# The Autonomy of the Nazgûl and the Device of the One Ring



## Úlairi (Feb 20, 2009)

Alright, seeing as everyone else can't be stuffed... 

Sauron established dominion over the peoples of Middle-earth through the magical devices of the Rings of Power. More importantly he subjugated the Nine Nazgûl to his service and subverted their wills and usurped them with his own (there are constant excerpts pertaining to _"they had no will but his own_" and others to that effect so I will not bother posting them here)_._ Through this utter domination of their volition; did the power of the Nine Rings through the mastery of the One subvert their wills to the point of extinction thereby removing all autonomy?

One of the fundamental purposes (or _goeteia_) of _dark_ or _mechanistic magic_ is the reduction of the expenditure of will (which Tolkien often equates with inherent power) in the desire and its fulfilment - cause and effect. Tolkien elucidates this position in the highly insightful _Letter _#_155_.



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_ - #_155: To Naomi Mitchison (draft)_
> 
> *The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil effects - because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea and the or desire and the result or effect.*


 
Quintessentially, the (Sauron's) purpose of the Nine Rings is simply to subjugate the Nine Nazgûl to the point that they are simply the Nine Fingers of his Black Hands magnified to enhance his grasp upon Middle-earth. Does _dark magia_ then remove all autonomy from the Nazgûl? 

Earlier in the Letter Tolkien states:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_ - #_155: To Naomi Mitchison (draft)_
> 
> *The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate.*


 
If the purpose of the Enemy (and this is a reference more to Morgoth - see the bottom paragraph) is through the use of _magia_ to eradicate sentient life from Arda the Rings of Power would be devices capable of doing so. Was volition completely supplanted by Sauron when he brought the Nine under his dominion? It does stipulate that they "_had no will but his own_".

Hopefully this is enough to get the ball rolling. If any of you guys want a hint on what might be interesting to bring into the discussion (as I can't be bothered typing out the necessary quotes right now) read _Myths Transformed: Text VII (i)_. It may be beneficial in understanding Tolkien's usage of the word _Enemy _in reference to Morgoth and his _goeteia_ as opposed to Sauron's; even when he is discussing the Rings of Power which are Sauron's subcreation. Interesting stuff...

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Tyelkormo (Feb 20, 2009)

I think we need to look at the character of these sources, too, because in this case, they're pretty risky ground to tread on. One is a draft that wasn't sent. The specific reason why is unknown - it might be simply that Tolkien didn't want to bother the reader with what he suddenly felt was rambling on about tangentials, it might however also be that he came to reject the idea. Now I like to use #155 myself, but specifically on magic in Middle-Earth because it clearly illustrates how Tolkien thought about this particular issue at one particular time. The moment, however, we want to apply the contents on other texts, we have a problem in that we don't know to what extent it is applicable to them at all, i.e. whether Tolkien held that idea at the same time as he wrote that other text. 

The situation gets worse when we look at Myths transformed, because here we KNOW a lot of this is actually new stuff that would have required major revisions of the existing corpus. More, as Christopher writes, a lot of it is actually without a date and impossible to give a specific sequence to, which is all the worse as, as Christopher puts it "In these writings can be read the record of a prolonged interior debate." And while he notes that the seeds for a lot of these ideas were planted much earlier, there is no way to know how the debate would have ended, e.g. in cases of conflict between following through with a change versus keeping a published scene as-is. In the end, it is very dangerous to apply statements from "Myths transformed" to published texts, because it is unclear whether they were meant to go together.

This doesn't mean we can't use the texts, because clearly they tell us something about how Tolkien "ticked", but we need to be aware it doesn't necessarily tell us something about what he was thinking when writing a specific OTHER text. 

Too late to come to the actual topic, will do that tomorrow...


----------



## Illuin (Feb 20, 2009)

> Originally posted by Úlairi
> _Through this utter domination of their volition; did the power of the Nine Rings through the mastery of the One subvert their wills to the point of extinction thereby removing all autonomy?_


 

Not *ALL* (as in infinite, complete). 




> *Letter 246 - From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar*
> 
> *Sauron sent at once the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring. But the situation was now different to that under Weathertop, where Frodo acted merely in fear and wished only to use (in vain) the Ring’s subsidiary power of conferring invisibility. He had grown since then. Would they have been immune from its power if he claimed it as an instrument of command and domination? Not wholly. I do not think they could have attacked him with violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive; they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his that did not interfere with their errand - laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills.*


 

If all autonomy was removed, down to the very last infinitesimal quantity, there would be absolutely no disjunction or variation in connection with Sauron’s instructions concerning their errand to Mount Doom. If their wills were entirely subverted to the point of extinction, _they would not have needed to be instructed anyway_, because _they would have already known *instantaneously* what Sauron was thinking_. Sauron had to redirect the Ringwraiths; and the fact that communication of any sort was even necessary makes it quite plain the Ringwraiths were unaware of Sauron’s change of plans, until they were _"told"_. These new orders would not have been necessary had the Ringwraiths been completely void of self-will; and simply extensions of the mind of Sauron; because they would have already known of the orders in textbook detail at the very same instant Sauron first "_thought_" them (being in essence, empty vessels containing nothing but Sauron’s will). Also, Tolkien mentions Sauron having "*primary control*" of their wills. Who had "secondary control" if it was not Sauron; Frodo.....because he was now claiming the Ring? That would also verify a disjunction of wills between the Ringwraiths and Sauron.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Feb 21, 2009)

If we want to use the examples of magia and goeteia, I would actually say the Ring uses both. Much like it does with people it wants to lure to pick up itself or take itself from others, it would use goetic effects to make it appear that what are actually Sauron's goals are their own. This does not preclude them from acting on their own, even have clear moments of individual actions, but it would mean that anything of greater purpose they do will further Sauron's purposes. This doesn't even preclude carving out a Kingdom for yourself, albeit you would hold it for Sauron and use its resources to further his ends, even though it might seem to you like you're benefitting from it. When it comes to magia, then, in a true conflict situation, where the goetic effects for one reason or the other fail, it would allow to completely override for the time being the specific will and resistances in that instance. 

_Khamul, jump off that bridge!_
You know, Sauron, I've done weird stuff for you before, and gladly so, because I saw it as a win-win situation, but how should I profit from jumping off that bridge???
_Jump off that bridge!_
*shrugs* Well, if you say so.... BANZAIIIIII


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 21, 2009)

Apropos of your first post Celegorm, whilst I agree with you about Tolkien's own personal debate and conclusions of the matter, that which is written has been done so for a purpose - it *was* committed to paper; and I personally find that Tolkien resolved much of the inherent philosophical divides within himself. I can vouch for _Myths Transformed_; it has been the greatest source of my understanding of _The Legendarium_ (as has _Laws and Customs_). I also find no issue whatsoever in the application of many of the metaphysical concepts to _The Legendarium_ either. The concept of the Sun and Moon *not* being objects of worship as they were Fallen (they came second to the Trees) helps to understand a plethora of concepts including a prefiguration of the Fall of Men and Elves. Men being creatures of the Sun and Elves creatures of the Trees and the respective Ages of Middle-earth (but this is off topic)...



Illuin said:


> Not *ALL* (as in infinite, complete).


 
Before you go any further here Big Blue, I already completely agree with you as I knew you were going to shoot with the best ammunition - _246_. Unfortunately it potentially brings the thread to an abrupt end, unless... 




Illuin said:


> If all autonomy was removed, down to the very last infinitesimal quantity, there would be absolutely no disjunction or variation in connection with Sauron’s instructions concerning their errand to Mount Doom.


And it's here we can see the mind of a *fizz-us-sist* at work. 

Completely agree. Not going to bother with the rest either; it's spot on. I constructed this question at 3 a.m. last night in my defence, but, as I can see below, the *context *of the discussion is actually in the _goetic_ purpose of the Nine Rings and their subjagation to Sauron. I was hoping the _Myths Transformed _reference would lead you down the track I was hoping for and would be sufficient but I now realize the framing of the question was far too ambiguous. Ultimately the _purpose _of this thread is Sauron's _purpose_. His _goetic_ purpose and how it is inherently different to Morgoth's (which is implied slightly in _Letter_ #_155_)_._ I can see Celegorm has already made some interesting postulations of his own below... Anyway... Guess I'll have to quote _Myths Transformed _now... Maybe quotes are useful, Big Blue... 



> _The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring_ - _Myths Transformed: VII (i)_
> 
> *Sauron*
> 
> ...


 
Tolkien makes the distinction between the inherent motives of Sauron and Morgoth with the utmost clarity. The _magia _(and I would also contend _goeteia_) of Morgoth (referred to as the _Enemy _in _Letter _#_155_) is used for the absolute destruction, annihilation and eradication of sentient life from Arda_. _Sauron's_ goeteia _is the subjagation of such sentient life through terror - which, fundamentally, is equivalent to Morgoth's in various way; however, he does not desire complete nihilism. Sauron's _magia_ is somewhat different as he is content with the existence of other cognizant beings within Arda; providing that they are under his dominion. 

The primary question then becomes, as Sauron was attracted to Melkor through his use of _magia _to reduce expenditure of being in the process of cause and effect (this is why the Rings of Power enhanced the being of the bearer), as he also was drawn to the nihilistic desires of his master thus also craving destruction, and as he achieved this purpose in the Downfall of Númenor; was the _magia _of Sauron effected through the One Ring (and the Nine subject to it) eventually developed to the point that he would desire the ultimate destruction of the s_entience _of his servants. Regardless of whether he had achieved this or not (as he quite obviously hadn't); did he reach some form of _nihilism_ in the domination of the Nazgúl and desire the eradication, or perhaps more fittingly, did he desire the a_bsorption _of their respective wills into his own?

Back to your point Big Blue (oh yeah, I'm calling you that now ) about Frodo's challenge through possession of the One at Sammath Naur that was quite an excellent point. But would _secondary control_ actually be c_ontrol over their own wills_? 



Tyelkormo said:


> If we want to use the examples of magia and goeteia, I would actually say the Ring uses both. Much like it does with people it wants to lure to pick up itself or take itself from others, it would use goetic effects to make it appear that what are actually Sauron's goals are their own.


 
Interesting concept; but the splitting of hairs over Sauron's _goetic _deceits and the _goetic _effects of the One Ring can be resolved as the same thing. The Ring is Sauron's _magia _used for his _goetic_ achievement (purpose or motive†).



Tyelkormo said:


> This does not preclude them from acting on their own, even have clear moments of individual actions, but it would mean that anything of greater purpose they do will further Sauron's purposes. This doesn't even preclude carving out a Kingdom for yourself, albeit you would hold it for Sauron and use its resources to further his ends, even though it might seem to you like you're benefitting from it. When it comes to magia, then, in a true conflict situation, where the goetic effects for one reason or the other fail, it would allow to completely override for the time being the specific will and resistances in that instance.


 
The only time in which such _goetic _effects would fail would be the disintegration of Sauron's will to virtually nothing. This is quite an astute observation Celegorm, as we can see periods in the history of the Third Age where Sauron's physical person has been destroyed and his will ineffective. This explains in many ways the _awakening _of the Ring at the time when Frodo became Ringbearer.


†I personally believe that Tolkien here may be confusing (or altering the definition for his own designs) the actual definitions of _magia _and _goeteia_ in reference to _goeteia_ actually being the invocation of demons and evil spirits and his definition as the _purpose _or _outcome_ of the _magia_ - the achievement of desire (will). Have a look at this. This is also interesting.

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Illuin (Feb 21, 2009)

> Originally posted by Úlairi
> Back to your point Big Blue (oh yeah, I'm calling you that now )


 
That's OK with me Dundee


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 22, 2009)

Illuin said:


> That's OK with me Dundee


 
Heaven forbid, are you running out of things to say Big Blue? 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Tyelkormo (Feb 22, 2009)

Úlairi said:


> Apropos of your first post Celegorm, whilst I agree with you about Tolkien's own personal debate and conclusions of the matter, that which is written has been done so for a purpose - it *was* committed to paper;



Yes, but Tolkien committed a lot to paper. Scribbling down some notes does not make something the be-all-end-all. We do not know what Tolkien would have done with the material if he had been able to publish it. Also, the simple notions of cause and effect indicate that a philosophy that was developed after a given piece of text was published cannot have been the driving factor behind the actions in that published texts. While it can help in bringing about a rationale for the earlier text, it cannot have been Tolkien's rationale, since he developed the respective thought only later. That's why I say that looking at overall patterns that transcend individual notes to me seems the better alternative, since I can at least show that the seed of a thought was already there. Not the least, to me the greatest help in understanding was reading Tolkien's letters. For two reasons: First, these are not written from a fictional in-world narrator perspective, as for example LotR is. Second, we get a glimpse at Tolkien's real-world ideals and values which can help spotting them peek out from the jungle of text here and there.

But that's getting off topic _yet again_


----------



## Hobbit-GalRosie (Feb 22, 2009)

A fascinating topic. Another example of Tolkien always providing another idea (strikingly real) for plumbing and debating that I simply don't think of on first or second brush.

I suppose Tolkien was somewhat misusing the words, and it might have been more accurate to call most of the Elves' magic magia and all of Sauron's and his minion's goeitia, but at the same time I think Tolkien would not have viewed the distinction between offering to demons and being in command of them quite the same as most. His works are full of concepts (the Ring being chief but hardly the sole example) of dealings with any kind of evil as being potentially dangerous and tending to result in being ruled by the evil entity, any appearances to the contrary simply being a ruse. I would tend to think a Middle-earth version of magia would not involve command over demons. Forgive me if this is an ignorant assumption, I know I still have much to learn, and debates like these will never cease to be somewhat intimidating to me, even if the fun and fascination far outweighs that factor.

Beyond this I really have nothing to contribute to this conversation, unless I am granted insight upon further rumination...*wanders off to start chewing cud*

.................
[/random]
Yes, I know, it never works.


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 26, 2009)

Some interesting stuff here but I won't be able to get back to it for a few days.

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------

