the insidious influence of the Ring towards possessiveness. Ominously, Isildur, Gollum, and Bilbo each uses the word ‘precious’ in relation to the Ring.
Paul H. Kocher notes that in the section on *Recovery in *On Fairy-Stories Tolkien says that it is necessary to provide a clear view of things which seem trite: because we know them so well, we no longer look at them, but keep them locked in our memory as in a hoard. This, says Kocher, explains much of Tolkien’s feelings about correct attitudes and sources of evil. ‘We are not to be like dragons hoarding in our dens whatever we can snatch from the living world around us. People and things are not meant to be our property, they belong to themselves …. We are possessed, captured, by what we think we possess, says Tolkien. And if we believe we can wholly possess anything we delude ourselves’ (Master of Middle-earth: The Fiction of J.R.R. Tolkien (1972), pp. 66–7).
Power. Several of Tolkien’s correspondents thought that the main theme of *The Lord of the Rings was power and its misuse. In his replies Tolkien admitted its importance, but generally rejected the idea that it was the most significant or predominant theme in the work. In a letter to G.E. Selby soon after the publication of The Lord of the Rings was complete (?late 1955 or ?1956) he wrote: ‘The story is for me about Mercy and Hope/Death, to which “Power” (which most people fasten on) is subsidiary’ (quoted in Sotheby’s, Fine Books and Manuscripts: Including English and American Literature, New York, 16–17 May 1984, lot 703; see also *Hope and despair; *Pity and mercy). On 17 November 1957 he told H. Schiro that ‘the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!’ (Letters, p. 262). And to Rhona Beare on 14 October 1958 he wrote that ‘if the tale is “about” anything (other than itself) it is not as seems widely supposed about “power”. Power-seeking is only the motive-power that sets events going, and is relatively unimportant, I think. It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality [*Mortality and Immortality]; and the ‘escapes’: serial longevity, and hoarding memory’ (Letters, p. 284).
In a draft letter to Joanna de Bortadano in April 1956 Tolkien wrote more fully:
Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for Domination) …. [But] I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a war, about something dark and threatening enough to seem at that time of supreme importance, but that is mainly a ‘setting’ for characters to show themselves. The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality …. I am not a ‘democrat’ only because ‘humility’ and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal greatness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a ring of power …. [Letters, p. 246]
Tolkien was aware of the corrupting effect that power could have on those who wield it, and indeed that those who seek power are often the least fit to have it. He wrote to his son *Christopher on 29 November 1943 that ‘the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity …. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari [“I do not wish to be made a bishop”] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop’ (Letters, p. 64). He undoubtedly agreed with John Emerich Edward Dalberg, the first Baron Acton (1834–1902), who wrote that ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, and with William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (1708–1778), who said in the House of Lords in 1770 that ‘unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it’.
Tolkien objected especially to the use of power to dominate the wills of others, even ‘knowing what was best for them’ and to the use of *magic or machines (see *Environment) to enforce or impose one’s own will. In a letter to *Milton Waldman in ?late 1951 he noted that even a sub-creator (see *Sub-creation) ‘may become possessive, clinging to the things made as “its own”’ (as did Fëanor in *‘The Silmarillion’), and wish
to be the Lord and God of his private creation. He will rebel against the laws of the Creator – especially against mortality. Both of these (alone or together) will lead to the desire for Power, for making the will more quickly effective, – and so to the Machine (or Magic). By the last I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of the development of the inherent inner powers or talents – or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills ….
The Enemy [Melkor/Morgoth in ‘The Silmarillion’] in successive forms is always ‘naturally’ concerned with sheer Domination, and so the Lord of magic and machines; but the problem: that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root, the desire to benefit the world and others – speedily and according to the benefactor’s own plans – is a recurrent motive. [Letters, pp. 145–6]
It is noteworthy in The Lord of the Rings that most of those who oppose Sauron reject using the One Ring as a weapon against him, and will not even accept it as a gift. Gandalf tells Frodo:
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 …. Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to yield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me. [bk. I, ch. 2]
Tolkien commented in a draft letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar in September 1963, that ‘Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained “righteous”, but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for “good”, and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom …’ (Letters, pp. 332–3).
In ‘The Silmarillion’ the Valar reject the use of force to bring all of the Elves to Aman, and though they warn, they take no steps to prevent the Noldor returning to Middle-earth. In the Third Age the Valar send the Istari to Middle-earth as messengers ‘to contest the power of Sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist him; but they were forbidden to match power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force or fear’ (The Lord of the Rings, Appendix B). Saruman falls, and his words as he tempts Gandalf to join him seem to embody the deceits, lies, and corruption of those who will do anything to obtain power or to gain the attention of those who have power:
A new Power is rising …. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those who aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means. [bk. II, ch. 2]
In a late work, *Notes on Motives in the Silmarillion, Tolkien commented that Morgoth had ‘a vast demiurgic lust for power and the achievement of his own will and designs, on a great scale’. When ‘confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction.’ He endeavoured ‘to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was
