You're quite correct - we have absolutely no cases whatsoever ofThe key quote from Tolkien that answers this is contained in Letter 246, with my added emphasis:
It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.
This implies that the Ring conferring anythingis useless to anyone but the most basicSauron, but it tempts you into thinking it's a source of power on anyone aside from Sauron, and in that way it gets you to wear it, and so gains control over you.
Of the actual Ring-bearersIn order to proceed in an investigation of this, and how to reconcile it with other statements made by Tolkien we havemust first establish a baseline that we're going to work from:
- Sauron himself - well It is accepted that the Ring gave some degree of "power" to Isildur, you know..Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo and Sam, in the form of invisibility, longevity and an occasionally enhanced presence.
- Isildur - had Sauron was the maker of the Ring; he originally made it for a few yearshis own use, invisibility and possessivenesshis own use only; he certainly never intended it to be used by anybody else, and he had no requirement for any of these three (as he already possessed them due to his nature as a Maia).
- Deagol - never actually wore it Therefore these three "powers" were not an intrinsic property of the Ring intended by it's maker, was killed shortly after he foundbut rather side-effects of it being used by a mortal.
- Smeagol And these "powers" are actually quite minor compared to those possessed by a Maia.
- There are different kinds of "power"; these minor (by comparison) "powers" are one kind that are available to mortals as Ring- had it for hundreds of yearsbearers, longevitybut the power to raise armies, invisibility and possessivenesscontrol others, smalldefeat Sauron and mean evilsrule Middle-earth is a completely different kind altogether.
Now let's look at what Tolkien says about the Ring, quoting from the same source as Shamshiel's answer:
But even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in 'rapport' with himself: he was not 'diminished'. Unless some other seized it and became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and usurp his place.
Here it's important to look at what Tolkien says, and only at what Tolkien says. Here's what he does not say (and note the emphasis):
- Some other person is controlling the Ring.
- Bilbo That other person is - had it for many decades, longevity, invisibility and possessivenessgaining power from the Ring.
- Frodo That other person is - had it for decades, longevity, invisibility and possessivenessusing that power against Sauron to defeat him.
And here's what he does say (emphasis again):
- Sam Some other person has - had it for a few days, invisibilityclaimed ownership of the Ring.
- That other person has, possessivenessthrough their own "sufficiently strong and heroic" nature, delusionssucceeded in taking that ownership of grandeurit from Sauron.
- And Sauron as a result is diminished and can be defeated by the unenhanced other person (again, if "sufficiently strong and heroic").
While it's trueThis is an important but subtle distinction. In the first case the other person is using the Ring to give themselves a "level up" against Sauron, to boost their own power and defeat him that way - aside from Sauron - we've never seen anybody ofbut realthat's not what Tolkien is saying. In the second they're not doing this; the power wearing it, we do havein the Ring is quite useless to them but talkingby being able to deny it to Sauron they diminish him a good deal about what they would do if they had itand hence (though their own natural but unenhanced strength) are able to defeat him.
ButAs for "become master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One Ring" - the key point isTolkien does not actually define what he means by this: this could be part of the Ring's temptation. There's no evidence whatsoever that if they did get But since the greater part of Sauron's power is in the Ring, they would be ableit seems reasonable to do what they thinksuggest that this "mastery" actually belongs to the Ring itself rather than to the wielder (hence "since the making of the One Ring"), who only obtains the "mastery" by proxy.
But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.
InNow we'll continue by looking at some other sources. First of all, the words of Galadriel:
Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others.
These seem to indicate that one could use the power of the Ring is useless to anyone but Sauron, but it tempts you into thinking it's a source of power, and in that way it gets you to wear it, and so gains control over youthere are two traps being set for the careless reader here. The first one I've mentioned already:
It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.
So while Gandalf may say "With that power I should have power too great and terrible" or Galadriel may say "In place ofAnd the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen" what's importantsecond is that it's Gandalf and Galadriel saying this, not Tolkien. Asmentioned elsewhere by Tolkien said inwith reference to a different context and ofcharacter in a different charactersituation, but must surely also apply here:
And there's no reason why the same warning shouldn't apply toSo what other characters say too.
Thiswe actually have here is a lengthy preamble to help explainGaladriel being deceived by the next partRing into thinking it can be used, which isand remembering that it appears as though thisshe is a exactlycharacter whatin the story, not Tolkien intendedhimself, her words must only be read as being in-character - they shouldn't be interpreted as Tolkien describing the way things are to be.
Letter 246 is a good sourceThe same can be said of quotes to support thisanyone else who describes using the Ring's power in a similar situation: Gandalf, andBoromir, Denethor, even Elrond when he says "I will not take the Ring to wield it".
I'll pull a fewround things off with some other observations, also from itLetter 246. First of all, describing what "controlling Tolkien equates taking control of the Ring" really meansRing with the Ring taking control of you:
He needed time, much time, before he could control the Ring or (which in such a case is the same) before it could control him.
Describing a confrontation betweenThen he establishes how difficult it is to face Sauron and a, even if you have tried to claim the Ring-bearer (and indicating that the Ring has no power over Sauron too):
Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his will.
Summarizing what I said above:
It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.
The next may be read asAnd then he reiterates that the upper hand in a hypothetical contest between a Ring-bearing Gandalf andwith Sauron, but it's actually not; I've emphasised does not come from your possession of the relevant parts to highlight this:
Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position.
And this may also be read in a similar mannerRing, but again it's not; it's not Gandalf with the Ring but rather Sauron without the Ringfrom Sauron's lack of it:
The final itemIn summary - the answer is "no", the reference to "Gandalf as Ring-Lord" but does that really mean a Gandalf that had mastered wouldn't work for anyone else in the Ring? What doesway they think it would (by granting them additional power or by being "Ring-Lord" actually mean anyway? To answer that we'll refer backable to the first quote from this letter that I postedbe used as a weapon), and repeat it because it's worth doing soremember:
He needed time, much time, before he could controlIt was part of the Ring or (which in such a case isessential deceit of the same) before it could control himRing to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.
So it's clear now that a so-called "Ring-Lord" is actually someone who had in reality fallen under control of the RingBut "yes", not the other way around.
Edit: I'm adding these pointsit would work by causing Sauron to address somebecome diminished, provided they were strong enough to be able to take and retain control of the issues raised in comments; it seems betterit; they would remain limited to have this here rather than have a continuing discussiontheir own native ability in the commentsany contest against Sauron, however.
- "Longevity and invisibility are not real powers? I'd love to have those!" - correct; they're not real "powers" - at least so far as the Ring is concerned. They're side-effects experienced by a mortal who wears the Ring. Remember - Sauron created the Ring for his own use; as a Maia he was already immortal and at the time he created it could become invisible if he wished. Everyone who is tempted by the Ring speaks of using it to raise armies, win wars, defeat Sauron, rule Middle-earth - that's the kind of "power" being talked about here.
- "Wore the Ring" versus "had the Ring" - I've adjusted the text above to make my meaning clearer.
- "No cases of anything but the most basic of power" - I still stand by this. The reason that the Ring was created was not "domination of others", it was control of the other Rings: "the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency" (Rings of Power). The "enhancements" that Sam and Frodo experience are personal in scope and limited in range, especially considering that the Ring is something that tempts people with the rule of Middle-earth. Galadriel used her Ring to effectively stop time in Lothlorien; scaring off a few Orcs isn't "surpassing potency" by comparison.