Minutus

Saruman after being spared by Frodo at the end on the journey comments to Frodo "Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel." P.362 [J.R.R Tolkien] The Return of the King. In The Two Towers Frodo makes a momentous speech to Gollum that even surprises Sam; "there was a look in his face and a tone in his voice that he had not known before." Frodo tells Gollum, "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!" Sam notes he had always thought up until that time that his master's kindness must have also held "a fair measure of blindness." Gollum is also similarly shocked and falls to the ground "abashed and terrified." P.305 [Tolkien] The Two Towers. In The Tower of Cirith Ungol when Sam tells Frodo he has the Ring the reaction from Frodo; "No you won't, you thief! He panted, staring at Sam with eyes wide with fear and enmity." P.220. [Tolkien] The Two Towers reveals the dark side of Anacardium within Frodo; "He has a controversy when his external will is aroused, but in an evil man there is no restraint and he will not have this symptom." P.103. [Kent].
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Okay, I see what you mean (I wish I could re-read the book now!!!).
But at this point in the story I would still assume that these things are
"artifacts" of Frodo's possession of the ring. The book tells us over and
over that the Ring has "a mind of its own", it plans its way, and (thru
exerting influence on creatures) creates the means of fulfilling that plan.
Now, we are told, it "wants to go back to its master" (Saruman, I think?)

We've seen other places in the book (and movie) that the Ring can influence
even people who have never carried it, but who are merely nearby. Which
greatly diminishes the significance of the fact that Frodo has to fight
against the Ring's influence (which, I am contending, is *the Ring's
influence*, not part of himself!). So from that standpoint, my feeling/
understanding is that, to use rubrics such as "antagonism with oneself" and
"divided will" etc. would be like using e.g. vertigo in prescribing for
someone who is *presently drunk* (but does not normally have vertigo).

I guess we could compare this with someone having "side effects" from a drug
that they can't be taken off of, and that's not a situation I have a good
understanding of -- I guess we could either give the "underlying
constitutional" if we know or can identify it, or prescribe based on the
overall picture, which would be partly "of the patient" (responses of their
underlying physiology) and "of the drug" (direct toxic effects of the drug)
and etc. (Would anyone like to comment on whether that part is right?) But
if following the former route, symptoms "of the drug" are eliminated, and if
following the latter, we *know* that we are not prescribing purely for the
patient, but rather for the patient *and the toxicity*.

It's possible that Frodo *after* his adventure, after having had the Ring
for so long, will be in a different "state" than when he left, and would
need a different remedy (possibly even anac, but since I can't find my book,
I can't draw on that for my opinion!)....

?? What do you think?

Shannon
on 9/26/04 12:27 AM, liz lalor at lalor@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Yes BUT it how the Ring corrupts and turns the mind and heart of each
individual to get back to it's master that I have written about.