Except for the destruction of Númenor, it the books themselves, it is impossible to notice any intervention by Eru.

[That was p]art of the design, at least in LoTR, as JRRT himself also stated…

…What people of the most diverse backgrounds are responding to in JRRT's writings are human universals, which transcend any one creed. JRRT may have seen them as fundamentally Catholic, and very likely rightly so. But not exclusively, two concepts that seem to get confused all too often.

Exactly!! This may be the source of Tolkien’s declared dislike of allegory. The allegory in Lewis’ Space Trilogy and Narnia stories is all too apparent. The allegory, or rather applicability, in Tolkien’s stories is far more subtle and lends itself to a great many other interpretations. Tolkien’s intent was to address “human universals, which transcend any one creed.”

But in LoTR itself, there is no such confirmation; do we then say that the much-wider audience of the book as opposed to the smaller number of people who have read The Letters are actually worse off for not "knowing" this?

Surely if Tolkien expressly wanted this to be part of the book, he would have found a way to present it? As he didn't, don't we need to take a more distanced view of a comment written in a letter?

I suppose this is all part of the "what is Canon" debate, which I doubt will ever be resolved any time soon!

The books published during Tolkien’s lifetime are, I think, the “canon”. All the other material, including Letters, HoMe, the well named Unfinished Tales, and even Silmarillion are non-canonical, though the stories make sense taken together. You can read The Hobbit, enjoy it on its own though you read nothing else; likewise The Lord of the Rings, never reading anything else. If you are then so inclined, and a little mad, you can plunge into the deeper material, as we do in this forum; but there is no requirement to do that to enjoy the “canon”, particularly the four main books.

The stories Christopher Tolkien presents from his father’s trove of notes and tales do not always agree. Elthir (once Galin: I like and miss the moniker “Galin”, but it is not mine to choose his moniker) and I have often discussed the alterations in Tolkien’s telling of the history of Galadriel in this forum. CJRT also notes the changes in the main stories of the First Age: Beren and Lúthien, the Children of Húrin, and the Fall of Gondolin. Three separate tellings of the Downfall of Númenor are presented. And of course, there is the alteration in the characters that became Frodo and Aragorn as The Lord of the Rings came to be. The stories published after his lifetime are not Tolkien’s canon, but additional materials from his mythology.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

Gollum had his chance at redemption and muffed it. I am going to be rude and cite two long passages from Letters of JRR Tolkien. First from Letter 181:

​

The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo’s … sanctification. … Frodo … “apostatized” – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he sh[oul]d have been executed as a traitor… I did not foresee that … we should enter a dark age in which the … disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and … present us with the … problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.​

​

But at this point the “salvation” of the world and Frodo’s own “salvation” is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him… He did … injure him in the end – but by a “grace”, that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one c[oul]d have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his “forgiveness”, he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. … Into the ultimate judgment upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. … Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be “damnable”. … But we who are all “in the same boat” must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. … By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob’s lair. After that he was lost.​

​

Then Letter 192, the letter just after the one you cite, CL:

​

I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one’s power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not “arrange” the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) … But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur, and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.​

​

…Frodo “failed”. … [T]he power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however “good”; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.​

​

I think there is considerable and ancient confusion between the omniscience of a Being outside Time, to whom all the events of Time are immediately visible and comprehensible, and predestination for creatures under free will. To a creature passing through Time, the difference can seem almost a mockery: why would the Author of the story permit a situation in which a creature fails? Is that not predestination? To which Tolkien answers, the creature makes its own decisions, and “failure” or “success” depends upon other matters. In Frodo’s case, his failure was rectified by Gollum’s intervention. In Gollum’s case, his failure led to his literally overstepping his bounds. But Tolkien also surmises that, had Gollum remained faithful, when Frodo claimed the Ring, he would have seized it plunged into the Cracks to Doom anyway. (And I cannot find the citation tonight, though I believe it is also in Letters.) I suppose you can argue that Gollum was “destined” to die destroying the Ring; but with the Ring destroyed, Gollum would soon die, as he foresaw.
Exactly!! This may be the source of Tolkien’s declared dislike of allegory. The allegory in Lewis’ Space Trilogy and Narnia stories is all too apparent. The allegory, or rather applicability, in Tolkien’s stories is far more subtle and lends itself to a great many other interpretations. Tolkien’s intent was to address “human universals, which transcend any one creed.” The books published during Tolkien’s lifetime are, I think, the “canon”. All the other material, including Letters, HoMe, the well named Unfinished Tales, and even Silmarillion are non-canonical, though the stories make sense taken together. You can read The Hobbit, enjoy it on its own though you read nothing else; likewise The Lord of the Rings, never reading anything else. If you are then so inclined, and a little mad, you can plunge into the deeper material, as we do in this forum; but there is no requirement to do that to enjoy the “canon”, particularly the four main books.

The stories Christopher Tolkien presents from his father’s trove of notes and tales do not always agree. Elthir (once Galin: I like and miss the moniker “Galin”, but it is not mine to choose his moniker) and I have often discussed the alterations in Tolkien’s telling of the history of Galadriel in this forum. CJRT also notes the changes in the main stories of the First Age: Beren and Lúthien, the Children of Húrin, and the Fall of Gondolin. Three separate tellings of the Downfall of Númenor are presented. And of course, there is the alteration in the characters that became Frodo and Aragorn as The Lord of the Rings came to be. The stories published after his lifetime are not Tolkien’s canon, but additional materials from his mythology.

Well, sheesh I didn't need a lecture for something I KNOW I SAW AND READ.


SHEESH!

CL

Well, sheesh I didn't need a lecture for something I KNOW I SAW AND READ.


SHEESH!

Someone asked me to poke my head in the forums and now I regret it.

Thanks guys!





CL

 

[TrackerOrc]

Gollum had his chance at redemption and muffed it. I am going to be rude and cite two long passages from Letters of JRR Tolkien. First from Letter 181:

​

The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo’s … sanctification. … Frodo … “apostatized” – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he sh[oul]d have been executed as a traitor… I did not foresee that … we should enter a dark age in which the … disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and … present us with the … problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.​

​

But at this point the “salvation” of the world and Frodo’s own “salvation” is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him… He did … injure him in the end – but by a “grace”, that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one c[oul]d have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his “forgiveness”, he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. … Into the ultimate judgment upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. … Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be “damnable”. … But we who are all “in the same boat” must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. … By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob’s lair. After that he was lost.​

​

Then Letter 192, the letter just after the one you cite, CL:

​

I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one’s power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not “arrange” the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) … But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur, and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.​

​

…Frodo “failed”. … [T]he power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however “good”; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.​

​

I think there is considerable and ancient confusion between the omniscience of a Being outside Time, to whom all the events of Time are immediately visible and comprehensible, and predestination for creatures under free will. To a creature passing through Time, the difference can seem almost a mockery: why would the Author of the story permit a situation in which a creature fails? Is that not predestination? To which Tolkien answers, the creature makes its own decisions, and “failure” or “success” depends upon other matters. In Frodo’s case, his failure was rectified by Gollum’s intervention. In Gollum’s case, his failure led to his literally overstepping his bounds. But Tolkien also surmises that, had Gollum remained faithful, when Frodo claimed the Ring, he would have seized it plunged into the Cracks to Doom anyway. (And I cannot find the citation tonight, though I believe it is also in Letters.) I suppose you can argue that Gollum was “destined” to die destroying the Ring; but with the Ring destroyed, Gollum would soon die, as he foresaw.
Exactly!! This may be the source of Tolkien’s declared dislike of allegory. The allegory in Lewis’ Space Trilogy and Narnia stories is all too apparent. The allegory, or rather applicability, in Tolkien’s stories is far more subtle and lends itself to a great many other interpretations. Tolkien’s intent was to address “human universals, which transcend any one creed.” The books published during Tolkien’s lifetime are, I think, the “canon”. All the other material, including Letters, HoMe, the well named Unfinished Tales, and even Silmarillion are non-canonical, though the stories make sense taken together. You can read The Hobbit, enjoy it on its own though you read nothing else; likewise The Lord of the Rings, never reading anything else. If you are then so inclined, and a little mad, you can plunge into the deeper material, as we do in this forum; but there is no requirement to do that to enjoy the “canon”, particularly the four main books.

The stories Christopher Tolkien presents from his father’s trove of notes and tales do not always agree. Elthir (once Galin: I like and miss the moniker “Galin”, but it is not mine to choose his moniker) and I have often discussed the alterations in Tolkien’s telling of the history of Galadriel in this forum. CJRT also notes the changes in the main stories of the First Age: Beren and Lúthien, the Children of Húrin, and the Fall of Gondolin. Three separate tellings of the Downfall of Númenor are presented. And of course, there is the alteration in the characters that became Frodo and Aragorn as The Lord of the Rings came to be. The stories published after his lifetime are not Tolkien’s canon, but additional materials from his mythology.

I agree with the Canon comprising works published in Tolkien's lifetime, but I've always regarded The Silmarillion as almost canonical, seeing that it was published relatively quickly after his death, and was , though I may be mistaken, a fairly finished work needing only minor editing by Christopher Tolkien?
I'm aware that this is not consistent to a strict sense, but as I read LoTR much more than TH or TS, I'm happy with this.

 

[Alcuin]

Well, sheesh I didn't need a lecture for something I KNOW I SAW AND READ.


SHEESH!

Someone asked me to poke my head in the forums and now I regret it.

Thanks guys!

Ach! No offense intended, CL, and I’m sorry you took offense! Not everyone has Letters: I thought I was following up on your post.

 

[Elthir]

I agree with the Canon comprising works published in Tolkien's lifetime, but I've always regarded The Silmarillion as almost canonical ( . . . ) and was , though I may be mistaken, a fairly finished work needing only minor editing by Christopher Tolkien?

This is a complex matter, but my take from The History of Middle-Earth series is that the Silmarillion was far from completed/updated, although the characterization of "far" might differ from person to person.

There is, for example, a finished version of Quenta Silmarillion dating to the 1930s, called Qenta Noldorinwa, but subsequent versions began expanding in content, and had to be updated with the later The Lord of the Rings -- which updating Tolkien began to do, but never completed. Argh. That's my all too brief response!

And it appears that Christopher Tolkien did not initially set out to construct a one volume "internal" account, but something more like an abbreviated textual history -- abbreviated compared to The History of Middle-Earth series, or compared to CJRT's personal history of the Silmarillion, which is even more detailed than The History of Middle-Earth as published.

CJRT seems to have been influenced in part by Guy Kay, to rather go with a constructed version. And then of course, he ultimately gave us a nicely detailed textual history too!

🐾

 

[Olorgando]

But there's nothing in the book itself which tells us this?

Tolkien in his Letters confirms it himself.
CL

You reply does nor address TrackerOrc's question. The letter was never incorporated into the text of any revised edition, so JRRT's statement in his letter remains outside the book.
If you mean to imply (as is my impression, which may be wrong) that JRRT's explicit statement in that letter should be clear in whatever form to someone who has only read LoTR, then I utterly disagree.

 

[Alcuin]

I don’t think it’s clear to anyone, having read Letters or not, that Gollum was “destined” to fall into the Gulf of Doom within the story. The letter is outside the book, although it seems to have been Tolkien’s intention from early in the making of the story that Gollum would fall into the volcano, destroying the Ring as he fell: That is also outside the book, and to any but a textual critic, outside the scope of the story, IMO. So you can argue, I think, that Gollum was “destined” to fall into the lava so far as the story telling is concerning, but it is far from clear (to me: I suppose I could be convinced to a contrary opinion) that he was “destined” to fall into the lava as a person living in Arda.

We plunge into these other, “non-canonical” writings, mostly edited by Christopher Tolkien, but also from other sources – BBC, newspaper, and magazine interviews of Tolkien or his son; the journal Vinyar Tengwar, Tolkien Studies annuals, Reader’s Companion, Tom Shippey, and critical analysis using Northrop Frye, and so on and on – because we are trying to piece together a clearer picture of what Tolkien intended in Lord of the Rings, and a more coherent understanding of his greater legendarium, particularly the history of the First and Second Ages, and the earlier parts of the Third Age. We waste our time, if I may use that word, in these pursuits because we delight in the world he first envisioned over a century ago, and as he foresaw in “Leaf by Niggle”, we are working to complete the painting he began of his tree, as well as the surrounding countryside.

But back to a more pertinent question: Did Ulmo know that the Ring was in the river? Have we come to any consensus?

 

[Elthir]

( . . . ) but my take from The History of Middle-Earth series is that the Silmarillion was far from completed/updated, although the characterization of "far" might differ from person to person. (edit blather) . . . And then of course, he ultimately gave us a nicely detailed textual history too!

Sorry, off topic again. For Tracker Orc, there's something from Christopher Tolkien in The History of Middle-Earth series volume 1 about why (I think) he went ahead with publishing HOME, after noting some references to the 1977 Silmarillion with respect to how much of it "was JRRT" so to speak.

But today, I can't find my HOME 1! And there are Tolkien thieves, just ask John Howe.

Public PM Alert: for Alcuin's eyes only please!

Alcuin wrote: "([Elthir] once Galin: I like and miss the moniker “Galin”, but it is not mine to choose his moniker)"

I could go back to Galin I suppose (if I remember how), but maybe I've caused enough confusion here already. I had a "reason" to change it, but it's boring and not a great reason. Anyway, now you've got me wondering how you pronounce it in your head -- there is no wrong answer to this by the way.

Similar to the Galen in the film Dragonslayer, for example? Or with Elvish vowels? And if Galin is considered Sindarin, I imagine a Quenya form *Nalindo-- but I've yet to really check my own accuracy regarding any Elvish characterizations.

I know I know. Another post about me! It's really PM stuff . . . and yet.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Of course, you could turn PM on. Just saying.

But you know betht, Meethter Elthir.

Yet thir.

 

[Elthir]

Well, once (elsewhere) I had a PM sent to me asking if Elves had ever lived in Standelf.

And it distracted me from a good orc versus goblin debate

 

[TrackerOrc]

Sorry, off topic again. For Tracker Orc, there's something from Christopher Tolkien in The History of Middle-Earth series volume 1 about why (I think) he went ahead with publishing HOME, after noting some references to the 1977 Silmarillion with respect to how much of it "was JRRT" so to speak.

Ah, which leads me once again to the conundrum I always face! I read HoME years and years ago, but have basically forgotten most of what I read. (I think there was an awful thing about Strider originally being a Hobbit called Trotter?).
Now I basically read LoTR a lot, with TS second place, and TH a distant third; not because I'm a serious purist but because there's an awful lot in LoTR on its own to keep me going, plus a rather vague belief that Tolkien had plenty of time to get what he wanted actually out there.
Though I do have to say that I've been increasingly tempted to delve into HoME again, especially those volumes about LoTR territory!

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

The HoLOTR books are the most read -- and thumbed -- in my set.

 

[Alcuin]

I just remembered something tonight in this recent vein, Did Eru cause Gollum’s fall into the Crack of Doom? I think we can conclusively answer this question, if you will grant me one idea that I think I can demonstrate: Frodo used the Ruling Ring of Power. Not once, but three times.

Both Gandalf and Galadriel told Frodo that the Ring gave power to its bearer according to his nature and abilities. In “Shadow of the Past”, Gandalf says:

​

Sméagol ... became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The ring had given him power according to his stature.​

​

When Frodo offers him the Ring, he rejects it:

​

No! … With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.​

​

In “Mirror of Galadriel”, when Frodo asks, “I am permitted to wear the One Ring: why cannot I see all the others and know the thoughts of those that wear them?” Galadriel answers,

​

You have not tried. … Do not try! It would destroy you. Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor? … Yet … as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger?​

​

After this, Frodo’s comprehension of what he possesses becomes clearer. When first he meets Gollum, and Gollum offers to swear on the Precious, “Sam was startled by his words and his stern voice,” when Frodo says,

​

On the Precious? How dare you? … Think!

One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them.​

Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!​

​

Sam briefly sees Frodo as “a tall stern shadow, a mighty lord who hid his brightness in grey cloud.” Sméagol Gollum replies,

​

Sméagol will swear never, never, to let Him have it. Never! Sméagol will save it.​

​

When Frodo proposes to enter Mordor by Black Gate, Gollum pleads,

​

Don’t let Him have it. Or go away. go to nice places, and give it back to little Sméagol. … Master … says: I purpose to enter Mordor this way. So Sméagol is very afraid. He … promised, master made him promise, to save the Precious. But master is going to take it to Him, straight to the Black Hand, if master will go this way. So Sméagol must save them both…​

​

Sam and Gollum are both taken aback by Frodo’s response, and Gollum is momentarily reduced to a gibbering heap.

​

You swore a promise by what you call the Precious. Remember that! It will hold you to it; but it will seek a way to twist it to your own undoing. Already you are being twisted. You revealed yourself to me just now, foolishly. Give it back to Sméagol you said. Do not say that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Sméagol, 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. So have a care, Sméagol!​

​

Twice Frodo has warned Gollum to beware the twisting, evil nature of the Ring. When Gollum jumps them on Sauron’s Road to Sammath Naur, Frodo fights him off and clutches the Ring beneath his leather shirt.

​

Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.​

​

“Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.”​

​

Frodo is using the Ring. As Saruman observes when the Hobbits confront him at Bag End after he tries to murder Frodo, “You have grown, Halfling. … Yes, you have grown very much.” The Ring has given Frodo power according to his measure, and that measure outside the Chamber of Fire is great indeed.

Eru did not cause Gollum to fall into the chasm inside Orodruin. The Ring did. Frodo knowingly and intentionally twisted Sauron’s Ring-spell to his own purposes – an appropriate action given the Ring’s proclivity to twist and pervert purposes: it perverted Sauron’s purposes! Sméagol Gollum, who was already in the power of the Ring, willingly swore to “save” the Precious from Sauron. Frodo warned him that the Ring was pernicious and would twist his promise. He then warned Gollum that he would command Gollum “leap from a precipice or to cast [himself] into the fire.” And when Gollum persisted in his evil and tried to take the Ring, Frodo actually put his hand on the Ring (through the leather shirt) and cursed Gollum to fall into the Fire of Doom if he should touch him again. Gollum not only touched Frodo, he bit off his finger to take the Ring, and the Ring did precisely as Frodo had commanded using its power: Gollum was cast into the fire.

Gollum went into the Fire because of the Ring he coveted. It perverted the will of even its master, Sauron. As Théoden observed, Oft evil will shall evil mar.

I think this is a tremendous irony in Lord of the Rings, one we have overlooked. And Théoden’s remark is a repeating theme within the story.