# Corporeality of the Nazgûl?



## Radaghast (Dec 7, 2021)

There's a question on Quora asking, "What's the big deal about the Nazgûl losing their horses?" Of course, this is taken to mean the horses and Ringwraiths being washed away in the flooding of Bruinen. Strangely, one answer states that the Witch-king manages to save his horse, even though there is nothing in the book to suggest this is the case. _Unfinished Tales_ also gives no indication that this is the case. I think the answerer is going by the fact that the Witch-king rides up to the gates of Minas Tirith riding a horse. But there's nothing special about the horses, other than that they've been trained to endure the Ringwraiths. It's therefore easier to make the assumption that the Witch-king got a new horse rather than assuming he evaded the flood.

Perhaps even more strange, however, is the other answer which states the Ringwraiths don't have corporeal forms without clothing 🧐 Bizarrely, Tolkien Gateway enforces this notion. The site also states that the Ringwraiths' bodies are destroyed in the flood and return to Sauron to get new ones 😳 I will use this site sparingly, at best, from now on.

Anyway, back to the other Quora answer, the excerpt from the book used to support this odd notion is the following (includes book excerpt in italics):



> _Frodo looked up at the sky. Suddenly he saw or felt a shadow pass over the high stars, as if for a moment they faded and then flashed out again. He shivered.
> “Did you see anything pass over?” he whispered to Gandalf, who was just ahead.
> “No, but i felt it, whatever it was,” he answer. “It may be nothing, only a wisp of thin cloud.”
> “It was moving fast then,” muttered Aragorn, “and not with the wind.”_
> ...



First off, the book itself contradicts this notion. If the thing is fast, why would it take "ages" to get anywhere? My feeling is that this is a foreshadowing, giving the reader something to feel uneasy about. I think the thing is actually a Nazgûl on a winged mount.

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is something to suggest the Nazgûl are just "wisps" until they don clothing. Am I wrong? If so, can anyone explain how?


----------



## grendel (Dec 7, 2021)

This is from the chapter "The Ring Goes South":

_Three of the black horses had been found at once drowned in the flooded Ford. On the rocks of the rapids below it searchers discovered the bodies of five more, and also a long black cloak, slashed and tattered._

Since eight horses were accounted for, maybe someone on Quora is assuming one horse survived, and the Witch-King used it to return to Mordor? Just a thought.


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is something to suggest the Nazgûl are just "wisps" until they don clothing. Am I wrong? If so, can anyone explain how?


I guess the posters on Quora and Tolkien Gateway need to clarify their concept of wisps - or wraiths.
I mean, how are they to *don* the clothing without corporeal form? I just thought about trying to hang my jacket or coat on thin air - no, that concept makes no sense to me, seems like an endless circle with no solution.🥴


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 7, 2021)

grendel said:


> This is from the chapter "The Ring Goes South":
> 
> _Three of the black horses had been found at once drowned in the flooded Ford. On the rocks of the rapids below it searchers discovered the bodies of five more, and also a long black cloak, slashed and tattered._
> 
> Since eight horses were accounted for, maybe someone on Quora is assuming one horse survived, and the Witch-King used it to return to Mordor? Just a thought.


That's interesting and might be a decent argument. Tolkien is commonly oblique and subtle in his writing. This would be one of the most extreme examples of such. And if one wanted to provide an argument for the Nazgûl being incorporeal one might look to the paragraph following the one you quoted:



> ‘Eight out of the Nine are accounted for at least,’ said Gandalf. ‘It is rash to be too sure, yet I think that we may hope now that the Ringwraiths were scattered, and have been obliged to return as best they could to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless.
> 
> ‘If that is so, it will be some time before they can begin the hunt again. Of course the Enemy has other servants, but they will have to journey all the way to the borders of Rivendell before they can pick up our trail. And if we are careful that will be hard to find. But we must delay no longer.’


I don't know if I'd accept this as an argument but "empty and shapeless" can perhaps be interpreted as evidence. According to _Unfinished Tales_, however, it would seem the Nazgûl have no issue traveling without raiment or horses.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> I think the thing is actually a Nazgûl on a winged mount.


It's an idea, but one explicitly refuted by Grishnakh: 'But the winged Nazgul, not yet, not yet. He won't let them show themselves yet, not too soon. They're for the War -- and other puposes.'

It could be argued that Grishnakh is a "mere orc", but he seems to have some authority. Or that one of the "other purposes" is scouting the lands beyond the river -- though the empty areas of Eregion seems an odd use of a precious resource. And if Grishnakh's knowledge is questionable, we have Gandalf: 'But they have not yet been allowed to cross the River. . ."

My own feeling is that the author was still developing his ideas on the Nazgul at this stage. He _may _have considered making whatever it was a flying Nazgul, and later changed his mind; or he may have meant for it to be some other kind of creature or spirit. The incident appears in the earliest draft of this section of the story. Christopher's note reads:
_This incident was retained in FR, but is not explained. The Winged Nazgul had not yet crossed the River ( The Two Towers pp. 101, 201)._

As it stands, it forms one of many ambiguous passages in the story -- as is the question of corporeality.


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 7, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> It's an idea, but one explicitly refuted by Grishnakh: 'But the winged Nazgul, not yet, not yet. He won't let them show themselves yet, not too soon. They're for the War -- and other puposes.'
> 
> It could be argued that Grishnakh is a "mere orc", but he seems to have some authority. Or that one of the "other purposes" is scouting the lands beyond the river -- though the empty areas of Eregion seems an odd use of a precious resource. And if Grishnakh's knowledge is questionable, we have Gandalf: 'But they have not yet been allowed to cross the River. . ."
> 
> ...


Good point. However, Tolkien expressly stated that the thing Legolas shoots down at the river is a Nazgûl's flying mount, when he said of Legolas:


> "He was tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgûl, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship."
> — _The Book of Lost Tales Part Two_, p. 327


And the book's description certainly seems to fit that of the so called "fell beast" fairly unambiguously:


> ‘Elbereth Gilthoniel!’ sighed Legolas as he looked up. Even as he did so, a dark shape, like a cloud and yet not a cloud, for it moved far more swiftly, came out of the blackness in the South, and sped towards the Company, blotting out all light as it approached. Soon it appeared as a great winged creature, blacker than the pits in the night. Fierce voices rose up to greet it from across the water. Frodo felt a sudden chill running through him and clutching at his heart; there was a deadly cold, like the memory of an old wound, in his shoulder. He crouched down, as if to hide.


_— The Lord of the Rings_, "The Great River"

I think this is perhaps a flaw in the book? One of those things that flew under Tolkien's radar and was never satisfactorily resolved.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 8, 2021)

I always assumed they were ghostly terrors when not purposefully enclothed with some kind of form. Kinda like what Ainur can do.


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 8, 2021)

I must say that the concept of disembodied Nazgûl just doesn't convince me. They became *invisible*, yes - that seems to be one side effect of a Great Ring on Humans (Big and Little Folk). Now I've stated before that I consider The Hobbit, author-published though it be, to be shaky as canon. But when things get threatening at the Battle of Five Armies, Bilbo puts on the One Ring - but still gets conked on the head and passes out. Sauron may have been able to convert the Nazgûl into a perverted form of Elves, with their unnatural wraithing (natural for *very* old Elves), but that he could by those Great Rings have converted into something like very junior Ainur - no way! I don't buy the "embodiment by clothing" theory. They were "simply" (permanently) invisible. Yes, they seem to have been invulnerable to bodily hurts massively more so than they would have been in human form (here any visible raiment seems to have been totally irrelevant), but they couldn't walk through walls like "popular" ghosts - say Casper (who was friendly, anyway 😁 ). I can't recall where, but their ability to perceive our world seems to have been dimmed - so them taking time to get back home through territory they can only imperfectly perceive - sort of through a kind of fog - makes sense.


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 8, 2021)

I agree. Tolkien may have obfuscated the issue with phrases like "empty and shapeless" but, aside from this being rather vague, in cases where the authors themselves seem uncertain what something definitely is or outright contradicts themselves, logic must bear out. That the Ringwraiths would need clothing to achieve solidity does not seem logical at all.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 8, 2021)

Were they just completely invulnerable then? How else could they continue to exist once experiencing acts that should have been fatal?


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 8, 2021)

I would expect so. Just like many undead creatures in fiction they appear to be hard to kill, though perhaps the only attempt Tolkien ever depicted was the successful one attempted by Merry and Éowyn.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 8, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> Were they just completely invulnerable then? How else could they continue to exist once experiencing acts that should have been fatal?


Don't forget, they were wraiths because of the rings, whose effects made them essentially immortal. Remember Merry's Barrow-blade:

_No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the _spell _that knit his unseen sinews to his will. _(emphasis mine)


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 8, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Don't forget, they were wraiths because of the rings, whose effects made them essentially immortal. Remember Merry's Barrow-blade:
> 
> _No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the _spell _that knit his unseen sinews to his will. _(emphasis mine)


Hm. So they were effectively invulnerable because their bodies were bound to their spirits?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 8, 2021)

However you want to put it, they were apparently invulnerable to "normal" hazards, unless a counterspell, such as those incorporated into the Barrow-blades, were brought into play. This is what allowed Eowyn to "kill" the Witch-King.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 8, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> Tolkien expressly stated that the thing Legolas shoots down at the river is a Nazgûl's flying mount


Sorry, I meant to respond earlier. You're right, of course; the question is, did he _cross _the river? He's flying up from the South, _along _the river. He does come near the west bank, "almost above" Frodo, but falls on the eastern shore. He was, in fact, the Winged Nazgul Grishnakh said was waiting "northward on the east-bank". So no, I don't think this was a flaw, as it still appears that the Winged Nazgul wasn't intended to cross. It was just coincidence that the Fellowship happened to be there at the time.

_"A chance meeting, as we say in Middle-earth"._


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 8, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Sorry, I meant to respond earlier. You're right, of course; the question is, did he _cross _the river? He's flying up from the South, _along _the river. He does come near the west bank, "almost above" Frodo, but falls on the eastern shore. He was, in fact, the Winged Nazgul Grishnakh said was waiting "northward on the east-bank". So no, I don't think this was a flaw, as still appears that the Winged Nazgul wasn't to cross. It was just coincidence that the Fellowship happened to be there at the time.
> 
> _"A chance meeting, as we say in Middle-earth"._


You're right. I got my sequence of events mixed up.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 8, 2021)

Easy to do, as the author switches back and forth, not only in scenes, but also in time. 

BTW, there may be one "flaw", unless I missed something in rereading: when Grishnakh returns to the main Orc-horde, he's taunted by Ugluk:

_'What's happened to your precious Nazgul? Has he had another mount shot under him?'_

How would he have come by this knowledge? 🤔


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 8, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Easy to do, as the author switches back and forth, not only in scenes, but also in time.
> 
> BTW, there may be one "flaw", unless I missed something in rereading: when Grishnakh returns to the main Orc-horde, he's taunted by Ugluk:
> 
> ...


Possibly word of mouth would be my guess.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 8, 2021)

Possible -- though Ugluk's band was traveling west the whole time, and it doesn't appear that news of the Nazgûl's fall could have reached him since Grishnakh's statement. The latter could hardly have made it to the meeting-place and back in so short a time. But maybe he did hear it from some Northerners. I don't know. It just struck me as strange.

But getting back to your OP, the question of the nature of the Nazgûl has been discussed in various ways, on a number of older threads, which you might find it worth looking into. One aspect which has been brought up in this one is the many ambiguous statements about them -- something not limited to the Nazgûl, by any means! -- but tantalizing, if frustrating, for readers. Here's one from Gandalf:

_'. . .the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living.'_

How are we to take this? Literally? It wouldn't seem so, as they're able to ride and wield weapons, The Witch-King is even able to wear a crown.

Metaphorically, then? The problem is, with fantasy, it's difficult to sort out the metaphorical from the literal. Or as one critic put it, "In fantasy, there is no safety in metaphor".

BTW, you're not the only one who finds some of the answers on quora a bit "odd".

Or even some of the questions. 😀


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 8, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Easy to do, as the author switches back and forth, not only in scenes, but also in time.


In Tolkien's defense there are nuanced statements you simply miss when making changes like this. I've done it dozens of times.



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> But getting back to your OP, the question of the nature of the Nazgûl has been discussed in various ways, on a number of older threads, which you might find it worth looking into. One aspect which has been brought up in this one is the many ambiguous statements about them -- something not limited to the Nazgûl, by any means! -- but tantalizing, if frustrating, for readers. Here's one from Gandalf:
> 
> _'. . .the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living.'_
> 
> How are we to take this? Literally? It wouldn't seem so, as they're able to ride and wield weapons, The Witch-King is even able to wear a crown.


Oh shoot, I just remember that in NoME Tolkien wrote about this some. I'll need to wait until much later tonight before I can get to it. There was a drawing and he was criticizing that they drew a physical hand for one of the Ringwraiths. If I remember correctly he said it should have been gloved and may have gone more into it from there.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 8, 2021)

I don't agree with the (it would seem) popular notion that Merry's strike made the Witch-king vulnerable to other swords. This isn't stated in the description about Merry's dagger, and even Sauron himself had reason to fear Narsil reforged, for example. I think "invulnerable" to other weapons makes the Nazgul-lord too powerful -- he already has his advantages; one huge one being instilling *unreasoning fear* in his enemies, for example.

Merry's blade broke a spell yes, but one that knit the Witch-king's sinews to his will. Variant interpretations are possible of course, but to my mind it means that the Witch-king could not will
his unseen "sinews" (his body) to ward off Éowyn's deadly strike.

The connection between will and body was broken by a leg wound inflicted by a Hobbit -- a Hobbit wielding not a mere dagger however.

The Wraith seems to do little to try to avoid or deflect Éowyn's sword, and to me the choice of wording in the passage does not exactly imply that her reply was lightning-quick -- Merry calls Éowyn's name twice, she is *"tottering, struggling up"* to deliver her blow, and the Nazgul Lord does not evade her strike, or try to block it -- in my opinion he's now "vulnerable" in the tactical sense, thanks to the special blade. However, I doubt that he had no fear whatsoever of a _deadly strike_ (as opposed to a leg wound) from a Rohir like Éomer, or some other great warrior.

The Lord of the Nazgul may even act fearless on the field of battle, or seem invulnerable to many of his foes, but that is quite a different thing from actually being invulnerable to the weapon of a potential adversary.

*That interpreted*, while the Witch-king may have been *"brought to nothing"* by Éowyn and Merry, I think it's possible that he could have returned. We are now referring to the flood here, but Gandalf notes: *"You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that," said Gandalf. "The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him"* The Ring Goes South

But thankfully the One was destroyed soon after the Witch-king's fall, in any case.

I *admit* however, that Gandalf's remark about Legolas' shot seems odd, if this is so: *"One that you cannot slay with arrows," said Gandalf. "You only slew his steed. It was a good deed; but the Rider was soon horsed again. For he was a Nazgul, one of the Nine, who ride now upon winged steeds."*

Again, my opinion is that you can "slay" these invisible servants with arrows, you just can't take them out for good -- which is at least possibly what Gandalf means here. In any case, sometimes with Tolkien, you can't have all the relevant texts go easily your way!

Another consideration for me: it was said (Appendix A) that the Witch-king feared Boromir (another Boromir). Why fear him, did he have a special blade? I think the answer is in the text rather: *"a man strong in body and in will."*

My emphasis on* will.*

You've got to stand up to the WK first, then you've got to make that first blow count!


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 8, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> Oh shoot, I just remember that in NoME Tolkien wrote about this some. I'll need to wait until much later tonight before I can get to it. There was a drawing and he was criticizing that they drew a physical hand for one of the Ringwraiths. If I remember correctly he said it should have been gloved and may have gone more into it from there.


Hm. Looks like he was just commenting how how their limbs weren't visible and they would have worn gauntlets anyhow as they were riders. Also their hoods should have hung over their faces enough to conceal their invisibility.


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 9, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> BTW, you're not the only one who finds some of the answers on quora a bit "odd".
> 
> Or even some of the questions. 😀


The questions are the worst 🙁


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 9, 2021)

Elthir said:


> *"One that you cannot slay with arrows,"*





Elthir said:


> you can "slay" these invisible servants with arrows



Come again?


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 9, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> How are we to take this? Literally? It wouldn't seem so, as they're able to ride and wield weapons, The Witch-King is even able to wear a crown.
> 
> Metaphorically, then? The problem is, with fantasy, it's difficult to sort out the metaphorical from the literal. Or as one critic put it, "In fantasy, there is no safety in metaphor".


Yes, the "shape to their nothingness" further adds mud to the waters, but the fact that he can wear a crown on an invisible head flat-out contradicts the idea that mere clothing gives them form. It seems like Tolkien was maybe straddling the fence on the nature of the Ringwraiths and never got around to defining their nature or preferred to leave it ambiguous. 

In "The Hunt for the Ring" in _Unfinished Tales_ I could find no indication that their clothing gave them solid form or that they needed horses to get anywhere. Instead it says they traveled unclad for a time and then picked up the clothing and horses somewhere.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 9, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Come again? 🤔



Ok . . . _again _



> I admit however, that Gandalf's remark about Legolas' shot seems odd, if this is so: "One that you cannot slay with arrows," said Gandalf. "You only slew his steed. It was a good deed; but the Rider was soon horsed again. For he was a Nazgul, one of the Nine, who ride now upon winged steeds."
> 
> Again, my opinion is that you can "slay" these invisible servants with arrows, you just can't take them out for good --* which is at least possibly what Gandalf means here*. In any case, sometimes with Tolkien, you can't have all the relevant texts go easily your way!



"You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that," said Gandalf. "The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him" The Ring Goes South


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 9, 2021)

Elthir said:


> Ok . . . _again _
> 
> 
> 
> "You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that," said Gandalf. "The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him" The Ring Goes South


I was going to argue this, because the text says, after the Witch-king is felled, "a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world." 

Then I realized that he _could_ have come back is not disproven by this because the Ring is later destroyed and he just never gets the chance. So this line might well basically foreshadow the destruction of the Ring.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 9, 2021)

Just to add to the chaos, l'll point out that "unclad" could open a whole new can of. . .of. . .Schrodinger's Nazgul?


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 9, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Just to add to the chaos, l'll point out that "unclad" could open a whole new can of. . .of. . .Schrodinger's Nazgul?
> View attachment 10949


lol Just imagine them waltzing around naked like the Invisible Man in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film (Dorian Grey was played by the actor originally cast as Aragorn).


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 9, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> lol Just imagine them waltzing around naked like the Invisible Man in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film ...


I watched this again a few days ago on DVD, and the comparison to the Nazgûl did occur to me - including the matter of "invisibility gadgets" having to "know" what besides the person using them they have to make invisible, which kind of leads to no end of silliness ... 


ZehnWaters said:


> ... (Dorian Grey was played by the actor originally cast as Aragorn).


The guy would have only turned 27 after original filming began, and have been 28 when they finished. What, a "Pippin Aragorn"? I found even Viggo to be a tad on the young side for the role ... 🤨


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 9, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> I watched this again a few days ago on DVD, and the comparison to the Nazgûl did occur to me - including the matter of "invisibility gadgets" having to "know" what besides the person using them they have to make invisible, which kind of leads to no end of silliness ...


lol Often. I think it works when it's an ingested substance as that would imply interaction with tissues to cause the invisibility. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer it was just magic so it worked however the plot needed.


Olorgando said:


> The guy would have only turned 27 after original filming began, and have been 28 when they finished. What, a "Pippin Aragorn"? I found even Viggo to be a tad on the young side for the role ... 🤨


Do we know at what rate they aged, though? I mean, what did 87 look like for a Dúnedain?


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 9, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> Do we know at what rate they aged, though? I mean, what did 87 look like for a Dúnedain?


In Carl F. Hostetter's "The Nature of Middle-earth", "Part Three: The World, its Lands, and its Inhabitants" there is chapter XII "The Ageing of the Númenóreans" which I just glanced at - a very short chapter.
But as per Appendix B, there is the entry (after 2956 Third Age about the first meeting of Aragorn and Gandalf):
"2957-80 Aragorn undertakes his great journeys and errantries."
And the *next* 38 years as a *ranger*, during which time we can assume that the amenities were far below what he experienced while serving Thengel of Rohan and Ecthelion II of Gondor. He would, I believe, have borne little or no resemblance to any Númenórean of his age "wallowing in the comforts" of his fortunate island.
He has far more in common with Beren, Túrin and Tuor of the First Age than anyone else, and a whelp of 28 would have been just hopeless in the role. Unless you pile on the prosthetics to a degree that you wouldn't recognize the actor.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 9, 2021)

To answer again again, yes, I'm basically saying that it's at least possible that when Gandalf says this: *"One that you cannot slay with arrows," said Gandalf. " You only slew his steed. It was a good deed; but the Rider was soon horsed again." . . .*

. . . with "slay" he basically means this (again again): *"You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that," said Gandalf. "The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him."*

So if Sauron's still around, you can't slay/destroy them . . .

But you can take them out, bring them to nothing, or "kill" them by separating their unseen bodies from their spirits -- somewhat like you can "kill" Men by separating their seen bodies from their spirits -- in Tolkien's larger mythology, the spirits of Men (are believed to be) "undestroyed", even though they must depart.

The oath-breakers didn't depart, and appear to be ghosts, wielding fear. The wraiths inspired fear *like* ghosts, but they could be "brought to nothing" for a while (slain in that sense). I note how Tolkien goes "to the trouble" to say that it was not known if the blades of the Oath-breakers could bite, or strike the living . . . they only needed fear as a weapon.

The Wraith-lord, however, wielded physical weapons, and the Nine were taken out by physical things. And again, why should the Witch-king fear Boromir? Did this Boromir have a special dagger like Merry's? I say he rather had a notable will . . . to stand against fear . . . then at least that part
of the battle is won, and you have a chance.

Moreover, what kinds of "doors" are possibly opened if the Nine are truly invulnerable to "regular" weapons? They've been around for a long time, but even in Frodo's day, for example, what stops the Nine from flying over Gondor's walls and defeating all the King's horses and all the king's Men?

And the King too!

Even Humpty Dumpty couldn't put them all back together again!


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 10, 2021)

I should be working instead of posting…



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Here's [an ambiguous statement about the Nazgûl] from Gandalf:
> 
> _'. . .the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living.'_
> 
> ...


I’m going to come at this from a slightly different angle. Gandalf’s statement is _polemic_: “contentious rhetoric intended to support a specific position”. But I’ll go even further: This is an example of _religious_ polemic in _The Lord of the Rings_. 

Let me explain. Gandalf is a Maia sent to Middle-earth by the Valar. He acts as their agent against Sauron, a Maia who is breaking “the rules” regarding how Ainur are to treat Incarnates, Elves and Men, and has a long and notorious history of doing this. We know from Tolkien’s musings (_Morgoth’s Ring_, “Myths Transformed”) that by this point in Middle-earth’s feigned history, Sauron was claiming to be Morgoth Returned, that he held himself to be a god-king, and on that basis demanded worship from his followers. (See also _Letter_ 183.) Gandalf makes a strikingly similar statement when he confronts the Witch-king at the broken gates of Minas Tirith:
Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master.​Now, what ultimately awaited not only the Witch-king but all the Nazgûl was not “nothingness” but death and damnation when the One Ring was finally destroyed. (“_Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die…_”) Their spirits, their _fëar_, were destined to leave Arda as were those of all Men (including Hobbits), but their spirits were prevented from departing by the necromantic effects of their Rings of Power. Gandalf is expressing their status and fate as “nothingness”. We could interpret this as _incorporeality_, but I think that misconstrues Gandalf’s finer point: The Ringwraiths were “spiritually empty.” Like the simile of _lembas_, the Elves’ waybread, to the Eucharist, the existence of the Ringwraiths is rhetorically (and poetically) compared to (described as) *“nothingness”*. It is, practically, in the imagined world of Arda, technically _inaccurate_, but as a _religious_ statement – a polemic – it is on point. Gandalf is a priest, a prophet, an emissary, a minister, of one religious viewpoint. The Nazgûl are ministers of another diametrically opposed religious viewpoint. The Lord of the Nazgûl taunts Gandalf at the Gate:
Old fool! … Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!​This is a confrontation of a religion of Life versus a religion of Death. It is a little glimmer of Tolkien’s Roman Catholicism peeking through the veil of the tale. 



Olorgando said:


> [H]ow are [the Nazgûl] to *don* the clothing without corporeal form?





Olorgando said:


> The[ Nazgûl] became *invisible*, yes - that seems to be one side effect of a Great Ring on Humans (Big and Little Folk). Now I've stated before that I consider The Hobbit, author-published though it be, to be shaky as canon. But when things get threatening at the Battle of Five Armies, Bilbo puts on the One Ring - but still gets conked on the head and passes out. Sauron may have been able to convert the Nazgûl into a perverted form of Elves, with their unnatural wraithing (natural for *very* old Elves)… I don't buy the "embodiment by clothing" theory. They were "simply" (permanently) invisible. … [T]hey couldn't walk through walls like "popular" ghosts…


I think Olorgando is right on target here. After Frodo awakens in Rivendell, Gandalf tells him that whenever he wore the Ring, he was already “half in the wraith-world [himself], and they might have seized [him]. [Frodo] could see them, and they could see [him].” *The Nazgûl had become permanently invisible.* Gandalf describes it to Frodo (_FotR_, “Shadow of the Past”) exactly this way, using exactly the word Tolkien uses to describe what happens to Elves in Middle-earth after many millennia:
[I]f [a mortal] often uses [a Great] Ring to make himself invisible, he _fades_: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. … [S]ooner or later the dark power will devour him.​(Notice the little metaphor at the end, by the way: “the dark power will devour him.” Sauron doesn’t literally _eat_ the Nazgûl, but he does consume their lives, replacing their wills with his: akin to the metaphorical “nothingness” into which they must eventually fall.) _Fading_ was something that _didn’t_ happen to Gollum, and Gandalf considered the fact that it had not taken place remarkable. 

By the same token, when Bilbo wore the Ring, he could whack spiders with Sting and cut their webs; he could steal food from the Elf-king’s tables and from the village of the raft-Elves; and he could steal the great two-handled cup from Smaug’s lair, all while invisible. Frodo and Sam could likewise manipulate the world around them while invisible while wearing Sauron’s Ring: in fact, I think Sam was wearing the Ring and invisible when he knocked himself unconscious trying to follow Shagrat and Gorbag through the Undergate to Cirith Ungol from Shelob’s Lair. I think the same was true for the Nazgûl: they could wear clothes, manipulate horses’ reins, beat on doors and break them down (at Crickhollow), use swords and Morgul blades, &c., but they had long been rendered permanently invisible through using their Rings of Power. In his confrontation with Éowyn, the Witch-king was able to break both her shield and her shield-arm (left arm: she seems to have been right-handed) with a single blow of his mace. Last but not least on this subject, the Black Riders left heavy boot-prints in the little dell in which the Rangers had hidden the stack of wood Aragorn and the Hobbits used to make fire to fight the Nazgûl at Weathertop, and later to keep Frodo warm. 



Olorgando said:


> [The Nazgûl’s] ability to perceive our world [was] dimmed - so the[ir] taking time to get back home through territory they can only imperfectly perceive - sort of through a kind of fog - makes sense.


I think that’s right, too. In _FotR_, “Knife in the Dark”, Strider explains, 
[The Nazgûl] do not see the world of light as we do, but our shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun destroys; and in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are hidden from us… And at all times they smell the blood of living things… Senses, too, there are other than sight or smell. We can feel their presence – it troubled our hearts … before we saw them; they feel our[ presence] more keenly. Also … the Ring draws them.​Speaking of the noon sun, in _The Hobbit_, “Riddles in the Dark”, Tolkien as narrator explains that the Ring made you “invisible; only in the full sunlight could you be seen, and then only by your shadow, and that would be shaky and faint.” And later as Bilbo struggled to escape the guards at the Back Door,
[T]he sun came out from behind a cloud and shone bright on the outside of the door – but [Bilbo] could not get through.

Suddenly one of the goblins inside shouted: “There is a shadow by the door. Something is outside!”

Bilbo’s heart jumped into his mouth. He gave a terrific squirm. Buttons burst off in all directions. He was through, with a torn coat and waistcoat, … [leaving] bewildered goblins [to] pick[] up his nice brass buttons on the doorstep.​When Sam wore the Ring, he saw the Orcs that passed nearby “like a phantom company, grey distorted figures in a mist, only dreams of fear with pale flames in their hands.” (_TT_, “Choices of Master Samwise”) When he reëntered Shelob’s Lair to pursue the Orcs as they carried the unconscious Frodo to Cirith Ungol, “It no longer seemed very dark to him in the tunnel, rather it was as if he had stepped out of a thin mist into a heavier fog.” 

Remarkably, Merry had a similar experience as the Black Breath took hold of him after he struck the Witch-king:
through a mist he looked on Éowyn’s fair head.​As Théoden’s surviving household knights carried their fallen king and Éowyn back toward the City,
through a mist … [Merry] saw the van of the men of Gondor approaching.​After they entered the City, Merry fell behind and became separated from the Riders:
he was walking in a darkness… But suddenly into his dream there fell a living voice. … He looked up and the mist before his eyes cleared a little. There was Pippin!​I think this indicates that the Black Breath inflicted the “other side” or “shadow world” upon unprotected Mortals; but I suppose that can be a debate for another thread.



Olorgando said:


> [The Nazgûl] seem to have been invulnerable to bodily hurts massively more so than they would have been in human form…





ZehnWaters said:


> Were they just completely invulnerable then? How else could they continue to exist once experiencing acts that should have been fatal?





Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> However you want to put it, they were apparently invulnerable to "normal" hazards, unless a counterspell, such as those incorporated into the Barrow-blades, were brought into play. This is what allowed Eowyn to "kill" the Witch-King.


One of the more “attractive” powers of the Great Rings, at least to Mortal Men, seems to be that they cannot be killed as long as they possess them – or, after they have fallen completely under the necromantic power of their Rings, those Rings “possess” them. (Sauron seems to have held physical possession of the Nine Rings at the time of _The Lord of the Rings_, though some dispute this.) In _FotR_, “The Ring Goes South”, Gandalf explains that the Ringwraiths survived the flood at the Ford of Bruinen:
You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that. The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him. We hope that they were all unhorsed and unmasked, and so made for a while less dangerous…​Now, they could still interact with the world around them without their visible raiment or horses, and they could no doubt terrify any Men they came upon, but they could not navigate well since their senses of the normal world were distorted, nor could they appear as “normal” (if menacing) Men to interact with normal society. 

*As for whether or not they could be injured: I think they certainly could!* Aragorn attacked them with burning sticks at Weathertop, and according to Tolkien’s notes cited in _Reader’s Companion_, the five Nazgûl, including the two most powerful, the Witch-king and Khamûl, retreated out of fear of Aragorn, “who seem[ed] to be a great power though apparently ‘only a Ranger’.” The Nazgûl retreated and dispersed. Tolkien’s notes explain that 
[The Witch-king], the great captain, was actually dismayed. He had been shaken by the fire of Gandalf, and began to perceive that the mission on which Sauron had sent him was one of great peril to himself both by the way, and on his return to his Master (if unsuccessful)… ​_The Witch-king perceived that he was “in great peril … by the way”_ should be interpreted as meaning that _The Witch-king perceived that he could be seriously injured in his assignment._ And not only the Witch-king, but all his companions. 

When Legolas shot the wingéd mount of a Nazgûl from the sky over Anduin, _there is no reason to believe the Nazgûl was uninjured by the fall._ He might have broken bones, for instance: but he wasn’t going to die. No, the power of Sauron was in him though his Ring of Power; and even though (if) Sauron held his Ring of Power, that Ring still dominated his physical being, his _hröa_, as it is called in Tolkien’s mythos. When Frodo and his companions crossed the Brandywine by the Ferry, Khamûl is afraid of the water (CJRT remarks somewhere that nowhere does his father explain that; but I cannot tonight find the citation), although the flood at the Ford of Bruinen demonstrates reasonably well that they could not be drowned. And on Weathertop, Aragon explains that “these Riders do not love [fire], and fear those who wield it. Fire is our friend in the wilderness.” 

I opine that every injury to the Ringwraiths could be repaired by sorcery. This would explain their fear of water: I’ve heard that drowning victims are supposed to become euphoric, but my experiences as a boy who could not swim in deep water were most unpleasant! Repairing damage from fire might be one of the more difficult sorceries; and unless their sense of pain were lessened, burns are terribly painful! The Ringwraiths were no longer growing, no longer healing naturally: their lives were being stretched, thinned, “like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.” Pain and unpleasant sorcerous or necromantic recuperation could well explain the Ringwraith’s fear of fire, fear of water, and especially their fear of an outstanding warrior in control of his fear, a warrior like the Steward Boromir I of Gondor or the Chieftain Aragorn II of Arnor. 
Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning _fear_ which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in _darkness_. (_Letter_ 210)​


Elthir said:


> I don't agree with the (it would seem) popular notion that Merry's strike made the Witch-king vulnerable to other swords. This isn't stated in the description about Merry's dagger…


Normally I agree with your positions, Elthir, but on this one I’ll prefer the “(it would seem) popular notion that Merry's strike made the Witch-king vulnerable”. What Tolkien did say about the Barrow-blades is cited in _Reader’s Companion_ in the chapter on “Knife in the Dark”:
[The Witch-king] now knows who is the Bearer, and is greatly puzzled that it should be a small creature, and not Aragorn, who seems to be a great power though apparently “only a Ranger”. … 

It is a strange thing that the camp was not watched while darkness lasted…, and the crossing of the Road into the southward lands seems not to have been observed, so that [the Witch-king] again lost track of the Ring. For this there were probably several reasons, the least to be expected being the most important, namely that [the Witch-king] … was actually dismayed. … [A]bove all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How he had come by it – save in the Barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the B[arrow]-wight; and he called on _Elbereth_, a name of terror to the Nazgûl. …

Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and _fear_ both of Aragorn and especially of _Frodo_.​May God forgive me: I am such a fool! I should be asleep instead of posting!


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 10, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> [The Witch-king] now knows who is the Bearer, and is greatly puzzled that it should be a small creature, and not Aragorn, who seems to be a great power though apparently “only a Ranger”. …​​It is a strange thing that the camp was not watched while darkness lasted…, and the crossing of the Road into the southward lands seems not to have been observed, so that [the Witch-king] again lost track of the Ring. For this there were probably several reasons, the least to be expected being the most important, namely that [the Witch-king] … was actually dismayed. … [A]bove all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How he had come by it – save in the Barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the B[arrow]-wight; and he called on _Elbereth_, a name of terror to the Nazgûl. …​​Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and _fear_ both of Aragorn and especially of _Frodo_.​​May God forgive me: I am such a fool! I should be asleep instead of posting!



Goodness, how poorly did Sauron inform them about what they were supposed to be doing?

S: "Go get my ring."
W: "Anything I should be concerned about?"
S: "Nah, you should be fine."


----------



## Elthir (Dec 10, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> ( . . .) Normally I agree with your positions, Elthir, but on this one I’ll prefer the “(it would seem) popular notion that Merry's strike made the Witch-king vulnerable”. What Tolkien did say about the Barrow-blades is cited in _Reader’s Companion_ in the chapter on “Knife in the Dark”:
> ( . . . )​Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and _fear_ both of Aragorn and especially of _Frodo_.​



Okay but what of the huge door being opened by nine (normally) "invulnerable" bad guys who wield weapons (and can be hurt by physical things like fire and water) -- do they need fear anyone without Merry's type of dagger? Why fear Boromir?

And I'm aware of this quote, but on the other hand, what of this one (letter 210): *"There is no fight. Sam does not "sink his blade into the Rinwraith's thigh", nor does the thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20 the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)"*

The Wraith falls down. One doesn't _necessarily_ fall down from being stabbed in the thigh with a dagger, but I might fall too if I could no longer will my limbs to do what I wanted them to do.



That said, it may be that Tolkien was musing about this make-you-vulnerable idea in the quote you provided, but (and not that you said otherwise) I don't feel it's a necessary conclusion based on what happens in the published text, including the description of the blade that follows the stab . . .

. . . and to me, Tolkien illustrates a "necessary" concern with respect to the Oath-breakers, or at least
(I think wisely) acknowledges to the reader that they were not necessarily a "ghost force" that yet could kill the living (Tolkien is arguably thinking of "too" powerful as regards the First Age too: for whatever reason, we don't see flying dragons until the end of the First Age and the Host of the West is at the door).

As I say, even Sauron can't slip into Gondor in spirit-form and slay Kings or Stewards willy nilly.
He's incarnated, and he fears being "de-bodied" . . . and we don't (or at least I don't) get the impression that this magic type of "make you vulnerable" weapon is the norm in Gondor, Rohan, or Imladris, for examples.


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 10, 2021)

Elthir said:


> And I'm aware of this quote, but on the other hand, what of this one (letter 210): *"There is no fight. Sam does not "sink his blade into the Rinwraith's thigh", nor does the thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20 the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)"*


What was Tolkien referring to here? Was he confusing Sam with Frodo?


----------



## Elthir (Dec 10, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> What was Tolkien referring to here? Was he confusing Sam with Frodo?



He was referring to a film production that never happened.


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 10, 2021)

Ah, thanks. I guess I forgot that bit.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 12, 2021)

Elthir said:


> Okay but what of the huge door being opened by nine (normally) "invulnerable" bad guys who wield weapons (and can be hurt by physical things like fire and water) -- do they need fear anyone without Merry's type of dagger? Why fear Boromir?


Elthir my friend, I believe I can answer you, and at the same time shed some light on how the Great Rings affected Elves and Men necromantically – for Sauron, who led the Elven-smiths of Eregion to forge them as they were, is _The Necromancer_.

_Necromancy_ is magic concerning death and the dead. In Tolkien’s world, this involves the relationship between the body, the _hröa_, and the spirit, the _fëa_. Throughout the legendarium, the natural progression for Men was for their spirits (_fëar_) to part from their bodies (_hröar_) because of old age, disease, or injury, and depart Arda. The natural progression for Elves was for their spirits (_fëar_) to remain with their bodies (_hröar_) from birth until the end of Arda, unless they were killed. (Some Elves also departed their _hröar_ from grief: Fëanor’s mother Serindë and Lúthien Tinúviel are two notable examples; but these are exceptions.) 

The problem for Elves, particularly in Middle-earth, was that their _fëar_ “consumed” their _hröar_, so that the _hröa_ eventually became invisible (_Morgoth’s Ring_, “Myths Transformed”, “Aman”):
[A]fter the vitality of the _hröa_ was expended in achieving full growth, it began to weaken or grow weary. Very slowly indeed, but to all the Quendi perceptibly. For a while it would be fortified and maintained by its indwelling _fëa_, and then its vitality would begin to ebb, and its desire for physical life and joy in it would pass ever more swiftly away. Then an Elf would begin … to “fade”, until the _fëa_ as it were consumed the _hröa_ until it remained only in the love and memory of the spirit that had inhabited it.​This _fading_ was of great concern to the Elves. It did not happen, or took place much more slowly, in Aman (Valinor). But Elves in Middle-earth had begun to notice it before the middle of the Second Age, because preventing their physical _fading_ seems to have been one of the temptations Sauron, disguised as “Annatar”, offered to the Elven-smiths of Eregion: It was one of their motivations in making the Rings of Power. 

What does Sam say of Lórien?
[T]his is more Elvish than anything I ever heard tell of. I feel as if I was _inside_ a song.​Galadriel has preserved a bit of the old world, the world that was before _fading_, within her borders. Aragorn warns Boromir,
There is … in this land no evil, unless a man bring it hither himself.​What does Tolkien say of Rivendell?
[S]uch was the virtue of the land of Rivendell that soon all fear and anxiety was lifted from [the] minds [of Frodo and his companions]. The future, good or ill, was not forgotten, but ceased to have any power over the present.​And in _The Hobbit_,
[Rivendell] was perfect, whether you liked food, or sleep, or work, or story-telling, or singing, or just sitting and thinking best, or a pleasant mixture of them all. Evil things did not come into that valley.​I cite all this to reiterate what Gandalf told Frodo about the Three Rings:
[T]hey were … made [for] understanding, making, and healing, to preserve all things unstained.​In _Letter_ 131, Tolkien goes into some detail about this (please pardon such a long citation):
[The Elves] wanted the peace and bliss and perfect memory of “The West”, and yet to remain on the ordinary earth where their prestige as the highest people … was greater than at the bottom of the hierarchy of Valinor. They thus became obsessed with “fading”, the mode in which the changes of time … was perceived by them. They became sad, and their … efforts all really a kind of embalming – even though they also retained the old motive of their kind, the adornment of earth, and the healing of its hurts. We hear of a lingering kingdom, [Linden]; and of other[s], such as Imladris (Rivendell)…; and a great one at Eregion … adjacent to the Mines of Moria, the major realm of the Dwarves… There … smithcraft reached its highest development. But many of the Elves listened to Sauron. He was still fair … and his motives and those of the Elves seemed to go partly together… Sauron found their weak point… With the aid of Sauron’s lore they made _Rings of Power_ (“power” is an ominous and sinister word…).

The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of _decay_ (i.e. “change”, viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is … loved … – this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor… [F]inally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron (“The Necromancer”…): such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible.​Let us focus for a moment on this last sentence, _ rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible._ I strenuously argue that the Elves had *no* desire to be made invisible: that contradicts what Tolkien said earlier in the passage, that the Elves “became obsessed with ‘fading’.” And those Elves who had lived in Valinor, likely including Celebrimbor, could already see into the “invisible world,” the shadow-world, spirit world, whatever you’d like to call it: the “wraith-world,” if you will: it is Tolkien’s spirit world. But Sauron is The Necromancer. How would his powers be used to allay the Elvish obsession with “fading”?

I propose that the necromancy of the Rings of Power was to _prevent_ the fading of the _hröar_ of their Elvish wielders. It interrupted the _natural_ progression of Elvish physical development in Middle-earth: It _stops_ the consumption of the _hröa_ by the _fëa_ (i.e., it *prevents physical decay*) in Elves. This would be most enticing to an Elf! 

But what is their effect on mortal Men? Well, it still halts the natural progression of the relationship between the _hröa_ and the _fëa_, but in this case, it *prevents physical death.* That’s a variation of necromancy, but in this case, instead of inducing death, it holds the _fëa_, the spirit, to the _hröa_, the body. You can get _hurt_, really badly hurt, but you can’t _die._ And if you consider this, it could become a kind of living hell. 

No doubt their Rings of Power gave their nine mortal keepers enhanced powers in combat, strength, command, sorcery. It made them effectively “immortal” in the eyes of other Men – warriors and commanders who (seemingly) could not be defeated, could not be overcome, particularly if the wielder of a Ring took some precautions. (Like not sticking your head in a guillotine: that could be messy, carrying your head under your arm!) But they could be hurt, and like anyone else who is injured, you have to heal. As Tolkien says in _Letter_ 210, 
[The Ringwraiths] have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in _darkness_.​
But what happens to an injured Man when the Ring finally reaches its Elvish goal of arresting _change_? Well, he remains a injured Man! Unless he is a competent enough sorcerer or conjurer to heal himself – or Sauron helps him heal. And this explains an odd thing Tolkien writes in “The Hunt for the Ring” (_Unfinished Tales_): After the Ringwraiths returned from their unsuccessful hunt for “Shire” and “Baggins” in the Vales of Anduin,
[T]hey met messengers from Barad-dûr conveying threats from their Master that filled even the Morgul-lord with dismay.​Why would the Witch-king be “filled with dismay”? One good reason could be that Sauron could torture a Ringwraith without lessening his usefulness as a minister of his will. And by the same token, why would the Witch-king be afraid of Gondor’s Steward Boromir I? Because Boromir had control of his fear, he was a great commander and personally an outstanding warrior, and thus he had the ability to injure even the Witch-king. 

Why would five Nazgûl run away from Frodo at Weathertop? Because Frodo had a Barrow-blade, and even though he was terrified, he tried to stab the Witch-king with it! The Barrow-blades could break the spell that bound a Nazgûl’s _hröa_ to his _fëa_ – his _hröa_ could really and truly be killed like any normal Man’s body, at the least leaving that Nazgûl “houseless” like an Elf that had lost its body but refused the summons to Mandos, but at worst consigning him immediately to his eternal doom. (We are not told which: I am on the side of the Witch-king’s spirit, his _fëa_, becoming “houseless” until the destruction of the Ruling Ring, when it passed on to its eternal doom.) 

Submersion in water might be unpleasant for a Nazgûl: he’d have to hang upside down to get the water out of his lungs, and I personally find water in the lungs _most_ unpleasant! Fire injuries are extremely painful, and the magic needed to heal them might be unpleasant, too. A Morgul blade drew a Man’s body into the wraith world, while *a Barrow-blade drew a Ringwraith’s body back into the real world, making him vulnerable to having his body severed from spirit.* 

This explanation allows the Rings of Power to do the same sorts things to both Elves and Men: upset the normal equilibrium between their bodies and their spirits, their _hröar_ and _fëar_. But the _outcome_ of upsetting that natural balance (or progression) is different depending upon whether the wearer is an Elf or a Man. For the Elf, it means his body doesn’t _fade_. For the Man, it means his body doesn’t _die_ – unless the spell is broken by one of what we call the Barrow-blades made by the Dúnedain of Arnor. The natural powers and abilities of Elves and Men alike are enhanced by the Nine Rings. But while they may lessen the degree of injuries, or reduce the likelihood of injury, they should not be seen as proof against injury. 

And yes, this does imply that one or more of the Nazgûl could be stitched up like Frankenstein’s monster due to treating old injuries. 

By the way, I don’t think Tolkien ever refers to the Nazgûl as “invulnerable”.

───◊───



Elthir said:


> [W]hat of this [quote] (letter 210): *"There is no fight. Sam does not "sink his blade into the Rinwraith's thigh", nor does the thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20 the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)"*
> 
> The Wraith falls down. One doesn't _necessarily_ fall down from being stabbed in the thigh with a dagger, but I might fall too if I could no longer will my limbs to do what I wanted them to do.


When Merry stabbed the Witch-king in his contest with Éowyn, I think he took out one of the Witch-king’s tendons behind his knee, so that he was injured (he cried out in pain), he no longer had stability to remain standing, and the swing of his mace went wide of his target: to wit, Éowyn’s head. Even if Sam (in Zimmerman’s proposed alteration of Tolkien’s tale) missed any major tendons and only stabbed into muscle with a Barrow-blade, I expect it would still have been a painful experience like none other the Witch-king had encountered since becoming enslaved to his Ring: I think that was Tolkien’s point; besides, Tolkien was immensely annoyed with Zimmerman’s proposed alterations of his tale.



Elthir said:


> That said, it may be that Tolkien was musing about this make-you-vulnerable idea in the quote you provided, but (and not that you said otherwise) I don't feel it's a necessary conclusion based on what happens in the published text, including the description of the blade that follows the stab…


I can’t prove my position. I can only offer what seems to me a sound and reasonable explanation that, to my mind, works well with what most of us can agree is material Tolkien presents in the rest of his legendarium.



Elthir said:


> Tolkien illustrates a "necessary" concern with respect to the Oath-breakers, or at least (I think wisely) acknowledges to the reader that they were not necessarily a "ghost force" that yet could kill the living…


I think the situation with the Oath-beakers is entirely different from that of the Nazgûl. Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam could all attack and injure others while wearing the One Ring, and they could also be injured while wearing it. I don’t know that the Dead Men of Dunharrow did more than terrify the mariners and soldiers of Umbar: Gimli remarked that at Pelargir,
Pale swords were drawn, but I know not whether their blades would still bite, for the Dead needed no longer any weapon but fear.​


Elthir said:


> As I say, even Sauron can't slip into Gondor in spirit-form and slay Kings or Stewards willy nilly. He's incarnated, and he fears being "de-bodied"


First of all, I don’t think Sauron still possessed the ability to shift shape. I think he and the Balrogs were stuck in the incarnations they wore. (The same had become true for Melkor Morgoth by the end of the First Age, and he was a Vala!) Before the destruction of his first avatar in the Downfall of Númenor, Sauron could change his appearance at will, as we see in the fight with Huan at the Bridge of Tol Sirion, or when he disguised himself as Annatar to deceive the Mírdain of Eregion. I think this ability was lost after Númenor. 

I certainly agree that Sauron feared being unhoused: thus his reaction at seeing Aragorn in the Orthanc Stone with the Sword of Elendil: it scared him! and that’s exactly what Aragorn meant to do: frighten him, put him off balance, in order to draw his military might out of Mordor so that Frodo could more easily enter and accomplish his mission. 



Elthir said:


> [W]e don't (or at least I don't) get the impression that this magic type of "make you vulnerable" weapon is the norm in Gondor, Rohan, or Imladris, for examples.


I absolutely agree with you, Elthir. I think the Barrow-blades are most unique! I believe it’s significant that Tom Bombadil chose them for the Hobbits, knowing that they would sooner or later have to face the Ringwraiths: he clearly knew what they were and why they were made. I think Frodo used one on the Barrow-wight, but all it did to the Barrow-wight was sever its hand at the wrist, splinter immediately (I suspect that’s a property of the blade’s striking a creature in the “wraith world”), and piss it off mightily: It cried out, then snarled. The spell that allowed an evil spirit to inhabit a corpse in the barrow (perhaps that of the last Prince of Cardolan) was different from the one that bound the _hröa_ of the Witch-king to his _fëa_. Bombadil broke the Barrow-wight’s binding spell. 

Like their counterparts the Morgul blades, the Barrow-blades are special purpose weapons. (Seeing the effects of Morgul blades might well have inspired the forging of Barrow-blades.) I imagine all of them were crafted by the same smith before the Great Plague that wiped out the inhabitants of Cardolan. I think they were forged in Cardolan (and were thus in the graves there), and I cannot see how they were made without the assistance of either Tom Bombadil (which would immediately explain his recognition of the weapons and their purpose) or one or more of the surviving Mírdain in Imladris. (Some of the Mírdain apparently remained in Rivendell until the end of the Third Age; I think it was they who reforged the shards of Narsil into Andúril.) Somehow the Dúnadan who forged those blades came to know how to terminate the power of a Great Ring to hold together the _hröa_ and _fëa_, and I think that knowledge could only come from one of the smiths who had worked on the Rings of Power or from Bombadil, assuming he understood how Rings of Power operated. With that in view, I’d have to say the more likely source of information is one of the Mírdain. But I whole-heartedly agree with you that these are unique weapons. By the way, it’s notable that while Bombadil recognized their usefulness, neither Aragorn nor Gandalf nor Elrond makes any comment on them: I don’t know that they realized what they were. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is suggestive. 

───◊───

I can’t prove my proposition. I offer it as an explanation because I think it makes sense, I think it fits together well with other things we know about Tolkien’s works, and I don’t believe it contradicts anything he wrote either in canon or in his private musings (that have so far been published). I’ve spent over 10 hours working on these two posts and written well over five thousand words: I cannot justify spending any more time on this. I hope some of you find it useful, but if you disagree, that’s certainly your prerogative.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 12, 2021)

*Alcuin*, that was a nice explanation of your position, and I appreciate the work. That said, I don't think it really answers my concern here from an in-story perspective.



Alcuin said:


> First of all, I don’t think Sauron still possessed the ability to shift shape.



That was just a hypothetical to try to bolster a point. Tolkien wants his great enemies (Morgoth, Sauron) to be incarnate, and even when Sauron's incarnate, he has reason to fear weapons.

The point is (if indeed Tolkien was thinking along the lines of "vulnerability" in the sense you mean [which I agree seems a fair interpretation for the posthumously published quote you provided, but is not necessarily the scenario with respect to the posthumously published quote I provided, and more importantly, not necessarily the scenario according to the author-published tale) . . .

. . . ah where was I? Oh yes, the point is about (arguably) having "too much" power. Morgoth has reason to fear weapons, Sauron had reason to fear weapons . . .

. . . yet the Nine do not (except for one type)? The Nine already have special advantages in battle, and unlike the Oath-breakers (again seemingly, given the quote Tolkien provides concerning their blades), the Nine _*can*_ kill with their weapons.

And when you write this:



> "And by the same token, why would the Witch-king be afraid of Gondor’s Steward Boromir I? Because Boromir *had control of his fear*, he was a great commander and personally an outstanding warrior, and thus he had the ability to injure even the Witch-king."



I agree. But how to injure him, if the Witch-king is invulnerable to normal weapons. Are you proposing, by implication, that this Boromir had a weapon like Merry's? Or that such weapons were the norm in Rohan, Gondor, and Imladris? And if you are, based on what text?

No one stabbed the wraiths first (with a barrow blade) to make them vulnerable to water or fire (physical things in any case). And I agree that Merry's stab caused great pain, and in my opinion, it had a magical effect on the Wraith . . .

. . . but that said, if Tolkien means that Éowyn, Éomer, Imrahil, fifty Rohirric knights who had the will to stand against the unreasoning fear, Aragorn, Gandalf, or even *Elemmacil* (couldn't resist) had no chance whatsoever against the Witch-king, because they didn't have the right kind of weapon . . .

. . . then my reaction is that I think JRRT's opening up an "unwanted" door here with respect to scenarios involving Wraiths. Or to put it another way, if so, in my opinion he's allowing unwanted questions to arise in the reader's minds -- questions that can be avoided, however, if the blades are extra-effective in some way, rather than making the wraiths suddenly vulnerable.

For example, before the Company even sets out, send one of the Nine to kill Theoden. And anyone who tries to stop him (assuming they can master their fear, for love of King and Folk and so on) is dead. And you have the somewhat silly scenario (to my mind) of arrow after arrow, sword or spear after sword or spear, being essentially useless.

Or am I missing something maybe?

Or something else


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 12, 2021)

I think I can respond quickly to this…

Yes, I think you are missing something, Elthir. *“All blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.”* Either they _pierce_ him or they don’t. The Witch-king is *not invulnerable* to being hurt. His body and soul can’t be separated: He can’t be killed. Which is why I wrote earlier that “it could become a kind of living hell,” because he’d still suffer pain, he’d still have any impediments of hacked off limbs until they were repaired (presumably through sorcery), and if any of the Nazgûl were beheaded, he’d literally have to go home with his head in his hands. 

Your confusion comes from the notion that the Nazgûl are _invulnerable_. They’re not. _“Can’t be killed”_ is entirely different from _“Can’t be hurt.”_ I hold that they can be hurt, even dreadfully so, but they cannot be _killed._ “Cannot be killed” sounds very pleasant – until one considers the alternatives: Maimed, crushed, skewered, burned, drowned, in wretched agony, but unable to die. That’s part of the traditional description of Hell. The Ringwraiths wanted to avoid this kind of pain and suffering as much as they could, and after more than four millennia, they’d probably experienced a lot of it. Moreover, their “healing” probably included long sessions with Sauron, and I shouldn’t suppose he was very gentle in his ministrations. 

The Barrow-blade severed that “cannot be killed” rule when it severed the Witch-king’s tendons behind his knee. His body and soul (_hröa_ and _fëa_) were separated, and his body _died_ at long last. And his _fëa_ wailed all the way to Barad-dûr. 

The Nazgûl are not invincible. They’re not invulnerable. (Tolkien never used those words to describe Ringwraiths, as far as I can tell.) 

Otherwise, you do indeed end up with the “silly scenario … of arrow after arrow, sword or spear after sword or spear, being essentially useless.” And that’s what we both want to avoid.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 12, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> Yes, I think you are missing something, Elthir. *“All blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.”* Either they _pierce_ him or they don’t. The Witch-king is *not invulnerable* to being hurt.



I agree with the third sentence (not counting the quote). And the Tolkien quote doesn't necessarily mean regular blades can't pierce him (not that you're saying otherwise).



Alcuin said:


> His body and soul can’t be separated: He can’t be killed.



Agreed again with the second sentence -- in the sense that he can't be ultimately killed if Sauron is alive and potent.



Alcuin said:


> ( . . . ) Your confusion comes from the notion that the Nazgûl are _invulnerable_. They’re not. _“Can’t be killed”_ is entirely different from _“Can’t be hurt.”_ I hold that they can be hurt, even dreadfully so, but they cannot be _killed._



My opinion has always been that they are not invulnerable, and indeed Tolkien never uses this word to describe them. Again, I agree that they can be hurt, but where we seem to differ (I think) is that I hold that the wraiths can be '"killed" by the separation of hroa and fea . . . but yet returning to Sauron, bound to the Nine, he gives them a new corporality.



Alcuin said:


> “Cannot be killed” sounds very pleasant – until one considers the alternatives: Maimed, crushed, skewered, burned, drowned, in wretched agony, but unable to die. That’s part of the traditional description of Hell. The Ringwraiths wanted to avoid this kind of pain and suffering as much as they could, and after more than four millennia, they’d probably experienced a lot of it. Moreover, their “healing” probably included long sessions with Sauron, and I shouldn’t suppose he was very gentle in his ministrations.



Here I admit I wasn't paying enough attention to your earlier post (apologies!), as this part at least, does try to address my concern.

What I might be confusing could be the idea which (I thought) some people seem to hold: that the wraiths are basically ghosts until a barrow blade strikes them, and thus they cannot be hit with regular weapons in general -- and so, neither hurt, nor "killed" unless struck by a barrow-blade first; and if the barrow-blade strike itself isn't "lethal" (like a leg wound), only then can the Nine still be "taken out, brought to nothing" (at least for a time), by regular weapons . . .

. . . but perhaps this isn't a popular notion at all! 



Alcuin said:


> The Barrow-blade severed that “cannot be killed” rule when it severed the Witch-king’s tendons behind his knee. His body and soul (_*hröa*_ and _*fëa*_) were separated,



Ah but the separation described is that of ("unseen sinews to will"), in other words, *will* to* body *

If in a fight, I could somehow separate a man's will from his body, he wouldn't die of course. He would be unable to prevent me from defeating him however. He might even fall down!



Alcuin said:


> and his body _died_ at long last. And his _fëa_ wailed all the way to Barad-dûr.



I agree he "died" though not in the usual sense that Men die (their _fëar_ leaving the world); but when the One was soon destroyed, then he truly died.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 13, 2021)

Elthir said:


> I agree that they can be hurt, but where we seem to differ (I think) is that I hold that the wraiths can be '"killed" by the separation of hroa and fea . . . but yet returning to Sauron, bound to the Nine, he gives them a new corporality.


Yes: Here we differ.

Elves who have lost their bodies are consigned to Mandos. There they remain until the End, unless the Valar determine that they have served their penance, in which case they are either reëmbodied or reborn, depending upon which telling you prefer. (I am for “reëmbodied”.) This ability is not innate to Elves: They require the assistance of the Valar.

After the destruction of his first physical form in the ruin of Númenor, Sauron managed to make himself a second physical form, but one much less adaptive and flexible, more like a Balrog’s. Sometime in the first millennium of the Third Age (late in that first millennium, I guess), he managed to make a third physical form. He was able to accomplish both of these subsequent reëmbodiments, I beieve, because of his *Ruling Ring*, which prevented his native power from becoming scattered when his body was destroyed. We do not, for instance, hear of the return of any of the Balrogs. Not even Morgoth was able to rehouse himself after his body was executed by the Valar and his spirit cast forth from Eä; and though Tolkien indicates he would eventually be able to make another avatar, he is careful to point out that this is because Morgoth was a _Vala_, and his power regenerated with Time. Sauron is not a Vala, but a Maia: He does not regenerate that kind of power, in my opinion.

Nor, I believe, could he reincarnate one of the Nazgûl. Sauron was “The Necromancer”, but his skill was in creating phantasms like the Wargs that attacked the Company of the Ring in Hollin; “possessing” bodies, whether of the living (as “Myths Transformed” indicates) or of the dead, such as the Barrow-wight that inhabited the corpse of the buried Dúnadan of Cardolan.

I believe the Rings of Power must exhibit a stable underlying logic. To reiterate from my first post in this thread, in _Letter_ 131, Tolkien wrote,
​The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of _decay_​​My conclusion follows:
​The necromancy of the Rings of Power was to _prevent_ the fading of the _hröar_ of their Elvish wielders. It interrupted the _natural_ progression of Elvish physical development in Middle-earth: It _stops_ the consumption of the _hröa_ by the _fëa_ (i.e., it *prevents physical decay*) in Elves. …​​[T]heir effect on mortal Men … still halts the natural progression of the relationship between the _hröa_ and the _fëa_, but in this case, it *prevents physical death.* … [I]nstead of inducing death, it holds the _fëa_, the spirit, to the _hröa_, the body. You can get _hurt_, really badly hurt, but you can’t _die._ …​​If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that the Nazgûl just pop back into existence through Sauron’s power if they are physically eliminated: say, by burning them to ashes and then disposing of the ash. I cannot agree to this. I do not believe Sauron has that kind of power, or he would use it for himself! If we follow Tolkien’s logic, _the Rings of Power “prevent[] decay,”_ then I think we are led to the conclusion that for the Elves, that meant the decay of their bodies and their bodily separation from spirit; but for Men, it meant the death of their bodies and the separation of their spirit. Their lives become “like butter that has been scraped over too much bread,” as Bilbo put it. Gandalf reiterates this to Frodo:
​A mortal … 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. [Eventually] he _fades_: he becomes in the end invisible permanently…​​Ologando proposes that the Ringwraiths have “become[] … invisible permanently,” just as Gandalf says, and I – and you, too, I think – agree. What I propose is that they “do[] not die, but … do[] not grow or obtain more life.” Which means that when they are *injured*, they must seek healing through sorcery, from Sauron or through the use of his arts, because they “do[] not grow or obtain more life.” And THAT is why the Witch-king feared Gondor’s Boromir I, it’s why he fled the battlefield of Arnor when Glorfindel rode up with the cavalry of Rivendell. It’s why Tolkien’s notes (in _Reader’s Companion_) indicate that the Nazgûl could be harassed by Elves and Rangers, how this harassment was able to interrupt their communications so that they returned late to Bree and missed Frodo, and why they feared Aragorn after Weathertop because he attacked them with fire, which hurts a lot and from which wounds may be difficult to repair, despite the fact that it was the Bearer who attacked with the knife.

Let me point this out as well: _If_ Sauron can restore the corporeality of a Nazgûl, then they *are* what you describe in your hyperbole: monstrous, unstoppable, over-powered killing machines. But if instead they have bodies, “permanently invisible” yet still corporeal, then they have reason to _fear_ injury in battle, to _fear_ being burned. *It hurts!* Even earthworms try to avoid pain! much less people, whether it’s you or me, or a four thousand year-old Ringwraith. And you and I probably heal better and faster than a Ringwraith would.



Elthir said:


> [T]he separation described is that of ("unseen sinews to will"), in other words, *will* to* body *
> 
> If in a fight, I could somehow separate a man's will from his body, he wouldn't die of course. He would be unable to prevent me from defeating him however. He might even fall down!


I think you’re taking too literally what Tolkien is saying poetically: “[B]reaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will,” is a beautiful description of exactly what I think is happening: His “will” is his _fëa_, his “unseen sinews” his _hröa_. The Witch-king is now going to die one way or another – thus as Tolkien remarks in his notes (again, _Reader’s Companion_) concerning the Witch-king’s near-miss from Frodo’s Barrow-blade at Weathertop,
​[He e]scap[ed] a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end)​​His body, his _hröa_, is now vulnerable to death, and Éowyn decapitates him.



Elthir said:


> I agree he "died" though not in the usual sense that Men die (their _fëar_ leaving the world); but when the One was soon destroyed, then he truly died.


On this point, we are again in agreement. I believe his spirit was still bound to the Ring though his body was destroyed: he could not depart Middle-earth.

Our only point of disagreement, Elthir, if I understand you correctly, is that you seem to hold that the Nazgûl could be physically _destroyed_ and then reëmbodied. I disagree: the whole point of the Great Rings was to _preserve_ bodies, whether for the Elves, as was their original purpose, or for Men, as fell out when the Elves were dispossessed of them.

And now I am terribly behind in my work…


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 13, 2021)

Elthir said:


> _(a *lot*!)_





Alcuin said:


> _(a lot *more*!)_


Ah ... what was the question?!? 😱🤯🥴

Really good stuff, guys.

But I then had this thought: I've got a really big honking computer monitor (it's as *wide* as the tube TV we had until 2009), but Alcuin's really big post on the previous page is still over five pages long. I tried to imagine say @Squint-eyed Southerner (and others) scrolling their way through it on a *"smart"-phone*. My right thumb hurts just *thinking* about it ... 🥵


----------



## Elthir (Dec 13, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> Elves who have lost their bodies are consigned to Mandos. There they remain until the End, unless the Valar determine that they have served their penance, in which case they are either reëmbodied or reborn, depending upon which telling you prefer. (I am for “reëmbodied”.) This ability is not innate to Elves: They require the assistance of the Valar.



Tolkien did muse, at one point (Morgoth's Ring), that the Elves had the power to rebuild their hroar from the memory of the fear. But yes, his latest thoughts on the matter had the Valar doing this (while also emphatically rejecting rebirth as children as a mode of Elvish reincanation).



Alcuin said:


> After the destruction of his first physical form in the ruin of Númenor, Sauron managed to make himself a second physical form, but one much less adaptive and flexible, more like a Balrog’s. Sometime in the first millennium of the Third Age (late in that first millennium, I guess), he managed to make a third physical form. He was able to accomplish both of these subsequent reëmbodiments, I beieve, because of his *Ruling Ring*, (clip for brevity) Sauron is not a Vala, but a Maia: He does not regenerate that kind of power, in my opinion.



But you've just illustrated that Sauron does have that power. He comes back, the ruling ring is not destroyed, nor the Nine Rings, which he holds.



Alcuin said:


> Nor, I believe, could he reincarnate one of the Nazgûl. Sauron was “The Necromancer”, but his skill was in creating phantasms like the Wargs that attacked the Company of the Ring in Hollin; “possessing” bodies, whether of the living (as “Myths Transformed” indicates) or of the dead, such as the Barrow-wight that inhabited the corpse of the buried Dúnadan of Cardolan.



And perhaps the Nine rings held on to their spirits, and a corporality of some measure, such that it could be regenerated by Sauron. The tale is Hobbit-viewpoint, with help from folks of the West. I'm not sure it would even make fictive sense to know exactly how this was possible -- for example, how did the Olog-hai not mind Sunlight, "simply" because (and as long as) Sauron's will held sway over them.



Alcuin said:


> I believe the Rings of Power must exhibit a stable underlying logic. To reiterate from my first post in this thread, in _Letter_ 131, Tolkien wrote: The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of _decay_
> ​My conclusion follows: The necromancy of the Rings of Power was to _prevent_ the fading of the _hröar_ of their Elvish wielders. It interrupted the _natural_ progression of Elvish physical development in Middle-earth: It _stops_ the consumption of the _hröa_ by the _fëa_ (i.e., it *prevents physical decay*) in Elves.



I'm not sure I'd use "decay" when it comes to the fea consuming the hroa, but the Elvish Rings, as you know, went far beyond the bodies of Elves, into preserving their realms, and as you also know, could not prevent death by weapons or grief.



Alcuin said:


> Their effect on mortal Men … still halts the natural progression of the relationship between the _hröa_ and the _fëa_, but in this case, it *prevents physical death.* … [I]nstead of inducing death, it holds the _fëa_, the spirit, to the _hröa_, the body. You can get _hurt_, really badly hurt, but you can’t _die._​



I won't quibble except with the last four words 

And even there I agree that they can't "ulimately" die unto Sauron is taken out!



Alcuin said:


> If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that the Nazgûl just pop back into existence through Sauron’s power if they are physically eliminated. . .



. . . now now, I never said "pop" as if it's easy!



Alcuin said:


> say, by burning them to ashes and then disposing of the ash. I cannot agree to this. I do not believe Sauron has that kind of power, or he would use it for himself!



But he does use it for himself. His body is destroyed, he comes back -- but even so, I don't think we need to make a one-to-one equivalence to Sauron making his own incarnation, with "necromanting" a measure of corporality for his lesser servants, again whose rings still existed as well.

[Sauron says] "You Nine can't "die" like true Men, your spirits can't leave the world, but I need you to be able to interact with it! Come back to me if necessary, even that Wizard knows you stand of fall with your Master."



Alcuin said:


> Let me point this out as well:



Okay 



Alcuin said:


> _If_ Sauron can restore the corporeality of a Nazgûl, then they *are* what you describe in your hyperbole: monstrous, unstoppable, over-powered killing machines.



I disagree. They cannot be so within my theory because even regular weapons can take them out of the game, thus coming back and trying again becomes a circular dead end (pun intended).

Moreover, you are saying that they can be "healed" and come back. And what does Sauron care if they experience pain during an assassination attempt on Theoden? The Wraiths do Sauron's will.



Alcuin said:


> And you and I probably heal better and faster than a Ringwraith would.



My emphasis on "probably" 



Alcuin said:


> I think you’re taking too literally what Tolkien is saying poetically: “[B]reaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will,” is a beautiful description of exactly what I think is happening: His “will” is his _fëa_, his “unseen sinews” his _hröa_.



Well, "spirit" instead of "will" is arguably just as poetic, in my opinion.

*And it's not just the choice of word here*: if after Merry's strike the Witch-king now is truly vulnerable to more pain . . . and now death! Again, he appears to do nothing to try to evade or deflect Éowyn strike -- and as I say, Tolkien's choice of wording here would seem to give the wraith plenty of time to react . . . and a leg wound might be painful, but if someone's going to struggle up and give you a death wound . . . well, I hope I'd move. Or do something!



Alcuin said:


> ( . . . ) I disagree: the whole point of the Great Rings was to _preserve_ bodies, whether for the Elves, as was their original purpose, or for Men, as fell out when the Elves were dispossessed of them.​



I'd say, the wraiths were given enough "corporality" to interact again with the physical world. And I agree that might sound like splitting hairs, but we're dealing with the Necromancer here, and I doubt the scribes of the West would be privy to the exact magic involved. Essentially a "body" let's say, for practical purposes.

And as for the Quendi, the rings preserved things that the Elves desired to preserve, yes, which would seem to stave off physical fading, but yet they could die of course, and be re-bodied by the exact memory of the hroa contained within the fea.


----------



## Culaeron (Jan 6, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> Ah ... what was the question?!? 😱🤯🥴
> 
> Really good stuff, guys.
> 
> But I then had this thought: I've got a really big honking computer monitor (it's as *wide* as the tube TV we had until 2009), but Alcuin's really big post on the previous page is still over five pages long. I tried to imagine say @Squint-eyed Southerner (and others) scrolling their way through it on a *"smart"-phone*. My right thumb hurts just *thinking* about it ... 🥵


And those 5 page posts are the very reasons I enjoy my visits with ALL the fine folk here. Even on a smart phone. It’s worth the callus on the pad of my thumb!


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 7, 2022)

I just noticed this.



Elthir said:


> Alcuin said:
> 
> 
> > After the destruction of his first physical form in the ruin of Númenor, Sauron managed to make himself a second physical form, but one much less adaptive and flexible, more like a Balrog’s. Sometime in the first millennium of the Third Age (late in that first millennium, I guess), he managed to make a third physical form. He was able to accomplish both of these subsequent reëmbodiments, I beieve, because of his *Ruling Ring*, (clip for brevity) Sauron is not a Vala, but a Maia: He does not regenerate that kind of power, in my opinion.
> ...



Hmm… What was elided by that “(clip for brevity)”?


Alcuin said:


> ...because of his *Ruling Ring*, which prevented his native power from becoming scattered when his body was destroyed.


No, I did not “illustrate[] that Sauron does have that power” to regenerate himself _per se_. I said he still possessed that power “because of his *Ruling Ring*, which prevented his native power from becoming scattered when his body was destroyed.” 

From _Letter_ 200,
… Sauron appeared in [the shape of the “Children of God”, of Elves and Men]. [W]hen this shape was “real”, … a physical actuality in the physical world …, it took some time to build up. It was then destructible like other physical organisms. … After the battle with Gil-galad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to rebuild, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Númenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit, which might be called the “will” or the effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the realization of its imagination). The impossibility of rebuilding after the destruction of the Ring, is sufficiently clear “mythologically” in the [_Lord of the Rings_].​Sauron was able to rebuild himself precisely because the Ring was _not_ destroyed after his defeat in the War of the Last Alliance, and his power was therefore not scattered. Elrond told the Council,
[The Ring] have been cast then into Orodruin’s fire nigh at hand where it was made. … But Isildur would not listen to our [Elrond’s and Círdan’s] counsel. … Sauron was diminished, but not destroyed. His Ring was lost but not unmade. The Dark Tower was broken, but its foundations were not removed; for they were made with the power of the Ring, and while it remains they will endure. …​ Sauron laid the foundations of Barad-dûr about Second Age 1000, according to the Tale of Years (Appendix B). He did not begin the forging of the Ruling Ring for another six centuries. In fact, he did not enter Eregion until around 1200, and the Rings of Power were not begun for approximately another three hundred after that. 

This means the power Sauron used to form his first physical form, the power he used to lay the foundations of Barad-dûr, the power (if any*) he placed into the Rings of Power, and the power her used to forge the One Ring was all _subsequently_ placed into the One Ring. As long as the One Ring endured, that power, which was native to Sauron in his beginning, also endured. 

Gandalf told Frodo that 
[Sauron] needs the One; for he made that Ring himself, … and he let a great part of his own former power pass into it, so that he could rule all the others. If he recovers it, then he will command them all again, wherever they be, … and he will be stronger than ever.​And later, he tells him that
The power of their master is in [the Ringwraiths], and they stand or fall by him.​The only way to destroy the Ring is to
find the Cracks of Doom in the depths of Orodruin, … and cast the Ring in there … to put it beyond the grasp of the Enemy for ever.​And from _Letter_ 131,
[I]f the One Ring was actually _unmade_, … then its power would be dissolved, Sauron’s own being would be diminished to vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a … mere memory of malicious will.​
Sauron’s ability to remake his physical form was intimately intertwined with the physical existence of his One Ring. His ability to dominate wills was, to a large extent, dependent upon his _physical possession of it_ as well: he could not see the thoughts or devices of the Elves wielding the Three Rings without it. The Nazgûl, however, were already long-enslaved to their Rings, and when face-to-face with Sauron unable to withhold their Rings from him: he took them to ensure their unquestioned obedience until he could recover the One.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Jan 7, 2022)

Alcuin said:


> I just noticed this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hm. So it sounds like he'd invested part of himself into his ring. So, for instance, if I had telepathy, and placed that power in a circlet and the circlet is then destroyed, that power would be lost to me. Sauron had divested himself of certain powers he naturally had. It seems he gained something from this act, in this case if he's killed these powers aren't dispersed like some of his other essences, thus making his reformation easier?


----------



## Elthir (Jan 7, 2022)

Alcuin said:


> Hmm… What was elided by that “(clip for brevity)”?



*A)* In general, I usually clip text to avoid the "click to expand" thingy.

*B)* Specifically: I saw your statements as illustrating Sauron's regenerative power (which I still think they do), and I didn't/don't see that what you said in the clipped section as making any difference to my response.

Or in other words, to my mind, that Sauron "still" possessed that power while the One existed doesn't change that it was his power in the first place.

I certainly was not trying to put words in your mouth, and I apologize if I did, even unintentionally.
But again, I don't see how your addition (now below, with my emphasis by underlining) changes the idea that it was within Sauron's native power to regenerate a body.



Alcuin said:


> No, I did not “illustrate[] that Sauron does have that power” to regenerate himself _per se_. I said he still possessed that power “because of his *Ruling Ring*, which prevented his native power from becoming scattered when his body was destroyed.”






Alcuin said:


> From _Letter_ 200, (snip of letter 200 for brevity)
> ​Sauron was able to rebuild himself precisely because the Ring was _not_ destroyed after his defeat in the War of the Last Alliance, and his power was therefore not scattered. Elrond told the Council,



Agreed. Actually, I don't disagree with the rest of your post either.

Possibly I'm (still) missing a distinction you are making?


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 7, 2022)

Fai8r enough, Elthir. We shall not belabor this matter any further.


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 8, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> So it sounds like he'd invested part of himself into his ring. So, for instance, if I had telepathy, and placed that power in a circlet and the circlet is then destroyed, that power would be lost to me. Sauron had divested himself of certain powers he naturally had. It seems he gained something from this act, in this case if he's killed these powers aren't dispersed like some of his other essences, thus making his reformation easier?


Yes, that’s my position. 

The matter is probably best explained in a letter JRRT wrote in late 1951 to publisher Milton Waldman, a rival publisher to Rayner Unwin of Allen & Unwin: Tolkien had become impatient with Unwin’s (as he saw it) reluctance to publish _The Lord of the Rings_, some three years before the publication of _Fellowship of the Ring_. About half of it is reprinted in _Letters of JRR Tolkien_ as _Letter_ 131. (“_Letter_ 131” is a convenient shorthand for _Letters of JRR Tolkien_, letter number 131.) Even only half-reprinted, it is the longest letter in _Letters_; the rest of it was finally published as an appendix to _Reader’s Companion_.
Sauron dominates all the … Men that have had no contact with the Elves… He rules a growing empire from the great dark tower of Barad-dûr … wielding the One Ring.

But to achieve this he had been obliged to let a great part of his own inherent power … pass into the One Ring. While he wore it, his power … was actually enhanced. 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. This was the essential weakness he had introduced … in his effort … to enslave the Elves … There was another weakness: if the One Ring was actually unmade, annihilated, then its power would be dissolved, Sauron’s own being would be diminished to vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a … mere memory of malicious will. But that he never contemplated nor feared. … It was in any case on his finger.​Sauron could not be “killed” as such. Like Saruman whose throat Wormtongue cut in the Shire, like Durin’s Bane in the Third Age and the Balrogs of the First Age, even like Gandalf atop Zirak-zigil, the organic body built up by a Maia could be rendered uninhabitable by that Maia. As I cited in the post previous to yours, (from _Letter_ 200):
[T]his shape was “real”, … a physical actuality in the physical world … [I]t took some time to build up. It was then destructible like other physical organisms.​The Valar were more powerful spirits than the Maiar. They normally could not be “unhoused”: their naturally inherent powers were too great to be overcome. Morgoth was an exception: he had dispersed his power throughout Arda in an attempt to dominate it and control it for himself, so that in the dénouement of the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age, the Host of Valinor with the aid of Tulkas (the only other Vala present in the conflict) was able to capture him, return him to Valinor for judgment, and _execute_ him as if he were an Incarnate. In this way Volume X of the _History of Middle Earth_ gets its title from Tolkien’s “Notes on motives in the Silmarillion” published in _Morgoth’s Ring_.
All matter [in Middle-earth] was likely to have a Melkor ingredient, and those who had bodies … had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor… 

But in this way Morgoth lost (or exchanged…) the greater part of his original angelic powers of mind and spirit, while gaining a terrible grip upon the physical world. … Sauron’s relatively smaller power was _concentrated_; Morgoth’s vast power was _disseminated_. The whole of Middle-earth was Morgoth’s Ring… Sauron’s power was not … in gold as such, but in a particular form or shape made of a particular portion of total gold. Morgoth’s power was disseminated throughout Gold, if nowhere absolute … (It was this Morgoth-element in matter … which was a prerequisite for such “magic” … as Sauron practiced…)​As long as Sauron’s Ruling Ring existed, he could not be ultimately divested of his native abilities _unless_ another great creature managed to take permanent possession of the Ring: Gandalf, and perhaps Elrond or Galadriel, for instance. (There are threads in this forum that muse upon Durin’s Bane obtaining the One Ring.) This was in fact Saruman’s desire: to obtain the Ring and seize it as his own, vanquishing Sauron in the process, establishing Saruman as Dark Lord in his place. Sauron had not divested himself of power so much as he had migrated that power to an object exterior to and separate from his own physical manifestation. 

There is Russian folktale about Koschei (Коще́й) the Deathless, who hides his life force, his soul, in an exterior object, then hides that in another, and that in yet another, and so on, like matryoshka (матрёшка), nested Russian dolls. Depending upon the telling of the tale, Koschei is eventually killed; the best-known tale in the West is that of Ivan Tsarevitch, who eventually finds Koschei’s soul in an egg and destroys it, killing him for good. Ivan Tsarevitch is also the protagonist of Igor Stravinsky’s ballet _The Firebird_, where Ivan defeats Koschei with the aid of the Firebird. 






*This motif is quite ancient.* There is an oft-used catalogue of folktale themes known as the Aarne-Thompson-Uther Index. This theme is ATU 302, “The Giant (Ogre) who had no heart in his body” or “Ogre’s Heart in the Egg”. _Tolkien was undoubtedly familiar with these types of tales_, and mentions in _Letter_ 131 that this is “a frequent and very significant motive in myth and fairy-story.” Tales including this kind of plot are found from India to Ireland, and are believed by some folklorists to be at least 3000 years old.


----------



## Elthir (Jan 8, 2022)

I'd like to add that in the Author's notes to _Osanwe-Centa_ (Vinyar Tengwar 39, note 5), we find plurals in the description, for example *"even some of his* [Morgoth's] *greatest servants"* became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, *"and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could then continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed."*

Granted, the text then says that Pengoloð evidently refers to Sauron in particular here -- yet then it's also noted that the first destruction of Sauron's body is recorded in the _Lay of Leithian_.

And while I realize that might not seem the case according to the constructed Silmarillion, in any event, here Tolkien (in his guise as author/s) is giving a brief description of rebuilding "haibitations", then follows immediately with Sauron's body being destroyed *before* Annatar/Sauron (returned) forges the One Ring.

Unless JRRT has made a mistake here with _respect to the theory_ (which is not necessarily so, despite a seeming conflict with the narrative as it stood in QS), this indicates to me that JRRT sees no problem with Sauron rebuilding a body before the One even existed.

Or something else?


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 10, 2022)

I’ve seen several references to Sauron having been disembodied at the bridge by Huan of Valinor. *I do not believe this was the case,* despite the 1959-1960 _Ósanwe-kenta_ (_VT_ vol 39). The parenthetical at the end of the paragraph at the end of _Note 5_ to the essay to which you refer is unquestionably JRR Tolkien’s own:
​Pengoloð here evidently refers to Sauron in particular, from whose arising he fled at last from Middle-earth. But the first destruction of the bodily form of Sauron was recorded in the histories of the Elder Days, in the _Lay of Leithian_.​​If you peruse _The Lay of Leithian_, whether in _Lays of Beleriand_ (_History of Middle-earth_ volume 3) or _Beren and Lúthien_, you will find lines 579-585, where Sauron is called by his earlier name, *Thû*:
​_A vampire shape with pinions vast_​_screeching leaped from the ground, and passed,_​_its dark blood dripping on the trees;_​_and Huan ’neath him lifeless sees_​_a wolvish corpse—for Thû had flown_​_to Taur-nu-Fuin, a new throne_​_and darker stronghold there to build._​​My point is that though Sauron (Thû) had deserted a physical body, _he still possessed a physical body (hröa)_, that of a vampire bat, which was dripping blood presumably from its neck due to wounds inflicted by Huan.

*This*, I contend, *is a contradiction:* Either Sauron inhabited the body of another creature, in this case a wolf, in the sense of “demonic possession”, which he deserted and left behind when he flew away to escape; or else he deserted his own _hröa_, then instantly made for himself a second _hröa_, which would seem to conflict with Tolkien’s other writings concerning the assemblage of _hröa_ by Maiar.

The simplest explanation and one that avoids these inconsistencies is that adopted by Christopher Tolkien in _Silmarillion_: Sauron surrendered the keys of Tol Sirion and the words governing the stability of the tower to Lúthien, then Huan released him, he shifted shape (as he had already been doing during their combat together), and flew off in defeat. Ergo, Sauron was _not_ disembodied in the First Age; his first and second disembodiments were in the Second Age in the Downfall of Númenor and the penultimate battle of the War of the Last Alliance, and his third and final, catastrophic (for him) disembodiment was at the end of the Third Age.

Otherwise I think there are too many questions and loose ends to tie up. I know Tolkien wrote _Ósanwe-kenta_ himself when he was but in his late 60s, but I cannot see any other clear way to reconcile the many discrepancies a First Age disembodiment of Sauron would entail. In which case I propose attributing the statement entirely to Pengoloð and his presumed lack of understanding regarding the Maiar and their physical manifestations.


----------



## Elthir (Jan 10, 2022)

[unnecessary sarcasm] Well, Tolkien does often bring in Pengoloð when he wants to show a lack of understanding about something [unnecessary sarcasm]

 

JRRT seems to be going there [disembodiment] in _Myths Transformed Text VII _too, where he begins (but doesn't finish) the following sentence: *"In the first overthrow and disembodiment of Sauron in Middle-earth (neglecting the matter of Luthien) . . ."*

But anyway, here's my point about the Osanwe-centa reference: it doesn't matter if JRRT . . .

A) was possibly imagining an updated description here, or . . .

B) possibly forgot _exactly_ what the Matter of Luthien said . . .

. . . because in Osanwe-centa he had just written about Sauron returning, and yet he didn't stop himself for the next sentence (in which he wrote that Sauron's body was destroyed in the First Age) due to the idea being wrong . . .

. . . or to put it another way, even if JRRT had got it "wrong" compared to what the older texts said, I would think that the general idea of Sauron rebuilding a body _without the One_ should have arguably kicked in here -- *if it* was indeed problematic.

As far as Morgoth goes, in my opinion based on text VII, Tolkien seems to put a stamp on him disseminating too much power into Arda, _and losing control of it_ . . . thus when he is slain, it will take him long ages to rebuild:

*"It was then made plain (though it must have been understood beforehand by Manwe and Namo) that, though he had "disseminated" his power far and wide into the matter of Arda, he had lost direct control of this, and all that "he", as a surviving remnant of integral being, retained as "himself" and under control was the terribly shrunken and reduced spirit that inhabited his self-imposed (but now beloved) body,"* (. . .) *In any case, in seeking to absorb or rather to infiltrate himself throughout matter", what was then left of him was no longer powerful enough to reclothe itself.* (. . .) *At least it could not yet reclothe itself."* 

Myths Transformed Text VII, Morgoth's Ring

The same emphasis about Morgoth "dissipating" his native powers is in Osanwe-centa, and I note too, that Pengoloð's emphasis seems to regard *"some of his greatest servants"* . . .

. . . and, in _Myths Transformed_ Tolkien writes: *"Melkor had corrupted many spirits -- some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) orcs."* And as I read things here, Tolkien notes that these Orc-formed Maiar could not return when killed, although musing to himself *"(or would not a very dwindled dead orc-state be a poltergeist?"* (Text VIII).

To my mind anyway, Tolkien seems to draw a comparison between Morgoth's state after he had lost too much power, and Sauron's state after he had lost too much power (after the One was destroyed).

And I think this is partly why Tolkien characterizes two *"weaknesses"* that had been introduced by the making of the One Ring -- one of them being that Sauron could now be taken out "for good".

All in my opinion of course. And so far!


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 10, 2022)

Alcuin said:


> In which case I propose attributing the statement entirely to Pengoloð and his presumed lack of understanding regarding the Maiar and their physical manifestations.


Despite tracking down every reference to Pengolod / -loð / -lodh etc. in my HoMe index in the HoMe volumes cited there, I failed to locate one bit of trivia that annoyingly rattles around my cranium: that Pengolod, on his way to Tol Eressëa, stopped over in Númenor, thus (perhaps) getting this whole "mannish tradition" nons... ... _material_ started. Does anyone know in which arcane, deeply embedded part of Christopher's writings - a footnote to an end-note to the commentary of version C3iv of something - this nugget might be unearthed?


----------



## Elthir (Jan 11, 2022)

Well, I did *not* check every reference, but so far, all I can think of is a document that was copied in Numenor and saved from destruction, given that this document: *". . . is attributed, by the copyist, 
to Pengoloð (or Quendingoldo) of Gondolin."* Vinyar Tengwar 48

If you want me to check every reference, I'll need some coins first


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 11, 2022)

Elthir said:


> Well, I did *not* check every reference, but so far, all I can think of is a document that was copied in Numenor and saved from destruction, given that this document: *". . . is attributed, by the copyist,
> to Pengoloð (or Quendingoldo) of Gondolin."* Vinyar Tengwar 48
> 
> If you want me to check every reference, I'll need some coins first


Vinyar Tengwar, yet!  That's one resource I don't have.
As to coin, where was that post by 1stvermont about his book on JRRT ... ah, there it is:



https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/a-hobbit-introduces-herself.30050/post-548194



Publishing a book on JRRT is one of the surest ways of separating me from some of my dough.


----------



## Elthir (Jan 11, 2022)

I was thinking of publishing a book I've written . . . titled _Bilbo Baggins And The Mannish Tradition_, with an Appendix about Galadriel titled _Galadriel_.

Foreword by "Ando" Endorfin

Artwork by "Galin"


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 11, 2022)

Title needs work ...


----------



## Elthir (Jan 12, 2022)

How about _The Gandolorian_?


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 12, 2022)

Elthir said:


> How about _The Gandolorian_?


*That* you'll probably have to discuss with Hal (possible copyright issues ... 😁 )


----------



## ZehnWaters (Jan 13, 2022)

Elthir said:


> I was thinking of publishing a book I've written . . . titled _Bilbo Baggins And The Mannish Tradition_, with an Appendix about Galadriel titled _Galadriel_.


Maybe she can finally layout her history.



Olorgando said:


> *That* you'll probably have to discuss with Hal (possible copyright issues ... 😁 )


It's different enough to escape copyright, yes?


----------



## Matthew Bailey (May 30, 2022)

How _Undead_ work in Middle-earth.

All Mirröanwi (Rational Incarnates: Children of Eru) are composed of Hröar and Fëar. 

Regardless of Human or Elf, “dying” results in the destruction of the Hröa, but the indestructible Fëa then “Goes to its destination after death.”

In Humans this is _*Leaving the Circles of the World*_.

So if you either:

1. Prevent the Hröa from ”Dying”

2. Prevent the Fëa from being able to ”Leave” the Hröa (whether that Hröa is living or dead).

3. Prevent the Fëa from being able to “Leave” a _*Place…

Then you get something Unnatural… Un-dead.*_

*— *For a Nazgûl, or “Wraith,” the Body is prevented from dying.

Yet as Tolkien explains in _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_, this is “unnatural” for the Humans. The Fëa then “Consumes” the “Nessar” (Materials) of the Hröa, making the Hröa “Insubstantial.

An insubstantial Hröa is unable to die… You get a Nazgûl.

Their Horses have nothing to do with it.

The Fëar of all Mirröanwi contain an “impression” of the Hröa. This “impression“ will tend to “Want a Body” attached to the Fëa. Within Middle-earth, a “Houseless Fëa” is “Wrong/Bad.” 

Thus, if you put clothing on a Wraith, the “_impression_” of the Hröa in the Fëa causes the Clothing to “Take the Shape of the _impression _of the Hröa in the Fëa.”

That is how Nazgûl gain their “form” and “Visibility” to Humans (Elves can see them with or without “Clothing”).

The Knife/Sword that Meriodoc Brandybuck stabbed the Witch-King in the back of the knee/leg with was created specifically to sever the link between the Nazgûl and their respective Ring-of Power.

Doing this causes the Hröa to become again substantial. 

Unless the Nazgûl then “Re-applied:” _Their Ring_, the Hröa will continue to become more-and-more Substantial until it is capable of “Dying.” It then crumbles to dust, and the Fëa departs the Circles of the World (to some hell of some sort one would imagine).

Fortunately, Éowyn applied a Sword-to-the-Face, which was enough to kill the barely substantial Hröa of the Nazgûl.

— For a Barrow-wight, this is the same as the second means above:

The Fëa is bound to the Hröa, such that even when the Body/Hröa dies, the Fëa cannot “depart to its final destination.

The Corpse-Candles are similar, but like no. 3 above, they are bound to a “Place.”

MB



Elthir said:


> I don't agree with the (it would seem) popular notion that Merry's strike made the Witch-king vulnerable to other swords. This isn't stated in the description about Merry's dagger, and even Sauron himself had reason to fear Narsil reforged, for example. I think "invulnerable" to other weapons makes the Nazgul-lord too powerful -- he already has his advantages; one huge one being instilling *unreasoning fear* in his enemies, for example.
> 
> Merry's blade broke a spell yes, but one that knit the Witch-king's sinews to his will. Variant interpretations are possible of course, but to my mind it means that the Witch-king could not will
> his unseen "sinews" (his body) to ward off Éowyn's deadly strike.
> ...




See my comment.

You cannot slay nor even harm a Nazgûl with normal weapons without first causing the link to _Their Ring(s)-of-Power _to be severed, so that the Hröa begins to become substantial, so that it can die or be slain.

This is the importance of the Barrow-Blades.

They were enchanted (Literally “sung-over.“ So _*NOT *“Magic”_) explicitly to perform that feat, so that something like _A Sword-to-the-Face_ is sufficient to kill the barely substantial “Body/Hröa.

You have that part right. But The Witch-King did have he means to “ward-off Éowyn’s sword.” He was just a bit preoccupied with the horrifying agony of ANY sensation that he had been deprived of for thousands of years due to having no Substantial Hröa, 


MB


----------



## Elthir (May 30, 2022)

Matthew Bailey said:


> The Knife/Sword that Meriodoc Brandybuck stabbed the Witch-King in the back of the knee/leg with was created specifically to sever the *link* between the *Nazgûl and their respective Ring-of Power*.



Well, the published text tells us that Merry's stab severed the *link* between the* Witch-king's body and his will.*



Matthew Bailey said:


> See my comment. You cannot slay nor even harm a Nazgûl with normal weapons without first causing the link to _Their Ring(s)-of-Power _to be severed, so that the Hröa begins to become substantial, so that it can die or be slain.
> 
> This is the importance of the Barrow-Blades.



Again, I've seen this theory now and again, but nothing (so far) that's this direct from JRRT himself.

And why should the Witch-king fear Boromir if what you say here is true?



Matthew Bailey said:


> You have that part right. But The Witch-King did have he means to “ward-off Éowyn’s sword.” He was just a bit preoccupied with the horrifying agony of ANY sensation that he had been deprived of for thousands of years due to having no Substantial Hröa,



*Or* the link to his *will* was severed from his body


----------



## Lómelindë Lindórië (May 30, 2022)

Elthir said:


> *Or* the link to his *will* was severed from his body


By his "will", do you mean his _féa_? Or rather the will of the mind, which would then be part of the _hróa_?


----------



## Elthir (May 30, 2022)

*Will 1. *The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action (and so on, from a given dictionary . . .)

And in this context, in my opinion, control over the body . . . the Wraith cannot will his body to avoid, 
or try to deflect, a killing strike from Éowyn. As Tolkien describes it, the link from will to sinews was cut. And the Witch-king (arguably) had time to defend himself, given the description from the author.

No doubt intense pain _can_ be distracting (another theory offered above), but on the other hand, in general, even us regular human beans have been known to do things while in intense pain to try to avoid. . . death!

Another description from Tolkien, if this time brief and less "poetic": *"Sam does not sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh ( . . .) (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20: the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)."*
JRRT, Letter 210


----------



## Lómelindë Lindórië (May 30, 2022)

Elthir said:


> *Will 1. *The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action (and so on, from a given dictionary . . .)
> 
> And in this context, in my opinion, control over the body . . . the Wraith cannot will his body to avoid,
> or try to deflect, a killing strike from Éowyn. As Tolkien describes it, the link from will to sinews was cut. And the Witch-king (arguably) had time to defend himself, given the description from the author.
> ...


Ah, thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Matthew Bailey (May 30, 2022)

Elthir said:


> Well, the published text tells us that Merry's stab severed the *link* between the* Witch-king's body and his will.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As I have pointed-to in other threads.

You are looking for quotes that take decades of reading to understand, and would take me years to explain.

For the Witch-King, it started with the quote you referenced. Then to *Letters*, and *The History of Middle-earth*, and then to 2,600 years of Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Theology, where the detailing of Fëa, Hröa, Sáma, Nessa, Will (something Tolkien only defines within Middle-earth via its opposite: Avanir/Un-Will), etc. Exists. _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_ has rather a few helpful shortcuts, as does *The Road to Middle-earth*. 

Looking into what a _Ring of Power/Authority_ is (Power does not mean the kind of “Video-Game Energy/Strength” that people mistakenly apply to it, but to the _Usurping of Authority_, allowing the bearer to _Impose their *WILL* upon others and the Universe…. _Hmmm 

Thomas Aquinas is the most modern Theologian that Tolkien references in this regard, but the concept dates back to St.s Boethius, Augustine, Origin, etc. Where “Power” is a synonym for “Authority/Will.”

Tolkien worked VERY HARD to expunge the obvious religious references from his works, while simultaneously making that Religious Faith the Foundations of everything that exist in Middle-earth.

And while I do not share Tolkien’s Faith, I have spent decades studying it, where it was not until the late-1990s (nearly 30 years after I began) that I could even begin to put these things together, given how much I earlier rebelled against the Theological Foundations.

These collectively provide answers for any possible question that can be asked about Middle-earth, *OR* they will provide a Domain of Possible Answers that excludes everything else (the form that such answers will take, much in the same way that many insoluble Differential Equations have a Domain of Possible answers that excludes everything not of that form).

And, yes… It is direct from JRRT. It is just isn’t the kind of “in-Story Direct” that you are looking for. 

Start with *Letters*, and instead of looking for things Tolkien tells you about the Story or _Narrative_, look for thing that Tolkien tells you about himself and his beliefs, and the many specific terms that fit such beliefs (Religion uses code-words in exactly the same way that the Sciences use terminology that might be similar to Lay Language, but where the definition is highly specific. “Will” is one such word).

And since it is now out, *The Nature of Middle-earth* helpfully produces greater context and specificity to exploring these concepts.

And it wouldn’t hurt to grab Aquinas’ _*Summa Theologia*_ and his eleven commentaries on Aristotle and two on Boethius. Boethius’ *Consolidation of Philosophy/Theology* is required to understand Aquinas’ commentary or exposition of Boethius. Augustine’s *City of God* is ultimately the fundamental description of Middle-earth’s Foundations, and _Teleology _(Functional Purpose to Tolkien), and is helpful as a text of what Tolkien sought to “Build” with Middle-earth, or, rather, Arda and Eä as a whole, where Middle-earth is just the setting of the Proxy Mythology of England as proposed by the Venerable Bede (_*The Ecclesiastical History of the Anglo Saxons*_).

You will find in these something that tells you how these things “work“ regarding undead within Middle-earth, and why applying “Video-Game Logic” to it is a colossal failure.


MB



𝓜𝓲𝓻𝓲𝓮𝓵 𝓘𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓵𝔀𝓮𝓷 𝓐𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓵 said:


> By his "will", do you mean his _féa_? Or rather the will of the mind, which would then be part of the _hróa_?




Elthir is kind of talking out of his anatomy (not because of any bad-faith on his part, but due to a focus that excludes the really important things that aren’t in the stories themselves), given that the term “Will” doesn’t mean what he thinks it does.

Tolkien is using the term “will” in its context from Catholic Theology. A shortcut here is thinking in terms of “God’s Will.” The _*Rings-of-Power*_ do not provide a “Source of Energy” as the Video-Game Logic of many would imply. To a Catholic, _Power === Authority.. “Will.”_ The means to apply one’s personal Will to something in defiance of that of “God.”

While I do not share Tolkien’s beliefs about these things, it is impossible to understand his works without _knowing and understanding those Beliefs_, which includes their origins.

To a Catholic, “Power” is conferred by God, sometimes directly, and sometimes via a Proxy, such as the Ainur. Power is Authority, Authority is Power. It is the power to apply one’s Will, in conformance with “God’s” to a domain in which one has Authority/Power.

When Sauron made the *Rings-of-Power *he usurped an Authority that did not belong to him, and in the process he corrupted Celebrimbor and the Elves of Eregion to that service.

It is this Power that caused the Mortal Wearers (save Dwarves) of a Ring-of-Power to have indefinite lives. _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_ chapters that describe the link between Hröa and Fëa, the Nessar out of which our bodies are made, and the Sáma (mind) created by the merging of Fëa and Hröa with all of the other properties (In English” Body, Soul/Spirit, Heart/Emotion, Will, The ”Materials“ — Nessar) also gives an account of how the Wraiths are made.

It doesn’t come out and say “Here are the instructions for making a Nazgûl/Wraith.” It provides an example of how the duration of the Body in Time causes it to be consumed by the Fëa. In Elves, this produces the “Fading” that Tolkien refers to. But it is something that also happens to a Mortal who lives beyond their allotted _*Natural Time.* _Their Fëa consumes the Body.

In the Wraiths, the body is prevented from dying by the _*Power/Authority/Will *_of the *Ring-of-Power*. The Hröa is eventually consumed, “Fading” to insubstantiality. An insubstantial Body cannot die, or even be harmed.

Anyway… Power = Authority = Will.

Also… I just noticed that you commented _“the will of the mind?”_

A quick comment on that. Will ≠ Mind. The Mind is the Sáma, used to comprehend the world and “understand” or communicate. Will is something completely different that can be applied TO the Mind (See the chapter in *The Nature of Middle-earth*, Part Two, Chapter IX: _Osanwe-Kenta_).

MB



Alcuin said:


> Elthir my friend, I believe I can answer you, and at the same time shed some light on how the Great Rings affected Elves and Men necromantically – for Sauron, who led the Elven-smiths of Eregion to forge them as they were, is _The Necromancer_.
> 
> _Necromancy_ is magic concerning death and the dead. In Tolkien’s world, this involves the relationship between the body, the _hröa_, and the spirit, the _fëa_. Throughout the legendarium, the natural progression for Men was for their spirits (_fëar_) to part from their bodies (_hröar_) because of old age, disease, or injury, and depart Arda. The natural progression for Elves was for their spirits (_fëar_) to remain with their bodies (_hröar_) from birth until the end of Arda, unless they were killed. (Some Elves also departed their _hröar_ from grief: Fëanor’s mother Serindë and Lúthien Tinúviel are two notable examples; but these are exceptions.)
> 
> ...




Alcuin.

In Middle-earth, *ALL MAGIC is Necromancy.*

MB

Edit: Probably my shortest post ever. The rest of your supposition is largely correct, but I would add one other caveat:

Power === Authority === Will.

And… You can “Prove” your proposition (or at least I could) if you wanted to go into a decades long exposition of Catholic Theology derived from Aristotle and Aquinas’ Platonic revision. The crux to this is in divorcing the “Video-Game Logic” some people are unable to escape, and understanding that Tolkien’s language is loaded with Catholic Terminology or Definitions that do not conform to the common-day usage of these terms.

But , to reiterate, as cited in _*Letters*_*. *

_*All Magic is Necromantic, Sorcerous, Occult.*_

And a separate post regarding the Nazgûl’s fear or Fire and Water.

Remember that in Middle-earth the Fëa is just as vulnerable to damage as is the Hröa. It is just that the Fëa isn’t hurt by swords, knives, *nor even the heat of a fire*.

The Fëa is hurt by the Fëa-component of these things, which is much-stronger in things associated with Purity and “Cleansing” of evil. Or in an Enchanted (*not “Magic”*) Sword that was created specifically to do this very thing.

Note that Tolkien once wrote that Arien purified herself, prior to becoming the caretaker of the Sun, by bathing in fire (she had a following of other spirits of Fire, members of the People of other Valar, who also partook of this).

Mythologically, Water and Fire are presented in this context since the dawn of Humanity. Water is associated with the Christian Rite and Catholic Sacrament of Baptism. A “Cleaning of the Soul.”

If you are an “Evil Being” this things are going to *HURT LIKE A MotherF-er!*. And while, like Khamûl, you might have less of a fear of Water than the others, or like the Withc-King, some resistance to fire (being able to “Spiritually Tolerate the Pain,” as people like Fire-Walkers or Fakirs do).

These things are not a Mystery.

Tolkien gives us the answers to them.

Those answers are just *NOT* in the form of:

— Here is how you make a Nazgûl.
— Here is what “Power” is.
— Here is why all Magic is Sorcerous, Occult, Necromantic (*WAIT! *_He DOES tell us this in those exact words!_)
— Here is how the Fëa is connected to the Hröa, and why it is “Unnatural” for them to be deprived of each other _within Eä_. (*Wait! *He tell us this, too, in _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_).

Etc.

Tolkien provides us the means to answer every question that can be asked about Middle-earth. Just doing so requires a freaking ton of work, effort, and exploration of sources that are themselves difficult to understand (_Actual difficulty. Not like the pretend difficulty of reading *The Silmarillion*). _And if an explicit, singular answer does not exist, then there will exist a set of possible answers based upon the form involved.

MB



Elthir said:


> *Will 1. *The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action (and so on, from a given dictionary . . .)
> 
> And in this context, in my opinion, control over the body . . . the Wraith cannot will his body to avoid,
> or try to deflect, a killing strike from Éowyn. As Tolkien describes it, the link from will to sinews was cut. And the Witch-king (arguably) had time to defend himself, given the description from the author.
> ...




That isn’t what “Will” means to a Catholic, albeit it is connected to it.

You are trying to apply conversational English to a term of Theology.

That never turns-out well.

MB


----------



## Elthir (May 30, 2022)

Matthew Bailey said:


> As I have pointed-to in other threads. You are looking for quotes that take decades of reading to understand, and would take me years to explain.



Well, how do you know how long it would take me to understand a given quote or quotes?




Matthew Bailey said:


> Looking into what a _Ring of Power/Authority_ is (Power does not mean the kind of “Video-Game Energy/Strength” that people mistakenly apply to it, (snip . . .). You will find in these something that tells you how these things “work“ regarding undead within Middle-earth, and why applying “Video-Game Logic” to it is a colossal failure.



For the record, I'm not applying "video-game-logic" to the Rings of Power.

I'm not even talking about a Ring of Power, I'm talking about the will of the Wraith to control its sinews. Tolkien writes that Merry's blade clove the *undead flesh*, breaking a spell which knit *his* *sinews* to *his* will -- the Witch-king's sinews to the Witch-king's will -- easily explaining why the Wraith did nothing to save itself from Éowyn's strike.



Matthew Bailey said:


> Elthir is kind of talking out of his anatomy (not because of any bad-faith on his part, but due to a focus that excludes the really important things that aren’t in the stories themselves), given that the term “Will” doesn’t mean what he thinks it does.



Or due to a focus regarding the wording JRRT chose in the published account.



Matthew Bailey said:


> ( . . . ) It doesn’t come out and say “Here are the instructions for making a Nazgûl/Wraith.” It provides an example of how the duration of the Body in Time causes it to be consumed by the Fëa. In Elves, this produces the “Fading” that Tolkien refers to. But it is something that also happens to a Mortal who lives beyond their allotted _*Natural Time.* _Their Fëa consumes the Body.
> 
> In the Wraiths, the body is prevented from dying by the _*Power/Authority/Will *_of the *Ring-of-Power*. The Hröa is eventually consumed, “Fading” to insubstantiality. An insubstantial Body cannot die, or even be harmed.



Yep, NOME and other texts (*Morgoth's Ring* for example) include texts that refer to the *Elvish*_ fea_ and _hroa. _Your jump to _"In the Wraiths . . ."_ is rather what's in question here.

And by "insubstantial" do you mean regular weapons simply pass through the Nine without harm? And if they cannot be harmed, why then, again for example, does the Witch-king fear Boromir?



Matthew Bailey said:


> That isn’t what “Will” means to a Catholic, albeit it is connected to it. You are trying to apply conversational English to a term of Theology.



Or perhaps you are trying to apply a definition that has no place in the context of the description in question, asserting that X is so because Tolkien was Catholic.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 30, 2022)

BTW, a question: if you don't "talk out of your anatomy", what _do _you talk out of?🤔


----------



## Matthew Bailey (May 30, 2022)

Elthir said:


> Well, how do you know how long it would take me to understand a given quote or quotes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I already said it isn’t one quote, or even a set of them.

But since you seem to be fixated upon having a “Quote,” here is one that reveals where you are _Not even Wrong_ in most of your speculation.

It is the single most important passage in all of _*The History of Middle-earth*_, and it is why it is the first words of Carl Hostetter‘s _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_.



> from p. x of Volume X of _*HoM-e*_, and p. xi of _*NoM-e*_:
> 
> Meditating long on the world that he had brought into being and was now in part unveiled, he had become absorbed in analytic speculation concerning its underlying postulates. Before he could prepare a new and final Silmarillion he must satisfy the requirements of a coherent theological and metaphysical system, rendered now more complex in its presentation by the supposition of obscure and conflicting elements in its roots and its tradition.
> 
> MB




When you can explain why that is relevant to everything I or Alcuin have said, and why your fixation on a single word, “_Will,” _is done in complete ignorance of why the definition you provided doesn’t have a thing to do with Tolkien’s usage of it.

“Will” 

“Power”

”Body”

To use a familiar quote:

_You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means._

Alcuin has already answered these questions as well, with accounts that are not much different than my own, save some semantic issues that might have to do with something I mentioned in the “Set of possible answers” to some issues.

When you can even explain why Alcuin brought-up the content of _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_ regarding the Hröa’s and Fëa’s connection and the Axani that Morgoth and Sauron broke in regard to these, then I might suspect you are capable of demonstrating a familiarity enough to understand why Alcuin brought these up, and why they generalize to other things.

You haven’t done that.






Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> BTW, a question: if you don't "talk out of your anatomy", what _do _you talk out of?🤔


Some parts of the anatomy produce nothing but noise, and chaos, and unpleasantness. 

Other parts control the elimination of waste. 
.
.
.
.

But…

A Euphemism is also important to understand, especially a euphemism using Alliterative Substitution whereby one word, similar in sound, is substituted for another, done for any number of reasons, poetic, rhetorical, or comedic.

MB


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jun 7, 2022)

*I just read through this entire thread. Wow. Very intriguing things about the Nazgul. Now, I know I am late to the discussion, yet I think Tolkien may have intended this ambiguity for a reason.*
See, I think Tolkien certainly wanted the Nazgul to be particularly mysterious, a vague shape defined more by their hideous ways than their shape or bodily form. The Nazgul were, I feel, by all accounts; spirits. While they could take bodily form through black cloaks, it seems that they did not need to. Knowing that they were once the Nine Men of Numenor, it is quite evident, that they are bound to the Power of the One Ring, which harnesses such power as none other can wield. It may be, then, that such words have intense purpose. Just a thought.


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Jun 7, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> *I just read through this entire thread. Wow. Very intriguing things about the Nazgul. Now, I know I am late to the discussion, yet I think Tolkien may have intended this ambiguity for a reason.*
> See, I think Tolkien certainly wanted the Nazgul to be particularly mysterious, a vague shape defined more by their hideous ways than their shape or bodily form. The Nazgul were, I feel, by all accounts; spirits. While they could take bodily form through black cloaks, it seems that they did not need to. Knowing that they were once the Nine Men of Numenor, it is quite evident, that they are bound to the Power of the One Ring, which harnesses such power as none other can wield. It may be, then, that such words have intense purpose. Just a thought.




I explored that option, but the publication of _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_ effectively closed off an option of… optionality, at least regarding the Hröar/Bodies of the Nazgûl.

I had considered that, like the Balrogs, and “wings,” that their bodies might be an “optionality” that they could wear if needed. But _*The Nature of Middle-earth’s*_ rather expansive description of the interaction of Hröar, Fëar, the “Nessar” out of which they are formed, and the Axani and Únati (“Laws of Eru“ and “Laws of Nature” that even Eru cannot violate without forever altering the Universe and everything in it (Something he would necessarily go to extreme lengths to avoid) regarding all of these things, it closed-off that path.. 

The Mechanisms by which the Hröar and Fëar operate, such that a Body that exists beyond its “allotted time,” is ”consumed” by the Fëar.

The given Metaphysics Tolkien was likely relying upon, dating to a combination of Aristotelian, Platonic, and then those proposed by St.s Augustine, Boethius, or Origen, tend to suggest that for the Nazgûl, originally Human, the Option of “Optional Physicality” did not exist as it did for Ainur, where even they could lose that ability via certain actions, and where once a body becomes “Habituated” (both in terms of a “Behavioral Habit,” like biting one’s fingernails, and in terms of a “Clerical Habit,” as in a Nun or Monk’s Habit), the Ainur are effectively “Stuck” in that body pending their abandoning of it, and returning to Valinor, where they are then able to recover the means to reform the “Fanar” (which is a *different kind of body* from the Hröar of what Tolkien calls the _Mirróanwë _(Rational, Conscious Incarnated/Embodied Beings, for whom the Fëa _*must be joined*_ to a Hröa, even if that Hröa has become “consumed” and thus “Insubstantial”). At least those are the “rules” within the “Universe” of Eä, where the Fëar of the Incarnates will eventually “Depart the Circles of the World” (Leave “the Universe” or “Eä” to go be with Eru), where their Fëar then *becomes a “Real Body,“* at least in terms of Catholic Theology.

The issue here cannot be resolved within the primary sources of Tolkien’s works alone. One must go to the “Sources of Tolkien’s Sources” to get the materials from which Tolkien was working for these things.

MB


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 7, 2022)

Matthew Bailey said:


> The issue here cannot be resolved within the primary sources of Tolkien’s works alone. One must go to the “Sources of Tolkien’s Sources” to get the materials from which Tolkien was working for these things.


I question you repeated rather loose use of the term "sources" in several discussions here on TTF. In one thread you mention "secondary" and ever "tertiary sources" (and sometimes I'm not sure if you mean "sources used *by* JRRT" or "sources *about* JRRT" and his works.).

The problem starts with "secondary sources". Perhaps the best-known are the "commentaries" on religious and philosophical works, huge libraries of them on the Bible - the possibly best-known, at least as far as the title goes, Thomas Aquinas's (unfinished!) "Summa Theologica". Which drew in part on the commentary of Aristotle by Ibn Rushd, latinized Averroes (1126-1198), who had several predecessors in the Islamic world, the best-known probably Ibn Sina, latinized Avicenna (980-1037). Since Thomas Aquinas's death in 1274, his "Summa Theologica" has been the subject of further commentaries ...

Every commentary is an interpretation by the respective author. What the author of the work being commented on would have thought of the commentary is another matter altogether. Add another layer of commentary, and another ... the original author might at some point might growl "what on earth are you talking about?!?"

One issue JRRT seems to have had with source studies (there are some good insights on the topic in Jason Fisher's 2011 book "Tolkien and the Study of His Sources", Fisher being the editor of this collection of 11 essays, one of them his own (besides the preface). McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, ISBN 978-0-7864-6482-1, in case you're interested.) is the criticism of plagiarism that might be implied by such studies. Some doctorates by politicians in Germany have gone down the tubes due to plagiarism-hunters who located too much copy 'n' paste in those works. Copy 'n' paste is definitely *not* the way JRRT worked. There is his comment about the "mould of the mind" in which sources, so to speak, are decomposed, to arise in his writings in a changed form. This is true even for his Great Tale where the ancestry is the clearest, from the Finnish Kalevala's story on Kullervo to the story of Túrin. Other sources have decomposed more, though they may at times still be recognized.

And even with primary sources, how JRRT used them varied widely. One of his favorite endeavors was filling in gaps in the original. "The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún", edited and published by Christopher Tolkien in 2009, seems to be the example in his works for such an effort, filling in gaps in the surviving manuscripts of in the Völsunga Saga and the Nibelungenlied. In other cases, his reaction was "I can do better" (the march of the Ents vs. a scene he thought pathetic in MacBeth). Or even possibly a "this won't do!", leading to a *revisionist* telling of an episode.

And this post of yours (yes, I may be taking it out of context - somehow I doubt I am):



Matthew Bailey said:


> You are looking for quotes that take decades of reading to understand, and would take me years to explain.



Are you serious? If you're implying that JRRT did any of this, my quick 'n' dirty estimate of its probability yields this result:

nil.


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Jun 7, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> I question you repeated rather loose use of the term "sources" in several discussions here on TTF. In one thread you mention "secondary" and ever "tertiary sources" (and sometimes I'm not sure if you mean "sources used *by* JRRT" or "sources *about* JRRT" and his works.).
> 
> The problem starts with "secondary sources". Perhaps the best-known are the "commentaries" on religious and philosophical works, huge libraries of them on the Bible - the possibly best-known, at least as far as the title goes, Thomas Aquinas's (unfinished!) "Summa Theologica". Which drew in part on the commentary of Aristotle by Ibn Rushd, latinized Averroes (1126-1198), who had several predecessors in the Islamic world, the best-known probably Ibn Sina, latinized Avicenna (980-1037). Since Thomas Aquinas's death in 1274, his "Summa Theologica" has been the subject of further commentaries ...
> 
> ...




I have no idea where you are going with this given its tangential nature to what is a fairly simple point:

Tolkien’s Novels contain insufficient information to answer many questions based upon them alone, and that their answers tend to exist in other works beyond the three primary sources.

And whether Aquinas completed the Summa Theologica is not as important as that Tolkien did finish reading it, often, along with the commentaries on it, along with a long history of Catholic Theology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, etc.


And if your “quick & dirty estimate” yields “nil,” then I suspect you haven’t really looked.

Especially given the importance of Power/Authority to Will in something as basic as the Catholic catechism.


Never mind _*The Nature of Middle-earth’s *_recent publication giving us an account of Axani and Únati (Divine and Natural Law — A distinction requiring a rather expansive understanding of Euthyphro from Plato, even if the basics of that distinction is easy to understand and describe: “God/Eru Said So” and “Even God/Eru Cannot change it” … The Opposing aspects of Euthyphro’s Dilemma), and of the relationship between Hröar and Fëar, and their respective Nessar, and the Fanar of the Ainur. I should probably buy a digital copy of that to be able to better search and quote from it, as that would tend to clear-up quite a bit of this.



MB


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 7, 2022)

Matthew Bailey said:


> Tolkien’s Novels contain insufficient information to answer many questions based upon them alone, and that their answers tend to exist in other works beyond the three primary sources.
> And whether Aquinas completed the Summa Theologica is not as important as that Tolkien did finish reading it, often, along with the commentaries on it, along with a long history of Catholic Theology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, etc.
> And if your “quick & dirty estimate” yields “nil,” then I suspect you haven’t really looked.


You *believe* that answers not given in the "three primary sources" (Hobbit, LoTR and?) may exist in other works, aka sources JRRT had read. So perhaps he had read Summa Theologica (on what authority do you have that?), but "a long history of Catholic Theology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, etc."? JRRT was neither a philosopher nor a theologian, he was a philologist - a topic that was and is (?) sufficient to keep a professor quite occupied (C.S. Lewis *had* studied philosophy). And as to JRRT having done "decades of reading" on such topics, I stand by my estimate of nil as to that being probably (and I don't think I want to get started on your needing "years to explain" ...)


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Jun 7, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> I question you repeated rather loose use of the term "sources" in several discussions here on TTF. In one thread you mention "secondary" and ever "tertiary sources" (and sometimes I'm not sure if you mean "sources used *by* JRRT" or "sources *about* JRRT" and his works.).
> 
> The problem starts with "secondary sources". Perhaps the best-known are the "commentaries" on religious and philosophical works, huge libraries of them on the Bible - the possibly best-known, at least as far as the title goes, Thomas Aquinas's (unfinished!) "Summa Theologica". Which drew in part on the commentary of Aristotle by Ibn Rushd, latinized Averroes (1126-1198), who had several predecessors in the Islamic world, the best-known probably Ibn Sina, latinized Avicenna (980-1037). Since Thomas Aquinas's death in 1274, his "Summa Theologica" has been the subject of further commentaries ...
> 
> ...




That would be a rather reactionary take on the issue, and the Syllabus used at Tolkien’s schools are not terrifically hard to find if you are both in England, and happen to be lucky to have the money to spend on such pursuits.

And whether Aquinas completed the Summa Theologica is not as important as that Tolkien did finish reading it, often, along with the commentaries on it.

And if your “quick & dirty estimate” yields “nil,” then I suspect you haven’t really looked.






Olorgando said:


> You *believe* that answers not given in the "three primary sources" (Hobbit, LoTR and?) may exist in other works, aka sources JRRT had read. So perhaps he had read Summa Theologica (on what authority do you have that?), but "a long history of Catholic Theology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, etc."? JRRT was neither a philosopher nor a theologian, he was a philologist - a topic that was and is (?) sufficient to keep a professor quite occupied (C.S. Lewis *had* studied philosophy). And as to JRRT having done "decades of reading" on such topics, I stand by my estimate of nil as to that being probably (and I don't think I want to get started on your needing "years to explain" ...)



I know for a fact he read Aquinas. He lists it as a source on several of his academic works, and it is on the Syllabus of many of the classes he had to take in his undergrad.

The Syllabus for the Schools and Classes he attended are not terribly difficult to find, even before the internet existed. But they do tend to require access to an Academic Institution to access.

You do know what Tolkien’s field of study was, and that these works are things he quotes quite often?

MB

Edit: See his contributions to the _Jerusalem Bible_, _The Devil’s Coach Horses_, and the Syllabus of the Roman Catholic Grammar School he attended, where these were mandatory readings.

And _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_ has a whole Freaking Section on this very topic:


> As seen in the Introduction to _Part Two_ of _*The Nature of Middle-earth *_(p. 172):
> As seen in part one, and further in various texts published in Morgoth’s Ring (see especially X:217–25), by the late 1950s Tolkien had become greatly interested in the nature and relationship of spirits (in Quenya föar) and bodies (Q. hrëar) in incarnates – that is, beings like Men and Elves that are by nature a union of a material body and a created, immaterial soul. As will be seen herein, consideration of bodies and spirits, and the closely related matter of minds, continued into the last years of Tolkien’s life, and ran in both metaphysical and mundane directions: from the nature of being and identity, the relation of free will to divine foreknowledge, thought-communication, and the manner and mode of Elvish reincarnation; to the finger-games of Elvish children, and the question of which races and characters did or did not have beards.
> 
> It will further be seen that the *metaphysics of Middle-earth as reflected here is firmly Catholic: that is, it is clearly informed by the metaphysics espoused by St. Thomas Aquinas (itself deeply influenced by Aristotle’s metaphysics), which enjoyed a dramatic reaffirmation by the Catholic Church during Tolkien’s youth, under Pope Leo XIII (who reigned 1878–1903). As Tolkien famously said, “The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work” (L:172),* a statement that has puzzled many critics, because both The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien’s wider legendarium are all but devoid of references to any religious cultus (let alone a Catholic system of rites and worship). As I hope the texts presented here will show, the key word in Tolkien’s statement, often ignored as simply emphatic, is fundamentally: that is, in its foundations, in its essential nature. In these particular texts,* this is most clearly seen in Tolkien’s implied commitment to hylomorphism: that is, the Aristotelean-Thomistic teaching that all material things are ultimately a union of created but undifferentiated prime matter (in Quenya, erma) with a God-given form (in Tolkien’s parlance here, pattern, that which gives each portion of erma the nature and shape of the thing that it is). It is also reflected in the commitment to the belief that everything, even Morgoth himself, was as created good, but that due to the free will possessed by every creature with a rational mind, they could fall: as one Vala and various Maiar, and Men corporately, did; and that even Manwë, had he asserted his own will and judgement over Eru’s, would likewise have fallen. Further discussion of these and similar matters is provided for the interested reader in App. I.*[fn1]
> [Emphasis added]



As far as a direct statement to the effect of “What” Tolkien personally read, you must move your ass to King Edwards Grammar School, and pull out the Syllabus for the years Tolkien attended (1900 - 1911), and then to St. Philip’s Grammar School for the 1902 Syllabus, and then to Oxford to get the Syllabus for 1912 to 1918, and the Syllabus he had to teach at Leeds College… And that will give you a pretty definitive list (I did these things from 1982 to 1985 when I was in College in London and Marseilles, France).

Plus… I will trust Tom Shippey‘s and Doug Hofstetter’s accounts of Tolkien’s influences, given that I have had the ability to read all of these works, AND everything Tolkien read, while pursuing other interests.

I just never was able to complete a Graduate Degree, nor the *actual *Undergrad Degrees I wanted (settling for a stupid History Degree, when I had to leave school in the mid/late-80s because of other things, not the least of which was the band, and studio I operated in London and Los Angeles for what would now be called “Goth” bands/music). 

And while Tolkien certainly didn’t have the Financial Freedom I had, he most certainly had the dedication and interest to pursue the most important subject in his life, which wasn’t Philology, but Catholic Religious Faith. He did not enter the Clergy as he wanted to have a family, and knew this was impossible as a Priest or Monk, and that the Catholic Religion places a higher emphasis upon procreation than it does upon Clerical devotion. The latter being historically the purview of the younger male-children of a Family who would not inherit the Estates of their Parents. Something else Tolkien alludes to in his condemnation of the Norman Invasion in his first “Presented Paper” as a final year at King Edwards. 

Like I said… The casual “fan” of Tolkien typically does not have the time, inclination, nor financial freedom to pursue these things. And the depth of the respective domains connected to an already abyssal depth of Tolkien’s Mythology before you even notice that you cannot see the bottom of that abyss, even from the bottom of the Primary Sources, is something that tends to only be explored by people like Shippey or Hofstetter, or idiots dilettantes like me who have either an Academic Duty or just have a curiosity that is driving enough to cause me to look into the subject.


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 10, 2022)

Matthew Bailey said:


> ...
> As far as a direct statement to the effect of “What” Tolkien personally read, you must move your ass to King Edwards Grammar School, and pull out the Syllabus for the years Tolkien attended (1900 - 1911), and then to St. Philip’s Grammar School for the 1902 Syllabus, and then to Oxford to get the Syllabus for 1912 to 1918, and the Syllabus he had to teach at Leeds College… And that will give you a pretty definitive list (I did these things from 1982 to 1985 when I was in College in London and Marseilles, France).
> 
> Plus… I will trust Tom Shippey‘s and Doug Hofstetter’s accounts of Tolkien’s influences, given that I have had the ability to read all of these works, AND everything Tolkien read, while pursuing other interests.


As to the *language* syllabus at Leeds, it was JRRT who basically created it there - and was awarded a chair for his efforts. A chair and syllabus Shippey inherited a couple of generations later, and had to supplant the latter with a newer one. As to that, you failed to mention the revised syllabus at Oxford that JRRT and C.S. Lewis managed to get passed in Oxford ca. 1931, and which Tom Shippey apparently still taught in his time at Oxford prior to his move to the chair at Leeds.

But what help in the sense of sources for JRRT's works is this piling up of syllabuses? There's a lot of chaff in that pile.

As there is in the pile of secondary and tertiary sources you've mentioned more than once.

As you mention Thomas Aquinas, I'll take that as a starting point. We're heading for _reductio ad absurdum_ territory ...

So JRRT read all of the "Summa Theologica" (my aside about the incompleteness was only to note that other authors of quite different genres besides JRRT have their "Unfinished Tales"). How much of it is relevant for Middle-earth?

Thomas Aquinas, for the Aristotelian thoughts he brought into his "Summa Theologica", used Ibn Rushd's commentary (question: did he read the Arabic original? Highly unlikely. Thomas Aquinas was at both the universities of Paris and that of Cologne, the latter with his mentor Albertus Magnus. He spoke neither French nor German, being able, in the university bubble, to get by with his fluent Latin). Did he use all of the commentary? Again, unlikely, as only parts were likely useful for his "Summa T". That's the secondary source.

Ibn Rushd's commentary on Aristotle: did the former read the latter's writing in the original Greek (original *manuscripts* were almost certainly no longer extant, a millennium and a half later)? Or did he use Arabic (or Persian) translations of Aristotle? Now we've reached the tertiary source.

By the occasional sweeping statement of yours I would not be able to fault anyone in getting the impression that "to understand JRRT's writings, I'd have to read all of Aristotle?!?" Should you reply "no, I didn't mean it *that* way" - well, welcome to the reality of human communications, where misunderstandings are far more common than most like to admit - even without the efforts of the Goebbels-lookalikes, the perpetrators of Orwell's "Doublespeak".


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Jun 10, 2022)

To


Olorgando said:


> As to the *language* syllabus at Leeds, it was JRRT who basically created it there - and was awarded a chair for his efforts. A chair and syllabus Shippey inherited a couple of generations later, and had to supplant the latter with a newer one. As to that, you failed to mention the revised syllabus at Oxford that JRRT and C.S. Lewis managed to get passed in Oxford ca. 1931, and which Tom Shippey apparently still taught in his time at Oxford prior to his move to the chair at Leeds.
> 
> But what help in the sense of sources for JRRT's works is this piling up of syllabuses? There's a lot of chaff in that pile.
> 
> ...



All of it, specifically the integration of Aristotelian Philosophy.






Olorgando said:


> Thomas Aquinas, for the Aristotelian thoughts he brought into his "Summa Theologica", used Ibn Rushd's commentary (question: did he read the Arabic original? Highly unlikely. Thomas Aquinas was at both the universities of Paris and that of Cologne, the latter with his mentor Albertus Magnus. He spoke neither French nor German, being able, in the university bubble, to get by with his fluent Latin). Did he use all of the commentary? Again, unlikely, as only parts were likely useful for his "Summa T". That's the secondary source.



The Absence of Access to the Sources of Aristotle doesn’t deny the access to Aristotle that does exist, nor to Aquinas.

And there is only the few thousand years of Christian Examination of this very thing that Tolkien had access to.

Big detour there.




Olorgando said:


> Ibn Rushd's commentary on Aristotle: did the former read the latter's writing in the original Greek (original *manuscripts* were almost certainly no longer extant, a millennium and a half later)? Or did he use Arabic (or Persian) translations of Aristotle? Now we've reached the tertiary source.



Irrelevant (see “nit picking” below).

Rushd’s would be far, far below “Tertiary” at this point.

And you know that. See “Bad-Faith” below.




Olorgando said:


> By the occasional sweeping statement of yours I would not be able to fault anyone in getting the impression that "to understand JRRT's writings, I'd have to read all of Aristotle?!?"



Bad-Faith misrepresentation.

You need to at least know the respective themes to have anything but a superficial understanding of Tolkien’s works. Which is the point you are determined to avoid.




Olorgando said:


> Should you reply "no, I didn't mean it *that* way" - well, welcome to the reality of human communications, where misunderstandings are far more common than most like to admit - even without the efforts of the Goebbels-lookalikes, the perpetrators of Orwell's "Doublespeak".


Tolkien didn’t create any Syllabus at Leeds *AS A STUDENT *(Nor as a first year Professor)*. *

You are getting the cart rather ahead of the Horse.

Never mind completely ignoring someone who knows this subject better than us both: Doug Hofstetter, whom I quoted as such.

MB

Edit:

Tolkien’s Syllabus at Leeds as the chair is still available if you go ask for it, and it contains the relevant materials. Claiming Tolkien created it just furthers my point that it was a part of his thinking and instruction, not to mention Shippey’s instruction of it. Both contain things like Bede, or other Early Christian Sources that would be a part of this as well.

2nd Edit:

And *damned *if you aren’t already an expert in Hyper-rationality (that isn’t a good thing, nor a compliment), who is determined to warp, twist, and mutilate the language in an effort to avoid what are some very simple pedagogic principles. Apparently expertise doesn’t exist in the universe in which you live.

If this were a thread on Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson), and some offhand comment in _*Through the Looking Glass*_* or *_*Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland*_ was about Matrix Ring Theorem that dealt with some _really obscure mathematics_, would you be complaining if someone said “How much do you know about Linear Algebra and Matrix Algebra, Banach Algebra, and the Artin-Weddenburn Theorem (all things connected to, or referenced in more than one work of Carroll’s)?” Would you be claiming that Dodgson didn’t learn about these things, or that they are irrelevant to his work?

Would you be claiming that it should be trivial to teach someone what takes a 4 year undergrad degree, and then 4 to 8 years as a Graduate and Post-Grad to follow (or a similar period of dedicated informal study), and that someone is just dodging (even after they do post a quote illustrating the issues) by pointing-out the complexities involved?

How about Anglican Theology, which also happens to be something that Carroll mocks, mercilessly, due to his having been forced by his father’s religiousity to learn as a child (we have Dodgson’s “reading lists” preserved to see what his father both forced him to learn, and what he pursued himself)?

Yet you are claiming that Tolkien, unlike Dodgson who *hated* the Theology he had forced upon him, somehow avoided these things for a Faith that became the foundation and center of his life about which everything else revolved.

It is one thing to focus upon minutia where it is relevant, such as it is in the *Foundations* of Tolkien’s works.

It is another to use it to nit-pick at minutia as a means of avoiding confronting the central point, in order to pursue what is effectively an irrelevancy.


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 10, 2022)

Matthew Bailey said:


> ...
> Tolkien didn’t create any Syllabus at Leeds *AS A STUDENT *(Nor as a first year Professor)*. *


Hello??? JRRT, as a *university* student, never was anywhere but Oxford! (In the US, where I went to school 1966 to 1973, the term student was also used for those attending high school at least, in my case 1969-1973).

His first university appointment at the Leeds English School on 01 October 1920 was to a *Readership*! And he very much developed the *almost* nonexistent language section there. As a result of his efforts he was appointed to a *new* Professorship (aka "Chair") of English *Language* at Leeds on 16 July 1924. C. Scull and W.G. Hammond, "The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide - Chronology", 2006 two-volume edition (second volume being "Reader's Guide").

And if you mean, when you mention Carl F. Hostetter (not Ho*f*stetter! And also not Douglas, I'm guessing you're getting that mixed up with the D.A. Anderson of the "Annotated Hobbit" among other publications), his "The Nature of Middle-earth", then you'd better get every punctuation mark right in your quotes, because I also have that book and can check them (and I also have Shippey's "Author of the Century", and the second and third editions of his "Road to Middle-earth").

But once again, you seem to have missed my point: I'm not arguing with any specific quote of yours from Hostetter or others. I take serious issue with your grandiloquent claims, as I feel you are implying, of what one should have read - a decidedly massive "syllabus" - in secondary and tertiary "sources" to understand JRRT's writings. To which implication I have a two-word reply: baloney slices.

JRRT's own term of "applicability", residing "in the freedom of the reader", from the foreword to the LoTR second edition, is basically a sharp slap in your face - and possibly JRRT's own too, which he may or may not have realized. That famous quote in a letter (to a Jesuit priest) about LoTR being a fundamentally Catholic work - never mind that in what JRRT may have considered *exclusively* Catholic (if he did so - my guess is yes) would have been in error, badly so as far as the other Christian denominations are concerned, and also to a lesser degree for the other "Abrahamic" faiths, he did not - could not - realize that for the human fundamentals that are to be found in his magnum opus, there are innumerable other applicabilities that the millions of his readers have found based on the experiences of their own lives.

And as to that "fundamentally Catholic work" - would JRRT have been able to write it (even more so the Silmarillion material he worked on for decades) solely on the basis of his Catholicism?

Hell, no!

Take away all of that "Norse stuff" that fascinated him al least in his youth, up to perhaps his middle years ... what would be left?


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Jun 10, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> Hello??? JRRT, as a *university* student, never was anywhere but Oxford! (In the US, where I went to school 1966 to 1973, the term student was also used for those attending high school at least, in my case 1969-1973).
> 
> His first university appointment at the Leeds English School on 01 October 1920 was to a *Readership*! And he very much developed the *almost* nonexistent language section there. As a result of his efforts he was appointed to a *new* Professorship (aka "Chair") of English *Language* at Leeds on 16 July 1924. C. Scull and W.G. Hammond, "The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide - Chronology", 2006 two-volume edition (second volume being "Reader's Guide").
> 
> And if you mean, when you mention Carl F. Hostetter (not Ho*f*stetter! And also not Douglas, I'm guessing you're getting that mixed up with the D.A. Anderson of the "Annotated Hobbit" among other publications), his "The Nature of Middle-earth", then you'd better get every punctuation mark right in your quotes, because I also have that book and can check them (and I also have Shippey's "Author of the Century", and the second and third editions of his "Road to Middle-earth").



Oh no! Punctuation and Spelling errors!

Yes, I got Carl’s name wrong (thank you Apple for being so helpful in correcting me O_º), and the issue with Tolkien’s Student years.

Which are beside the point, thank you for pointing that out.









Olorgando said:


> But once again, you seem to have missed my point: I'm not arguing with any specific quote of yours from Hostetter or others. I take serious issue with your grandiloquent claims, as I feel you are implying, of what one should have read - a decidedly massive "syllabus" - in secondary and tertiary "sources" to understand JRRT's writings. To which implication I have a two-word reply: baloney slices.




Good for you.




Olorgando said:


> JRRT's own term of "applicability", residing "in the freedom of the reader", from the foreword to the LoTR second edition, is basically a sharp slap in your face - and possibly JRRT's own too, which he may or may not have realized. That famous quote in a letter (to a Jesuit priest) about LoTR being a fundamentally Catholic work - never mind that in what JRRT may have considered *exclusively* Catholic (if he did so - my guess is yes) would have been in error, badly so as far as the other Christian denominations are concerned, and also to a lesser degree for the other "Abrahamic" faiths, he did not - could not - realize that for the human fundamentals that are to be found in his magnum opus, there are innumerable other applicabilities that the millions of his readers have found based on the experiences of their own lives.



That seems to contradict Carl’s point on *NoM-e*.





Olorgando said:


> And as to that "fundamentally Catholic work" - would JRRT have been able to write it (even more so the Silmarillion material he worked on for decades) solely on the basis of his Catholicism?
> 
> Hell, no!
> 
> Take away all of that "Norse stuff" that fascinated him al least in his youth, up to perhaps his middle years ... what would be left?



It has been my impression now for you last few replies that you don’t know what am I arguing, nor the subject at hand, given that you have yet to accurately articulate what I am claiming.

Not an uncommon thing.

Please feel free to declare victory and brag about it.

MB

Edit:

And, yes, you would tend to object to the Truth of something that you are actively disagreeing with, while not even understanding the claim made. That bias might be accompanied by problems with understanding, being motivated toward a bias but not understanding why the domain to which it applies does apply….

I think David Dunning and Justin Kruger made some sort of statement regarding that, not to mention being predicted by Bertrand Russell and others before them.


----------



## JPMaximilian (Jun 16, 2022)

_Frodo looked up at the sky. Suddenly he saw or felt a shadow pass over the high stars, as if for a moment they faded and then flashed out again. He shivered.
“Did you see anything pass over?” he whispered to Gandalf, who was just ahead.
“No, but i felt it, whatever it was,” he answer. “It may be nothing, only a wisp of thin cloud.”
“It was moving fast then,” muttered Aragorn, “and not with the wind.”_

Anyone recall if this happened before or after the crebain flew over them? In either case, I've normally thought of this as being a flock of other bird-spys of Saruman either those same crebain or another group of crebain or other birds. I don't have much in the way of supporting evidence other than the relative proximity of this happening with the crebain.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 16, 2022)

It happened the night after the appearance of the crebain, or rather just before dawn. The episode was in the first draft, but was never explained. One idea is that it was a winged Nazgul, and even Christopher "suspected" that to be the case, but this is refuted by statements later in the story.

Of course, the author may have originally intended that, later changing his mind, and just never altered it.

From the whole section, I don't get the impression it was crebain coming back, but your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jun 16, 2022)

JPMaximilian said:


> _Frodo looked up at the sky. Suddenly he saw or felt a shadow pass over the high stars, as if for a moment they faded and then flashed out again. He shivered.
> “Did you see anything pass over?” he whispered to Gandalf, who was just ahead.
> “No, but i felt it, whatever it was,” he answer. “It may be nothing, only a wisp of thin cloud.”
> “It was moving fast then,” muttered Aragorn, “and not with the wind.”_
> ...


For my part, I altogether quite enjoyed and marveled at this mysterious incidence, and questioned what the dark figure may have been. I feel as though the mystery, if you truly pondered it, could provide a bit of insight into how Frodo may have felt as he witnessed this strange occurence. 

I also wondered if it had been bird-spies of Mordor or Crebain, and yet I think I landed positively that it had to have been the Nazgul. I thought this of course, because it said that the stars were hidden. Not your typical flock of birds. If the stars are hidden, then what flies before them must be something large and dark. I also thought this because Gandalf says he "sensed" it. Being a Maia, Gandalf would be quick to sense the presence of Evil, and yet for it to so greatly disturb him, it would need to be intense. Before, the Crebain coming near did not startle him by any account of the book, and we are told that the Crebain followed them for long. 

Then, we must gather that this dark figure was a greater Evil than that of the Crebain. Orcs? I think not. While not as immensely dumb as Peter Jackson portrays them, Orcs are not clever nor cunning enough to fly over stars as a wisp of cloud. They just don't have that kind of power. 

So, I settled that it was in conclusion, the Nazgul. A rather fair and fully possible conclusion, as indeed the Nazgul had been after Frodo since his departure from The Shire. But then, we turn back to the original title of this thread; Corporeality of the Nazgul.

We know that the Nazgul can take on some sort of form, as they ride great steeds, something that would not be essential if they did not take any form. And yet what form they take is not specified. For my part, I believe that the Nazgul would have been able to take on many dark forms, and even to take no form at all. I feel that they would have dark power, akin in ways to that of the Maia, and yet dark and weaker, for Evil cannot create, but only weave mockery out of what has already been made. 

This whole topic is very interesting and I am very glad to see a thread about it. 

Thank you for this post!

_*Elbereth Vala Varda*_


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 6, 2022)

Matthew Bailey said:


> You are looking for quotes that take decades of reading to understand, and would take me years to explain.


The last twenty plus years I spent with "my" company involved explaining, so I know how to do that. If it would take you years to explain anything, perhaps you need one or several refresher courses on pedagogy. 😈


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 6, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> The last twenty plus years I spent with "my" company involved explaining, so I know how to do that. If it would take you years to explain anything, perhaps you need one or several refresher courses on pedagogy. 😈


This must be an ongoing argument....


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 6, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> This must be an ongoing argument....


"Argument" is putting it very nicely ... 😈


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 6, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> "Argument" is putting it very nicely ... 😈


I see... Don't tell me this is another "Do Balrogs have wings?" Thread, just on a different topic...


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 7, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> Olorgando said:
> 
> 
> > "Argument" is putting it very nicely ... 😈
> ...


The topic is practically irrelevant. The ... what was that term Nixon's press secretary Ron Ziegler used back a while before Tricky Dick resigned? ... oh, right, "operative term" ... is megalomania. 😈


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jul 7, 2022)




----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 7, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> View attachment 14327


That's cute, but I am not sure it will calm down the fight... This one seems quite aflame.


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 7, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> That's cute, but I am not sure it will calm down the fight... This one seems quite aflame.


Not as far as I'm concerned - it's become irrelevant, can't be bothered anymore ... 😩


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jul 7, 2022)




----------



## Olorgando (Jul 7, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> View attachment 14329


Humph!
And you complained about my calling you (an myself, IIRC) an "old coot" in another thread a while ago ... 🐔😁


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Jul 7, 2022)




----------



## Olorgando (Jul 7, 2022)

Erestor Arcamen said:


>


So what else is new? ... 😩😁🤪😅


----------



## Ent (Jul 7, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> I must say that the concept of disembodied Nazgûl just doesn't convince me. They became *invisible*, yes - that seems to be one side effect of a Great Ring on Humans (Big and Little Folk). Now I've stated before that I consider The Hobbit, author-published though it be, to be shaky as canon. But when things get threatening at the Battle of Five Armies, Bilbo puts on the One Ring - but still gets conked on the head and passes out. Sauron may have been able to convert the Nazgûl into a perverted form of Elves, with their unnatural wraithing (natural for *very* old Elves), but that he could by those Great Rings have converted into something like very junior Ainur - no way! I don't buy the "embodiment by clothing" theory. They were "simply" (permanently) invisible. Yes, they seem to have been invulnerable to bodily hurts massively more so than they would have been in human form (here any visible raiment seems to have been totally irrelevant), but they couldn't walk through walls like "popular" ghosts - say Casper (who was friendly, anyway 😁 ). I can't recall where, but their ability to perceive our world seems to have been dimmed - so them taking time to get back home through territory they can only imperfectly perceive - sort of through a kind of fog - makes sense.
> 
> 
> Olorgando said:
> ...


----------

