XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Michael Cole wrote:   
      
   > > > > Sandman:   
   > > > > "Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so   
   > > > > ensnared them"   
   > > >   
   > > > > They were "proud and great", "and so", i.e. "therefore" they   
   > > > > were ensnared.   
   > > >   
   > > > Stan Brown:   
   > > > The "and so" refers to the giving of Rings, not to the pride and   
   > > > greatness of the Men. I'm not sure if you're saying that, or   
   > > > something different.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > I'm saying it's both. The fact that men were "proud and great" is   
   > > pertinent information in how they could be ensared. The entire   
   > > paragraph reads:   
   >   
   > > "The Three, fairest of all, the Elf-lords hid from him, and his   
   > > hand never touched them or sullied them. Seven the Dwarf-kings   
   > > possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons   
   > > have consumed. Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so   
   > > ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One,   
   > > and they became Ringwraiths"   
   >   
   > > Men are the only race above that is given a personality   
   > > description, and is also the only one being ensnared. It is clear   
   > > that the "proud and great" is greatly connected to the reason why   
   > > they were able to be ensnared, it's not merely a offhand comment   
   > > about men in general.   
   >   
   > I would disagree.  He describes the elves as "elf-lords" and the   
   > dwarves as "Dwarf-kings".  The "proud and great" is a similar   
   > description.   
      
   No, "mortal men" is a similar description.   
      
   > Its basically saying that he didn't just give them to the first men   
   > he passed on the road, but specifically selected "proud and great"   
   > men. I.e., kings or lords rather than garbage collectors or   
   > wandering tinkers.   
      
   Obviously, I disagree. But even so, it doesn't change the basic premise.   
   Even if "men" aren't corruptible, but all men in power (kings) are, that   
   would still make "men" corruptible in the scope of Arda history, since no   
   one writes history about the gentle farmers on the countryside.   
      
   A contemporary comparison is easy to make. It's not unreasonable to claim   
   that humans are overusing natural resources, which of course doesn't mean   
   that all humans do it, or that even most humans have the capability to   
   control it. Indeed they don't - people in power, be it government or the   
   commercial sector, are the ones that enable it. Oil companies, meat farms,   
   lack of regulation from governments and so on.   
      
   If it weren't for those "men" (or women), humans wouldn't have this   
   "trait". But our society is founded by people in power, and judged by it as   
   well. If an alien race were to visit, they would not unlikely judge us but   
   what men in power do, because that's how civilization works.   
      
   Obviously, it's as easy to claim that "humans are violent" based on our war   
   history, or "humans are greedy" based on, pretty much all history.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)