{The Lord of the Rings [continued (4)]}[20th June 1988]

[Redbook5:189-190][19880620:1040f]{The Lord of the Rings [continued (4)]}[20^th June 1988]

19880620.1040

[continued]

I came to this* through what seemed like an ingenious interpretation of Tolkien's opening verse,** although I now feel that it may require too many changes. Basically, there are the elements of the beginning of the series of odd prime numbers*** there (the only even prime number, 2, might well be unsuitable as too balanced, and is in any case exceptional). On this speculation, Tolkien should have written:

[Text of ms image above, which is included because of the marginal diagram to the left of each line except l5 & l8:]

'Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,

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

Five**** for Mortal Men doomed to die,

One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne.

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,

One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.'

#

As it happens, although the One Ring and the Three all play their parts in the book, and the Seven are related to the history of the Dwarves, the reason for having Nine rings for Men is never very clear, either in the created history which framed the narrative,#* or in the narrative itself: there never really seems enough to do for nine, or if there is they don't seem to be doing it; the scene at the Ford before Rivendell seems positively crowded with chaps standing around waiting: “There were Nine Riders at the water's edge below, and Frodo's spirit quailed before the threat of their uplifted faces.” Interestingly, the number five does turn up for no apparent reason in a similar context: the Rods of the Five Wizards: three are identified; but what happened to the other two is uncertain. In a man as meticulous as Tolkien, the creation and survival of unnecessary actors suggests a strong compulsion unconnected with the requirements of his plot.

The original 3+7+9+1 gives 20, a good decimal round figure, if uncharacteristic of its author, I should guess. The supposed 'correct' version of 3+7+5+1 of course gives 16, the ideal number for the double circle formed by the Ring.#**

*[See last previous entry.]

**[See (presumably) last two previous entries but one, [Redbook5:187][19880620:1040c]{The Lord of the Rings}[20^th June 1988]ff]

***(I realise that 1 is not strictly a prime number, but it should be part of the series!)

****'Five'and 'Nine' sound similar enough to be often mistaken [for each other] in radio messages, etc.

#There is also a perfect type of Death – Descent into Hades – & Rebirth narrative in Gandalf's account of what happened to him in the Mins of Moria. 'Naked I was sent back – for a time, until my task is done.' (& at the top of a spiral staircase, no less) <891102>

#*to me, at any rate: no doubt they are all named somewhere.

#**(But 20 breaks handily into 8 (Circle Archetypes) and 12 (Zodiac Circle)....)

(And 9 fulfils a similar overlapping role to 5 in the Circles... [i.e. at +C†I~ at beginning & end of a Circle of 5 or 9].)

(Actually all numbers 0-10 are significant to the Circles! Also 12, 16....)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22072018]