r/tolkienfans

I know we've touched on this subject in the past. But I'd like to hear from anyone who knows if JRR ever definitively said, or wrote in a letter, about who first created the lesser rings. The text we have to go by does not say, as far as I know and can make out. So I think it comes down to two theories.

Theory One
The Elven smiths of Eregion, Celebrimbor's guild, discover that they can enhance certain abilities or bestow new abilities by putting magic into rings. I suppose they chose rings because they are easy to wear. Sauron, disguised as Annatar hears about these rings, and figures that they could be an "in", a means of gaining control of the Elves. He approaches them and gives that speech about making Middle-earth as beautiful as Valinor, if only they would take up the challenge of making the Great rings, the Rings of Power. The Elves bite, and this time Sauron is right there in the making, his influence going into all sixteen of the first batch of the Rings of Power.
Result: The lesser rings might have been touched by Sauron, but were not created by him. Therefore his influence over them (make them evil) is nil or minimal.

Theory Two
It is Sauron himself who comes up with the idea of rings, and introduces them to the Elves. The Elves are impressed, listen to his speech, and take up the creating of the Rings of Power.
Result: The lesser rings are evil because Sauron was in on their creation, even before the Elves.

I favor the first theory because of the following. In Shadow of the Past, Gandalf is explaining the rings to Frodo. Not to my satisfaction of course, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this. He explains that he believed Bilbo's ring to be one of the lesser rings, basically because it is unadorned with any jewel, and all the other rings (Nine and Seven) are accounted for. He tells Frodo that these lesser rings, to his mind, were still dangerous to mortals, but the Great rings were perilous.

Gandalf things lesser rings are dangerous to mortals, but the Great rings were perilous. OK, he has nine Men given Great rings and they turned into Nazgul. That's a strong argument for Men, or Hobbits for that matter, possessing a Great ring. But he still things the lesser rings are dangerous for mortals. Why? Because they were made for immortal beings, and would interfere with their God Given (Eru Given) natural development and possibly fate. But if those rings had been created by Sauron, then Bilbo was on his way to becoming a little Nazgul.

Gandalf said straight out he had no right to take Bilbo's ring away from him. But if it had been a Great ring, created by Sauron, I think he would have overcome his scruples on taking what wasn't his from Bilbo. But with a lesser ring, he compromises. He tells Bilbo and then Frodo to keep the ring, but not to use it. Bilbo resents this, and will on occasion use it, like when avoiding a confrontation with the Sackville-Baggins clan.

But I know of no actual word from JRR which cleared up the matter. And if none exists, I'll have to die and go to heaven and find him and...

Me: "Mr. Tolkien, sir? Hi, I'm one of your biggest fans. Would you mind if I asked you just one little question?"

Tolkien: "They don't have wings."

Me: "What? Oh no, I wasn't asking about if Balrogs have wings or not. You get asked that a lot I'll bet."

Tolkien: "Yes sir I do. All day long, the newly dead fans seek me out and they all describe themselves as my biggest fan, then they ask that question. Sometimes the queue is 30 deep. Anyways, what's your question, if it isn't about Balrogs?"

So, does anyone know for sure if Tolkien ever addressed the lesser rings question? As always, great thoughts welcomed.

I hope this question is appropriate for this place. I’m especially curious about what Tolkien thought about this topic, because I believe he used to frequently debate religious matters with Bernard Lewis.

I'm almost done re-reading The Fellowship of the Ring for the first time in a very long time. It really IS a brilliant piece of literature, and captures a mood that I feel is genuinely unique. But while the vanishing of the elves is a significant theme, and treated with great sorrow, there isn't much in the way of an explanation.

Could someone refresh my memory?

Personally, I would not. Is there anybody who would?

So, what happend to the Sons of Elrond? Did they leave for the West with Elrond, or did they stay till Arwen died or do er just not know?

Tulkas' house a court, where champions engaged in athletic games. There would often Nessa, wife of Tulkas, appear to bring goblets of wine and drinks to the players.

If I had to guess, when it comes to Elves, it is more than likely the Noldor Elves, as well as some Middle Earth Elves that participated. After all, I honestly don't see any Vanyar or Teleri taking part.

I need help for a podcast I may be speaking on.

I've been poring over LOTR for the x-teenth time, looking for aphorisms. And of course, along the way, I've noticed a few things. Contains spoilers!

Descriptions

One of the “popular” criticisms that was dissected here at TolkienFans went something like, the author spends 8 pages describing trees. (This was not coming from a TolkienFan! We love trees.) The time spent complaining about this would be better spent thinking about the the role and reason of such passages.

The Professor is painting a picture of an imaginary world, and he faces two challenges. Each place must be unique. Lothlorien is different from the Shire, or from Rivendell. But at the same time, there must be similarities or consistencies. They must all seem to be part of the same world.

In every instance, a detailed or prolonged description plays a role in the advancing narrative.

Lothlorien

The lengthy description of Lothlorien, partly seen through Frodo's reactions, is necessary to establish a place that is like a corner of the Elder Days, a place where time brings healing. And it is the closest the author gets to letting his (devoted) readers in on how the Elves experience the world.

The chapters on the Golden Wood are well done. On one level, not much happens. This is in keeping with the idea that “one can't count the days” in Lorien. On the other, we see a lifelong friendship develop between Legolas and Gimli. Boromir becomes more conscious of his desire for the Ring – and not in a good way. Aragorn receives the Elfstone, and as he pins it to his breast, he is revealed as the true heir of kings, beginning a process that culminates in The Two Towers. And the other gifts they receive are crucial to the next stage of the Quest.

A portentous sunrise

In “The Riders of Rohan,” there's an entire paragraph devoted to a sunrise.

>Turning back they saw across the River the far hills kindled. Day leaped into the sky. The red rim of the sun rose over the shoulders of the dark land. Before them in the West the world lay still, formless and grey; but even as they looked, the shadows of night melted, the colours of the waking earth returned: green flowed over the wide meads of Rohan, the white mists shimmered in the water-vales; and far off to the left, thirty leagues or more, blue and purple stood the White Mountains, rising into peaks of jet, tipped with glimmering snows, flushed with the rose of morning.

>“Gondor! Gondor!” cried Aragorn. Would that I looked on you again in happier hour. Not yet does my road lie southward to your bright streams.”

This is the King in Exile, looking out on the land he knows and loves.

The whole of Book 3 shows the gradual transformation of Aragorn to become the leader in the fight against Sauron and the rightful king. And the process begins with that sunrise. It's like a huge fanfare.

When I started this book out I didn't have a physical copy yet and was waiting for my library copy, it was hard getting into it at first. But when I got to the "Tale of The Fall Of Gondolin" chapter I completely fell in love with it. Sometimes I got lost due to geography (as usual) but when i finished it, I had to go back and look at the plates and illustrations a day later; when I went through it, I was like, "Omg I remember reading this and I loved it!" It's was harder than Silm sometimes but I loved it so much that I put it above Beren & Lúthien and below Silm (my favorite of all time).

I have long been interested in Aredhel’s tragic story, and I find it fascinating that her terrible, odious marriage to Eöl is one of the oldest elements of the Legendarium, dating back to the 1910s. The central elements of Aredhel’s story didn’t change between the 1910s and 1970: she is “taken to wife” by Eöl, she hates it, and she gives birth to Maeglin. This is how Aredhel’s marriage to Eöl is described in the various versions: 

• The Fall of Gondolin (1917): Eöl loved Isfin, but “Isfin loathes him” (HoME II, p. 220). 
• Poems Early Abandoned: “There Eöl saw that sheen/and he caught the white-limbed Isfin, that she ever since hath been/his mate in Doriath’s forest, where she weepeth in the gloam” (HoME III, p. 146).  
• Sketch (1926): “There she was trapped by the Dark Elf Eöl. Their son was Meglin.” (HoME IV, p. 35) 
• Quenta Noldorinwa (QN) (1930): “But Isfin he took to wife and their son was Meglin.” (HoME IV, p. 136) 
• Earliest Annals of Beleriand (1930): “Isfin daughter of Turgon strays out of Gondolin and is taken to wife by Eöl” (HoME IV, p. 301). 
• Later Annals of Beleriand (late 1930s): Aredhel “strayed out of Gondolin, and was lost; but Eöl the Dark-elf took her to wife” (HoME V, p. 136). 
• Grey Annals (ca 1950): Aredhel “was lost in the dark forest. There Ëol, the Dark-elf, who abode in the forest, found her and took her to wife” (HoME XI, p. 47) (“rejected annal for the year 471”). 
• Grey Annals (ca 1950): “There she came into the enchantments of Ëol the Dark-elf, who abode in the wood and shunned the sun […]. And Ëol took her to wife, and she abode with him, and no tidings of her came to any of her kin; for Eol suffered her not to stray far, nor to fare abroad save in the dark or the twilight.” (HoME XI, p. 47) 
• Published Silmarillion, based on the Maeglin materials in HoME XI (1950s and 1970): “And it came to pass that [Eöl] saw Aredhel Ar-Feiniel as she strayed among the tall trees near the borders of Nan Elmoth, a gleam of white in the dim land. Very fair she seemed to him, and he desired her; and he set his enchantments about her so that she could not find the ways out, but drew ever nearer to his dwelling in the depths of the wood. There were his smithy, and his dim halls, and such servants as he had, silent and secret as their master. And when Aredhel, weary with wandering, came at last to his doors, he revealed himself; and he welcomed her, and led her into his house. And there she remained; for Eöl took her to wife, and it was long ere any of her kin heard of her again.” (Sil, QS, ch. 16) → Note that in these same Maeglin materials that Christopher Tolkien used for the published Silmarillion, Tolkien explicitly calls this “marriage” a “forced marriage” (HoME XI, p. 327). Note that as per LACE (HoME X, p. 212), consent is not required for marriage, and sex without consent (= rape) is perfectly sufficient (see: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSilmarillion/comments/1shxp7q/what_is_marriage_for_the_elves/). 
• Published Silmarillion: “Then Beleg chose Anglachel; and that was a sword of great worth, and it was so named because it was made of iron that fell from heaven as a blazing star; it would cleave all earth-delved iron. One sword only in Middle-earth was like to it. That sword does not enter into this tale, though it was made of he same ore by the same smith; and that smith was Eöl the Dark Elf, who took Aredhel Turgon’s sister to wife.” (Sil, QS, ch. 21)
• Quendi and Eldar (1959–1960): “Eöl found Irith, the sister of King Turgon, astray in the wild near his dwelling, and he took her to wife by force: a very wicked deed in the eyes of the Eldar.” (HoME XI, p. 409, n. 9, fn omitted)

 

And I found it very interesting that the unusual phrase that Eöl took Aredhel to wife is a constant from 1930 to 1970. 

Now, ages ago I wrote an essay arguing that all versions of this story are rape, including the one in the published Silmarillion (https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/xgku6o/the_crimes_of_eöl_the_darkelf_or_of_the_rape_of/), but this time, after writing that short post about how, staggeringly, marriage between Elves is achieved via sex only (consent optional), I would like to return to the topic of Aredhel and Eöl from a more textual perspective. 

In particular, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the phrase that Tolkien has been using for what Eöl did to Aredhel very consistently since the year 1930: that he took her to wife. This phrase is used eight times for Eöl and Aredhel. 

And note that is not a common phrase in Tolkien’s repertoire. I have checked LOTR, the published Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales, and HoME III–V and X–XII digitally, and CoH manually, for this phrase, and it is surprisingly rare. I will go through the texts as chronologically as I can. 

HoME IV 

Most texts published in HoME IV were written in the 1920s and 1930 at the latest. The phrase X took Y to wife appears five times, four times in the QN and once in the Earliest AB (both from 1930): 

• Aerin was “taken to wife” by Brodda (HoME IV, QN, p. 122). Interestingly, at this point Brodda isn’t already as wholly irredeemable as in later versions, but he’s also not good by any means. Note that this is a “taken to wife” that persists in all later versions of the story of Aerin and Brodda. 
• Aredhel is said to have been taken to wife by Eöl twice: → “But Isfin he took to wife and their son was Meglin.” (HoME IV, QN, p. 136). → “Isfin daughter of Turgon strays out of Gondolin and is taken to wife by Eöl” (HoME IV, Earliest AB, p. 301).

 

(Eöl is already awful at this point in the textual development, of course. Just consider what the Sketch says about Aredhel: “she was trapped by the Dark Elf Eöl. Their son was Meglin.” HoME IV, p. 35. The very first iteration of this story had bluntly said that Eöl loved her, but “Isfin loathes him”, HoME II, p. 220.)

• In the QN, “Tuor took Idril to wife” (HoME IV, p. 148). Importantly, the Sketch (1926) and the Earliest AB (1930) both use weds/wedded for Tuor and Idril. The phrase takes to wife is never used for Tuor and Idril again after the QN. 
• Eärendil “took to wife (fair) Elwing” (HoME IV, p. 149, 151). Importantly, the Sketch (1926) and the Earliest AB (1930) both use weds/wedded for Eärendil and Elwing. The phrase takes to wife is never used for Eärendil and Elwing again after the QN.

 

HoME V

Most texts in HoME V were written in the late 1930s. The phrase X took Y to wife appears twice, once for Aredhel and Eöl (again), and once for Aerin and Brodda (again).

• Aredhel “strayed out of Gondolin, and was lost; but Eöl the Dark-elf took her to wife” (HoME V, Later AB, p. 136). 
• Concerning Aerin and Brodda, an invading Easterling who had stolen Húrin’s lands and possessions from Morwen: “Yet [Morwen] was now poor and without aid, save that she was succoured secretly by her kinswoman Airin, whom Brodda had taken to wife.” (HoME V, QS, p. 316)

Note that the phrase does not appear for the happy couples for whom it had been used in the QN: instead, in the Later AB, Tuor wedded Idril and Eärendil wedded Elwing. 

HoME III 

The phrase X took Y to wife appears once, and interestingly enough, not in a text from the 1920s, but in a passage from (just before) 1950. It is said that Gorlim “took to wife” Eilinel, and that this was a happy marriage: “dear love they had ere evil fell” (HoME III, p. 336). However, I would caution that this would have been written before or around the time Tolkien fully and finally changed his mind on the connotations and use of this phrase, in the final phase of LOTR. 

The Lord of the Rings and HoME XII 

The phrase that X took Y to wife doesn’t appear even once in LOTR. Instead, the terms wed and marry are used throughout. 

Interestingly, the phrase does appear four times in the drafting materials for the LOTR Appendices (published in HoME XII), but all instances of this phrase were changed or the passages removed before publication of LOTR:

Concerning Mithrellas, the drafts in HoME XII say: 

• “Mithrellas, one of the companions of Nimrodel, is lost in the woods of Belfalas, and is harboured by Imrazôr the Númenórean [added in margin: Imrazôr 1950-2076], who takes her to wife (according to the legends and traditions of Dol Amroth); though after a few years she vanishes, whether to wander in the woods or seek the havens.” (HoME XII, p. 222) 
• “But in this tale it is said that Imrazôr harboured Mithrellas, and took her to wife. But when she had borne him a son, Galador, and a daughter, Gilmith, she slipped away by night and he saw her no more.” (HoME XII, p. 221)

 

In LOTR, neither of these passages exists. Neither Mithrellas nor Imrazôr are mentioned. 

I would also note that this does not sound like a consensual marriage. The main element of the story of Imrazôr and Mithrellas is that Mithrellas runs away from him after only a few years, which is not normal because Elves consider it important to raise their children together with their spouses. It also reminds me of Aredhel and Eöl: Mithrellas is lost, Imrazôr “takes her to wife”, they quickly have children, and then Mithrellas manages to run away from him. 

There are two other relevant passages in the draft materials of the Appendices did (sort of) make it into the published final version, but importantly, the phrase X took Y to wife was changed to marry/wed before publication:  

• Draft: “King Valakar took to wife the daughter of an alien king of the Northmen of Anduin, with whom Gondor had sought alliance and aid in their war with the Easterlings.” (HoME XII, p. 230) → This was an early draft, and the closest we get to this story in LOTR is: “But Valacar far exceeded his father’s designs. He grew to love the Northern lands and people, and he married Vidumavi, daughter of Vidugavia.” (LOTR, p. 1046)
• Draft: “Elrond, who had remained unwed through all his long years, now took to wife Celebrían, daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn of Lórien.” (HoME XII, p. 234) → Another early draft; this passage eventually became “Elrond weds Celebrían” (LOTR, p. 1085).

 

That is: the two draft texts involving clearly consensual, wanted marriages became weds/married, and the two draft passages depicting something far more questionable were not included in the published version. 

Meanwhile, HoME XII has dozens of instances of the term wed, but not applied to Aredhel and Eöl or any other questionable marriage.

HoME X 

Most texts in HoME X were written in the 1950s. The phrase X took Y to wife does not appear, but an altered version of it does (“take by force”). Tolkien uses this altered version to describe rape in LACE: “But among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another’s spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos.” (HoME X, p. 228).  

Meanwhile, the term wed is used dozens of times in HoME X (which contains dozens of pages of in-depth explanations concerning Elven marriages) for consensual marriages; none of the notoriously sketchy/questionable marriages (e.g. Eöl and Aredhel, Brodda and Aerin, Pharazôn and Míriel) are described in HoME X. 

HoME XI 

The texts in HoME XI were mostly written after 1950, with some written or edited much later than that, up to Tolkien’s death. And this is where it gets interesting, because after 1950 is where Tolkien really began to contemplate what happens to women in times of war. 

There are five instances of marriage/sex (which is the same thing for the Noldor at the very least) described using the term force: 

• The Easterlings “oppressed them, and took their lands and goods, and wedded their women by force, and enslaved their children.” (HoME XI, Grey Annals, p. 79)
• “It so befell that Túrin came then to the hall of Brodda the Incomer, and learned of an old servant of Húrin that Brodda had taken to wife by force Airin Húrin’s kinswoman, and had oppressed Morwen” (HoME XI, Grey Annals, p. 90). 
• “Morgoth stirs up the Eastrons to greater hatred of Elves and Edain, and sends Orcs to aid them and impel them. Lorgan hearing of Niënor’s beauty is eager to take her by force.” (HoME XI, Wanderings of Húrin, p. 256) 
• In the Maeglin materials, where Christopher Tolkien got the passage he chose for the published Silmarillion, Tolkien explicitly calls the marriage of Eöl and Aredhel a “forced marriage” (HoME XI, p. 327). 
• “Eöl found Irith, the sister of King Turgon, astray in the wild near his dwelling, and he took her to wife by force: a very wicked deed in the eyes of the Eldar.” (HoME XI, Quendi and Eldar, p. 409, n. 9, fn omitted)

 

HoME XI is also where the phrase X took Y to wife really becomes associated with the concept of (by) force. The phrase X took Y to wife is used four times for Eöl and Aredhel (including the passage that Christopher Tolkien only did not print in the Maeglin materials in HoME XI because he had already printed it in the published Silmarillion), and once for Brodda and Aerin. 

• In a rejected annal, Aredhel “was lost in the dark forest. There Ëol, the Dark-elf, who abode in the forest, found her and took her to wife” (HoME XI, Grey Annals, p. 47). 
• This became: “There she came into the enchantments of Ëol the Dark-elf, who abode in the wood and shunned the sun […]. And Ëol took her to wife, and she abode with him, and no tidings of her came to any of her kin; for Ëol suffered her not to stray far, nor to fare abroad save in the dark or the twilight.” (HoME XI, Grey Annals, p. 47) 
• In the Maeglin materials, where Christopher Tolkien got the passage he chose for the published Silmarillion (“Very fair she seemed to him, and he desired her; and he set his enchantments about her so that she could not find the ways out, but drew ever nearer to his dwelling in the depths of the wood. […] And there she remained; for Eöl took her to wife, and it was long ere any of her kin heard of her again.” Sil, QS, ch. 16), Tolkien explicitly calls this a “forced marriage” (HoME XI, p. 327). 
• “It so befell that Túrin came then to the hall of Brodda the Incomer, and learned of an old servant of Húrin that Brodda had taken to wife by force Airin Húrin’s kinswoman, and had oppressed Morwen” (HoME XI, Grey Annals, p. 90). 
• “Eöl found Irith, the sister of King Turgon, astray in the wild near his dwelling, and he took her to wife by force: a very wicked deed in the eyes of the Eldar.” (HoME XI, Quendi and Eldar, p. 409, n. 9, fn omitted)

 

That is: X took Y to wife is now pretty closely associated with the addition by force, and it’s only ever used (with or without the modifier) for these very specific marriages (Aredhel and Eöl, Aerin and Brodda) which were unwanted and obviously rape. 

At the same time, all other marriages are described with the term wed: in HoME XI, Dior weds Lindis, Túrin weds Níniel, Tuor weds Idril, Eärendil weds Elwing, Dior weds Nimloth etc. 

(Brodda is said to have wedded Aerin once, but that passage comes not long after it had been said that the Easterlings wedded the women of Hithlum by force (HoME XI, Grey Annals, p. 79), and a few lines before it’s said that he had taken her to wife by force (HoME XI, Grey Annals, p. 90).) 

The term wed is never used for Aredhel and Eöl. 

The published Silmarillion 

In any analysis of the published Silmarillion, it’s important to keep in mind that Tolkien didn’t publish it and that there was nothing close to a final text. Instead, Christopher Tolkien stitched together texts from across four decades. 

Concerning the published Quenta Silmarillion in particular, the later in the tale, the older the text. The very oldest part of the published QS is the first part of chapter 24 (the last chapter), which was taken from a text from 1930, while most earlier chapters were based on texts written or edited in the 1950s. In the published QS, the phrase X took Y to wife appears three times, twice for Aredhel and Eöl, and once for Eärendil and Elwing. 

Concerning Aredhel and Eöl: 

• “And it came to pass that [Eöl] saw Aredhel Ar-Feiniel as she strayed among the tall trees near the borders of Nan Elmoth, a gleam of white in the dim land. Very fair she seemed to him, and he desired her; and he set his enchantments about her so that she could not find the ways out, but drew ever nearer to his dwelling in the depths of the wood. There were his smithy, and his dim halls, and such servants as he had, silent and secret as their master. And when Aredhel, weary with wandering, came at last to his doors, he revealed himself; and he welcomed her, and led her into his house. And there she remained; for Eöl took her to wife, and it was long ere any of her kin heard of her again.” (Sil, QS, ch. 16) 
• “Then Beleg chose Anglachel; and that was a sword of great worth, and it was so named because it was made of iron that fell from heaven as a blazing star; it would cleave all earth-delved iron. One sword only in Middle-earth was like to it. That sword does not enter into this tale, though it was made of he same ore by the same smith; and that smith was Eöl the Dark Elf, who took Aredhel Turgon’s sister to wife.” (Sil, QS, ch. 21)

These two passages are based on fairly late texts, written after 1950 (that is, written after Tolkien had finished LOTR). The first passage clearly depicts an incredibly questionable situation, with Eöl setting “his enchantments about her so that she could not find the ways out”. That is, he trapped her with magic. Note that Tolkien’s Maeglin materials that Christopher Tolkien took this passage from explicitly call this a “forced marriage” (HoME XI, p. 327). That is: Aredhel didn’t want this marriage. And since sex (regardless of consent) = marriage for Elves, “forced marriage” just means rape. 

The other instance of this phrase is very different, concerning Eärendil: “he took to wife Elwing the fair” (Sil, QS, ch. 24). However, this is from an ancient text (from 1930). In all later versions of the story of Eärendil and Elwing, the term used was wed, including in LOTR: “Eärendil wedded Elwing” (LOTR, p. 1034). Other later versions that use wed for Eärendil and Elwing are the Earliest AB, the Later AB (1937) and the Tale of Years (after 1950). Note that these later Annals texts do know the phrase X took Y to wife, because both the Earliest AB and the Later AB use it for Eöl and Aredhel. 

There are two more instances of this phrase in the published Silmarillion, in the Akallabêth, which was written after LOTR. 

• “There was a lady Inzilbêth, renowned for her beauty, and her mother was Lindórië, sister of Eärendur, the Lord of Andúnië in the days of Ar-Sakalthôr father of Ar-Gimilzôr. Gimilzôr took her to wife, though this was little to her liking, for she was in heart one of the Faithful, being taught by her mother; but the kings and their sons were grown proud and not to be gainsaid in their wishes.” (Sil, Akallabêth) 
• Míriel: “But Pharazôn took her to wife against her will, doing evil in this and evil also in that the laws of Númenor did not permit the marriage, even in the royal house, of those more nearly akin than cousins in the second degree. And when they were wedded, he seized the sceptre into his own hand, taking the title of Ar-Pharazôn (Tar-Calion in the Elven-tongue); and the name of his queen he changed to Ar-Zimraphel.” (Sil, Akallabêth) (Note that there’s a rough text printed in HoME XII, p. 159 ff, where Tolkien tried out a completely different (consensual) story for Míriel and Pharazôn before abandoning/rejecting it. This version doesn’t use the phrase.)

Again, the wives who were “taken” in the Akallabêth clearly did not want this. It does not sound like the wives had any say in the matter: they were simply taken to wife, no consent required. These are forced marriages, and given that the Númenoreans adopted most of their social norms from the Noldor, we can assume that, again, this is just a euphemism for rape. 

In conclusion: the phrase X took Y to wife appears five times in the published Silmarillion. The four instances written after 1950 clearly depict terrible unwanted marriages where the man just took what he wanted from an unwilling woman over whom he had power, and the fifth is a remnant from decades before, using a phrase that Tolkien never again used for Eärendil and Elwing after 1930.  

Unfinished Tales

The phrase X took Y to wife appears three times in Unfinished Tales, which is a book that describes or mentions dozens of marriages, some in great detail. But again, this phrase is used only for three very specific and questionable-to-clearly-rape cases, in late-ish passages written after LOTR: 

• Brodda “took by force Aerin, Húrin’s kinswoman, to wife” (UT, p. 135). This is a text from the Narn, and it’s explicitly rape (“by force”). 
• “Tar-Palantir married late and had no son, and his daughter he named Míriel in the Elven-tongue. But when the King died, she was taken to wife by Pharazôn son of Gimilkhâd (who also was dead) against her will, and against the law of Númenor, since she was the child of his father’s brother.” (UT, p. 288) Again, explicitly against Míriel’s will, definitely no consent involved. 
• “But in this tale it is said that Imrazôr harboured Mithrellas, and took her to wife. But when she had borne him a son, Galador, and a daughter, Gilmith, she slipped away by night and he saw her no more.” (UT, p. 321) I already discussed this passage above, since it was also printed in HoME XII. But again, the fact that she ran away from him at the earliest opportunity doesn’t say much good about this marriage.

 

Children of Húrin 

Given the subject matter and when it was written, the Narn is connected to both Unfinished Tales and HoME XI. Searching manually, I found two instances of the phrase X took Y to wife, both concerning Brodda and Aerin, and both with the by force modifier that makes it’s blatantly obvious that rape is meant: 

• Re Brodda: “he that took by force Aerin, Húrin’s kinswoman, to wife” (CoH, p. 183). 
• Re Aerin: “for a certain Brodda, one of the Easterlings, had taken her by force to be his wife.” (CoH, p. 68)

Further thoughts 

The historical development of the phrase X took Y to wife is pretty clear. Early on, Tolkien sometimes still used it to mean marry/wed, without the clear, unvarying implication that there was something wrong with the marriage. However, even at the time, wed was the phrase of choice for happy couples, while X took Y to wife was often used for more questionable situations. In particular, I imagine that Tolkien likely realised pretty early on, around 1930, that the phrase had certain connotations (seizing/owning/possessing something) that did not really fit happy, loving marriages. 

At the very latest around 1950, after writing LOTR, Tolkien decided that the Legendarium would be less sexist in-universe than previously, writing in LACE: “In all such things, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the neri and nissi (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal – unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the nissi the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the neri. There are, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a nér can think or do, or others with which only a nís is concerned. There are indeed some differences between the natural inclinations of neri and nissi [list of statistical sex differences in interests]. But all these things, and other matters of labour and play, or of deeper knowledge concerning being and the life of the World, may at different times be pursued by any among the Noldor, be they neri or nissi.” (HoME X, p. 213–214, fn omitted) 

And here at the very latest Tolkien would have realised that the phrase X took Y to wife has some connotations and implications that means that it could never fit happy, loving marriages, so he: 

1. removed the phrase from all descriptions of happy couples with willing wives (as can be seen, for example, from the differences between the drafts for the LOTR Appendices and the final versions published in LOTR), instead uniformly using the terms wed and marry for these consensual couples, and 
2. retained it for the couples where the wife had always, since the earliest versions from the 1920s/1930s, hated/disliked/been coerced/been trapped by the husband (Brodda and Aerin, Eöl and Aredhel). In many of these late-ish passages, Tolkien adds further emphasis to the fact that the wife was taken against her wishes by adding modifiers like by force (Brodda and Aerin, Eöl and Aredhel), though this was little to her liking (Gimilzôr and Inzilbêth), or against her will (Pharazôn and Míriel).

 

By the end, Tolkien never used the phrase X took Y to wife for happy, wanted marriages, and inversely, used this phrase as the principal descriptor of forced marriages, which rarely-to-never got neutral descriptors such as wed. Often, Tolkien further clarified the phrase by adding a by force or similar, but by the end, that was unnecessary: the phrase X took Y to wife is firmly associated with forced marriage and rape in all texts from the 1950s on. 

(Addendum: the fact that Tolkien’s final conception of the phrase X took Y to wife was pretty dark would be a lot more obvious to all readers even of only the published Silmarillion if Christopher Tolkien had used the term that all later texts used for Eärendil and Elwing in chapter 24: wed. The only text that ever uses the phrase X took Y to wife for them in the QN (1930), while the Earliest AB (1930), the Later AB (1937), LOTR (after 1950) and the Tale of Years (after 1950) use wed. It would also be more obvious if Christopher Tolkien had chosen to include/add the by force modifier or similar modifiers that his father was using for Aredhel and Eöl around the same time that he wrote the passage that Christopher Tolkien chose for the published Silmarillion. Again, the passage in the published Silmarillion is based on the Maeglin materials, where Tolkien calls it a forced marriage!) 

Sources 

The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien, HarperCollins 2007 (softcover) [cited as: LOTR]. 

The Silmarillion, JRR Tolkien, ed Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins, ebook edition February 2011, version 2019-01-09 [cited as: Sil]. 

Unfinished Tales of Númenor & Middle-earth, JRR Tolkien, ed Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2014 (softcover) [cited as: UT].

The Book of Lost Tales Part Two, JRR Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2015 (softcover) [cited as: HoME II]. 

The Lays of Beleriand, JRR Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2015 (softcover) [cited as: HoME III].

The Shaping of Middle-earth, JRR Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2015 (softcover) [cited as: HoME IV].

The Lost Road and Other Writings, JRR Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2015 (softcover) [cited as: HoME V].

Morgoth’s Ring, JRR Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2015 (softcover) [cited as: HoME X]. 

The War of the Jewels, JRR Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2015 (softcover) [cited as: HoME XI].

The Peoples of Middle-earth, JRR Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2015 (softcover) [cited as: HoME XII]. 

The Children of Húrin, JRR Tolkien, ed Christopher Tolkien, HarperCollins 2014 (softcover) [cited as: CoH]. 

On the recent thread about the name “Shelob,” someone posted the quote from Letters 70 where Tolkien observed to Christopher that the name “sounds quite noisome.” It occurred to me that I had never looked into that particular word. So I did.

According to the OED “noisome” means foul-smelling. Tolkien liked it, he used it five times in TT and three in RotK, applying it to the Dead Marshes, the pools among the slag-heaps, and the flowers of Minas Morgul. (Obviously he was taking liberties in calling a name smelly.) Etymologically, it is a back-formation from “annoy,” which is French anoyer. The adjective for a word that changes like this by losing its first syllable is “aphetic,” BTW.

There is a related word “noyous” which is synonymous with “annoying,” Chaucer uses it in The House of Fame, where an eagle picks him up and carries him off to the palace of the title. Chaucer makes a fuss, and the eagle tells him, “Geoffrey, thou art noyous for to carry!” (One of the reasons I love Chaucer is that whenever he puts himself in one of his poems,, he makes himself the butt of a joke.) I am convinced that this line inspired the scene in The Hobbit where the eagle tells Bilbo, “Don’t pinch! ...You need not be frightened like a rabbit, even if you look rather like one.”

Something that's easy to take for granted is how influential Tolkien has been for high fantasy and imaginative fiction in general. Quite frankly, many if not most of the "fantasy" tropes in popular culture either originate from Tolkien or were popularized by him. It's remarkable, then, to imagine a literary and cultural world where these do not yet exist.

The appeal of The Hobbit seems relatively easy to appreciate. It's a children's story and draws from European folk stories and mythological themes. It's wonderfully written and tells an engaging, fun, succinct, and exciting story. It's no surprise that quickly gained traction. I've read it twice to my kids and they've loved it both times. The book is a solid kid's read and highly accessible.

Lord of the Rings, meanwhile, seems like a much more remarkable success story. The book is, arguably, Tolkien's masterwork and probably one of the most influential books of the 20th CE. It's well-written and is the centrepiece of his legendarium. But it also stands on the shoulders of a children's story, is three physical books in length, includes vast appendices, meanders through verse and song, and takes a heck of a long time to resolve its story. All of that is of course incredible for fans in retrospect, but from a marketing perspective it must have been baffling. Frankly I can imagine many publishers would have dismissed it as "unpublishable" and perhaps even self-indulgent, a book so internally focused that readers must commit to the worldbuilding to fully appreciate it, rather than being able to just skip along the surface of an exciting read.

Thankfully, though, it did get published and became extremely popular. Do we know where it drew fans from, though? These days, largely thanks to Tolkien, an established "fantasy genre" readership, together with related fandoms would have a readymade market for such a book. In short, and to be crude, both nerds (like myself and probably many people here) and even just the nerd-curious would instantly understand the thematics of Tolkien if he were released into today's world, and he'd quickly find a readership. But in 1954, who was actually buying The Fellowship of the Ring?

I hope the scope of this makes sense... I love Tolkien, and the more I try to imagine fiction before him, the more remarkable his success seems.

I'm almost done reading the History of Middle Earth series. I bought the series many years ago but only now did I find the time to finish them.

My mistake? I bought the wrong edition. I have the separate HarperCollins paperbacks from 2002, with beautiful Howe cover illustrations.

But.

Unfortunately the paper quality sucks. I would not ordinarily complain, but in this case it results in many of the copied original manuscripts and maps end up unreadable, a mess of black ink.

In addition page 105 and 106 of Morgoth's Ring are missing. So I bought another copy of the book, a 1994 edition (I guess the original?) and the difference is dramatic. There's only one manuscript page but it's incredible in comparison.

So folks, if you want the paperbacks avoid the Howe editions. I really regret not being able to see more of Tolkien's own hand clearly.

So maybe this was obvious for others, but today I just had the though that Shelob is just she+lob, and in the Hobbit bilbo calls the spiders "lazy lob". Is there anything to suggest this was intentional?

Hello, everyone! My husband and I are having a baby girl in a few months. We are doing her nursery LOTR and Hobbit inspired. I want to have her name tattooed, as well as written out in Sindarin. I want to learn this language anyway, but I knew coming here would be the best idea to check things and spelling. My daughter's name is Elliester and I would appreciate all the help I can get please!

Hello, I'm looking for a rare lord of the rings box set. The movies and the books are one of my favorites and having the original set would be an amazing find. I've been looking everywhere for one that includes the hobbit. My mom was the one that got me into lord of the rings, and when I was in high school I was in a play and I played Sméagol. It was a weird play. If someone could point me in the right direction to getting the box set i would be over the moon.

I’m currently watching the lord of the rings fellowship of the ring EXT, and came across a scene i’ve been wondering about for years. What is the last thing Aragorn says to Arwen in elvish before she rides off with Frodo?

Im new to the subreddit and unsure if this is the right place to ask, thank you for any reply in advance 😊

Edit: first wrote Eowyn over Arwen, I blame the bottle of wine, not often I get flushed as as an adult, thank you commenter for pointing this out

“In his great need he drew out once more the phial of Galadriel, but it was pale and cold in his trembling hand and threw no light into that stifling dark. He was come to the heart of the realm of Sauron and the forges of his ancient might, greatest in Middle-earth; all other powers were here subdued”

It has never sat quite right with me, please help me understand. The phial contains the light of Eärendil’s star, a Silmaril, in which was enshrined the last remnant of the light of the Two Trees. This is deeply potent stuff, an ancient and holy light. How can a spell of darkness suppress it, Maiar though Sauron might be?

Is Sauron far more powerful than I am giving him credit for? Is the light contained inside the vial just an echo, too many steps removed from the trees? Is darkness more capable of devouring than light is at illuminating?

I’m making a short fan-fic of Sauron forging the One Ring, and I have two breaks from the lore that I’d like to reconcile, if possible.

1. Did Sauron have foresight? More specifically, is it possible that he knew that he would give seven of the Sixteen to Dwarves and the other nine to Men before forging the One for himself?
2. When did Sauron learn of the Three? Is it possible, through spies of some kind, that Sauron learned of the Three before forging the One?

Looking through the “Tale of Years” and “Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age,” I don’t see anything that contradicts the notion that Sauron forged the One with knowledge of the Three. Foresight of the Sixteen is a bigger stretch though.

Is there anything I’m missing? I’m willing to break lore for my project, but I’d rather not if I can avoid it.