Was Faramir's claim that he'd have left the Ring on the side of the road if he chanced to find it...

[Your_Great_Darsh_Face]

@Filbert

It’s actually pretty clear that he doesn’t know the thing he’s talking about is the one Ring, when he comes out with the whole ‘if it lay by the highway’ claim. He knows they have something powerful, and dangerous, that used to belong to Sauron, but not what it is.

Once he actually knows they are talking about the ring (which, of course, was thought to be utterly lost or destroyed for centuries), he basically amends his claim to being only wise enough to know he shouldn’t have anything to do with it (“There are some perils from which a man must flee”), not to claim he would not be affected by it.

This is exactly right, along with those posts that have correctly said that Faramir realizes that as long as he does not touch, see or even talk about the Ring he can resist its lure for as long as it takes Frodo to go away. He did not realize he was talking about the One Ring in the first instance, but he does say that having made such a boast he is honour-bound to keep it.

And, Skald the Rhymer, I divine from your contempt for the movies that you and I shall get along quite well together.

[Stratocaster]

@Jonathan_Chance

Y’all are not quite there.

Fatamirs role from a story point of view is to justify the continued existence of the race of men. It’s stated in the text that by chance in Faramir the blood of Numenor ran almost true. He had the strength of character to both know and resist the initial temptation of the ring.

Because of that the world of men is made savable. All other men save Aragorn who are exposed to the ring are corrupted by it in one way or the other. Faramir alone in the texts proves that men are not completely broken and can inherit middle earth from the elves.

Hence he HAS to make a big deal about rejecting it and keeping his promise. Without it he serves no narrative purpose.

Interesting. Is that your take alone, or is that supported by anything canonical (say, Tolkein’s commentary)?

I always inferred from the text that the age of men was an inevitability, so long as Middle Earth was not doomed, and that it was not dependent upon, well, anything specific. Do you mean this purely in the sense of the theme Tolkein was advancing, in the symbolic need for a pure, noble man? And wasn’t Aragorn susceptible to the ring’s corruption as well?

[stillownedbysetters]

Tolkien’s premise is indeed that the age of men is an inevitability. And that men cannot co-exist with the one ring. He repeatedly shows us that men are the least resistant of all the middle earth races to the lure of the ring. It’s the old adage about absolute power corrupting absolutely. In order for men to safely take over leadership of middle earth, the ring and all that supports it have to be destroyed. Tolkien shows us that the very wisest of men know not to become involved with the ring, that even the noblest of intentions for use of the ring will not stop the corruption of the wielder. The ring is evil in and of itself and cannot be used for any good purposes.

[Lasciel]

@stillownedbysetters

Tolkien’s premise is indeed that the age of men is an inevitability. And that men cannot co-exist with the one ring. He repeatedly shows us that men are the least resistant of all the middle earth races to the lure of the ring. It’s the old adage about absolute power corrupting absolutely. In order for men to safely take over leadership of middle earth, the ring and all that supports it have to be destroyed. Tolkien shows us that the very wisest of men know not to become involved with the ring, that even the noblest of intentions for use of the ring will not stop the corruption of the wielder. The ring is evil in and of itself and cannot be used for any good purposes.

This is where I was thinking - Aragorn also has the blood of Numenor, and his opinion is pretty much consistently “don’t talk about it, I don’t want to see it, don’t let me touch it, keep it away from me, better you than me” which is also where Gandalf is.

Both of them are very aware that their very natures make them huge targets for the ring, and that regardless of what they WANT, they would eventually become corrupt and fall if they gave it half a chance to get it’s claws in. From what I remember, there is absolutely no indication anywhere that Faramir is more worthy or more “pure” than Aragorn, and thus more able to resist the ring, or that his or Aragorn’s bloodlines made it possible for men to inherit the world - they simply were, because the other “earlier” races were fading out.

That’s the whole point of the endeavor - the Maiar and the elves are working with the hobbits and dwarves to get rid of this utter evil so that when they head off and men inherit the earth, they aren’t faced with this utter and implacable and unconquerable evil.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Your_Great_Darsh_Face

This is exactly right, along with those posts that have correctly said that Faramir realizes that as long as he does not touch, see or even talk about the Ring he can resist its lure for as long as it takes Frodo to go away. He did not realize he was talking about the One Ring in the first instance, but he does say that having made such a boast he is honour-bound to keep it.

And, Skald the Rhymer, I divine from your contempt for the movies that you and I shall get along quite well together.

Tob be fair, I only despise 2 out of 4 of Jackson’s Middle-earth movies. (I haven’t and won’t see the latter two Hobbits; PJ is getting no more of my money.)