Saruman was known to have studied ring-lore and the rings created by the elves and Sauron, he probably created his own ring in the fashion of the elves of Eregion who had help from Sauron. We know that even though Sauron played no part in creating the 3 elven rings made personally by Celebrimbor were still subject to the one ring mainly because of how great the one ring was and maybe because they were made in the same fashion as the other rings and the one.

We also know after Isengard was defeated and his staff was broken by Gandalf, Saruman still had some decent power left, e.g. his voice, and even uses his voice to make Treebeard release him from Isengard, yet once the one ring was destroyed Saruman seemed to have no power left whatsoever. Which makes it seem that his ring enhanced him even when his staff was broken, but like the other rings once the one ring was destroyed his ring failed.

Is there any evidence that may back this up?

  • Do you have a quote or anything proving he had his own ring, i don't remember anything about him making or having any kind of ring of power. And your question sounds like your just assuming he created his own.
    – Himarm
    Commented Mar 3, 2015 at 14:29
  • 3
    "I rode to the foot of Orthanc, and came to the stair of Saruman and there he met me and led me up to his high chamber. He wore a ring on his finger." -- Lord of the Rings, Book 2, Chapter 2, "The Council of Elrond" Commented Mar 3, 2015 at 14:31
  • @MattGutting yes after looking into it this and the line, i am sauruman the wise, the ring maker, are the only mentions, its never stated that ring is a ring of power, only hinted at. So i don't think were going to be able to do anything beyond speculation, as the nature of his ring is completely unknown.
    – Himarm
    Commented Mar 3, 2015 at 14:36
  • Actually, thinking about this, Saruman's voice seemed to retain its power even after the destruction of the Ring. Treebeard releases him seven days before Gandalf, Aragorn, et al. come to visit; that's sometime in June or so. Well after the Ring is destroyed in March. So I'm not sure the premise of the question is well supported even if Saruman's ring was a Ring of Power. Commented Mar 3, 2015 at 14:53
  • 3
    Saruman was stripped of his supernatural powers, but he still had his knowledge, experience and charisma.
    – Joe L.
    Commented Mar 3, 2015 at 15:40

1 Answer 1


The only thing I'm aware of that has bearing on this is the following remark in the Foreword to the Second Edition of Lord of the Rings:

Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth.

From this we can deduce:

  • Saruman had not yet sufficient Ring-lore to make a Great Ring,
  • Therefore the ring he had when Gandalf met him could not have been a Great Ring,
  • And he was certainly not powerful enough to challenge Sauron with it.

This all hinges on what the definition of "Great Ring" is, and a working definition is given in the chapter Shadow of the Past:

But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous.

A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness.

From this we can see that the "Great Rings" were the Rings of Power; i.e the 3, the 7 and the 9. The ring that Saruman had must therefore have been a lesser ring, which is defined immediately before this text:

In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles – yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals.

It therefore seems evident that Saruman's ring was not a Ring of Power.

As to whether or not it was subject to the One, there is not enough evidence to say either way.

  • 1
    Interesting answer, and probably the best we're going to get. I'm not sure that you can make any useful deductions based on the quote from the foreward. In the context of the foreward, the quote is not meant to be supplementary information, rather a contrafactual example of exactly how not to read the text.
    – TGnat
    Commented Mar 3, 2015 at 21:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.