# Sauron, the Nine Rings and the Lordship of the Nazgûl



## Úlairi (Dec 7, 2008)

*Were the Nine Rings of Power taken by Sauron from the Nine (once they were subservient completely to his will) as a precautionary measure to prevent them from being dominated by a Challenger to his Power? *

Aragorn, Faramir, Saruman and perhaps Denethor would all be candidates to Challenge Sauron with the One Ring in their possession. Also, in your opinion, was this done due to the fact that Sauron had lost possession of the One? 

Perhaps it can be stated simply as:

*Could the Nazgûl be controlled by another; and were the Nine held by Sauron to prevent this from occurring? *

First of all there is the complicated question of if Sauron actually held the Nine Rings of Power in Barad-dúr. 



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - A Knife in the Dark *
> 
> The third was taller than the others: his hair was long and gleaming and on his helm was a crown. *In one hand he held a long sword, and in the other a knife; both the knife and the hand that held it glowed with a pale light.*


 
Arguably if the Nine possessed their Rings Tolkien would have mentioned it here in his description, however: 



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Council of Elrond *
> 
> 'Some, Galdor,' said Gandalf, 'would think the tidings of Glóin, and the pursuit of Frodo, proof enough that the halfling's trove is a thing of great worth to the Enemy. Yet it is a Ring. What then? *The Nine the Nazgûl keep. *The Seven are taken or destroyed...'


 
So, according to the "omniscient" Mithrandir the Nine possessed their own Rings. However he appears to contradict himself earlier when he states: 



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Shadow of the Past *
> 
> 'So it is now: *the Nine he has gathered to himself *; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed...'


 
The argument that they were not in possession, however, can debatably be further established in _The Return of the King: _



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - The Battle of the Pelennor Fields *
> 
> Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. *The crown rolled away with a clang. Éowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty.*


 
It could indeed be argued that as no Ring was mentioned here that the Lord of the Nazgûl possessed no Ring; and that the Nazgûl where thus not in possession either. However, in _The History of Middle-Earth VIII: The War of the Ring - The Siege of Gondor _there is a passage that Christopher Tolkien notes as "_a remarkable addition... of the Nazgûl circling over the City on the first day of the siege:_" 



> *The History of Middle-Earth VIII: The War of the Ring - The Siege of Gondor *
> 
> The Nazgûl came once more, slaves of the Nine Rings, and to each, since now they were utterly subject to his will, *their Lord had given again that ring of power that he had used of old*.


 
Interesting here is the usage of the word "_again_" by JRR Tolkien, which debatably confers the meaning that at some point the Nine Rings had been retaken and then given back to the Nazgûl. Also of note, however, is that this passage was later deleted and replaced by Tolkien in his final draft. 

The last reference in _The Lord of the Rings _that I am currently aware of is: 



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Mirror of Galadriel *
> 
> '...Yet even so, as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. *You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine*...'


 
It is evident that Tolkien intends that the Nine be in Sauron's possession but the following quotes are far more conclusive. 



> *Unfinished Tales - The Hunt for the Ring *
> 
> At length he resolved that no others would serve him in this case but his mightiest servants, the Ringwraiths, *who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held.*


 
This gives an extraordinary insight not just in respect to who actually possessed the Nine, but also the nature of the utter dominance that Sauron maintained over them. They had no will but Sauron's. Far more crucial and still blatantly obvious is that to enslave them the Nazgûl must initially have been enslaved by their Ring. 



> *The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #246: From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts) *
> 
> 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.


 
Tolkien decided the matter cogently and I will thus continue the discussion under the irrefutable presumption that Sauron had possession of the Nine Rings of Power. 

Secondly, Sauron no longer had possession of the One Ring. Can it then be inferred that because of this devastating loss that it was necessary to repossess the Nine Rings to ensure his lordship over the Nazgûl? Or was his lordship so well established that there was an ulterior motive in doing so? If anyone has any valid hypotheses please feel free to comment! 

The quote from _Unfinished Tales _above is important here as Tolkien stated repeatedly that the Nazgûl were utterly subservient to his will. The excerpt below is a personal favourite in explaining certain inherent qualities regarding the nature of the Rings of Power which is important in determing how Sauron maintained control over the Nazgûl without the One Ring. 



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Shadow of the Past *
> 
> 'A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the 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*...'


 
It is rather difficult to discern from this particular passage whether control by the "dark power that rules the Rings" requires the Rings to be worn or not. In my opinion, it appears that in this context Tolkien makes it appear as though once dominated by the will of Sauron through exposure to the Rings over time; it is irrelevant if the Nine Rings are worn by the Nazgûl as Sauron has already assumed total control over their being. The far more relevant question, in my opinion, is how is this achieved without Sauron's possession of the One Ring? A reference in _Letters _is also interesting: 



> *The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #246: From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts) *
> 
> Sauron sent at once the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully instructed, *and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring*.


 
Despite Frodo's possession of the One Ring Tolkien unambiguously stipulates that the Nazgûl are not confused by him; they understand fully that Sauron is their master and no other. 

Therefore does Sauron possess the Nine to maintain his control over the Nazgûl? This seems unlikely as they are already dominated completely by him. The crux of my inquiry is whether maintaining possession was a precautionary action to prevent the claiming of lordship by another. However, the inherent problem here is the counter-argument that (through Tolkien's own words) that lordship was irrefutable. The quote below gives us greater insight into this dilemma.



> *The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #131: To Milton Waldman *
> 
> 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 and usurp his place. *


 
Here (and I believe this isn't the only place - perhaps someone could fill in the gaps) Tolkien refers to the intrinsic weakness in Sauron's making of the One Ring - that it could be used against him by another and that they would " _*become master of all *__*that he had learned or done... and usurp his place*_". Usurpation is simply replacement; thus "replacing" Sauron would literally mean the Nine would be under a New Lordship. However, another potential spanner in the works is that they are subservient to the Lord of the Rings but only through the Nine Rings, which Sauron arguably held.

...continued below...


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 7, 2008)

...continued from previous post...



> *The Silmarillion - Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age *
> 
> They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in the world invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, *they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and under the domination of the One, which was Sauron's*.


 
What interests me here is the obvious point that it was through their Nine Rings under the domination of the One that they were then subject completely to Sauron's will. After Sauron's dispossession of the One Ring, did he feel that it was necessary to prevent the situation arising in Letter #131 whereby the Nazgûl could be commanded by another? Could they be commanded by another? Remember Tolkien specified four requisites above to challenge Sauron and thus claim Lordship over the Nazgûl: 

(1) The new possessor of the One Ring must seize it. 
(2) The new possessor must become possessed of it. 

*Essentially, points (1) and (2) are what is required to evince a Challenge. *

(3) The new possessor must be sufficiently strong. 
(4) The new possessor must be sufficiently heroic. 

*Points (3) and (4) are the requisites to then overcome Sauron after a challenge has been issued. *

In respect to point (1) the following quote is useful: 



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Mount Doom *
> 
> And far away, as Frodo put on the Ring *and claimed it for his own, even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-dúr was shaken...*


 
Frodo was arguably at this point solely possessed of the Ring and definitely for all intents and purposes _seizing _it. Furthermore, the power of Sauron was shaken, which in essence may be the evincing of a challenge on Frodo's behalf. Points (1) and (2) are arguably fulifilled. Frodo was potentially heroic despite his apparent cowardice on Weathertop but it is arguably point (3) where he fails. 



> *The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #246: From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts) *
> 
> *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. *


 
So, here we have it, depite the apparent Challenge (and if anyone disagrees as to whether Frodo evinced a challenge under the definition above please feel free to say so) the Nazgûl were never confused about who their Lord was. This brings us back to the fundamental question: 

*Why did Sauron keep the Nine Rings in his possession if there was no threat to the dominion maintained over the Nazgûl? Was it a precautionary measure? *

Other questions to note are: 
*Did Frodo issue a Challenge as to who had possession of the Ring? In order to establish new lordship over the Nazgûl, must the One Ring be seized or must it both be seized and Sauron defeated?*


----------



## Gordis (Dec 7, 2008)

Great opening posts, Belegûr, and interesting question.

I think the answer is rather simple: *Sauron kept the Nine Rings because it were these Rings that assured his dominion over the nazgul*. 

The nazgul were slaves of the Nine Rings - directly, and of the One only indirectly, through the Nine. 

*Who possesses the Nine has primary control over Nazgul; who possesses the One has only secondary control*. Who possesses no Ring, has no control. Sorry, access is denied, try another time.

I don't believe that the weak and ringless Necromancer could effectively control the Ringwraiths, as Sauron did in the Second Age or at the end of the Third. There is no evidence that he did anywhere. Sure, I don't think any of the nazgul would willingly confront the Necromancer even at his weakest, because, after all, Sauron and the Ruling ring were one, and "filled them with fear as an object of terror in their religious cult" -L#246. But I totally see the Witch-King making a stronghold in Angmar all on his own, wielding war on Arnor for his own ends, and trying to avoid any contact with the Necromancer in Mirkwood.

Only once Sauron got the Nine Rings back he could order the wraiths around and be sure that they would obey.

Now let us look at the situation from the historical point of view. I will try to break the topic into possible schemes: historical or hypothetical. 

*A -Sauron has the One Ring, the nazgul have the Nine Rings.* Original Second Age situation. It should have worked perfectly, as the One Ring controls the Nine Rings and thus controls the nazgul who have them.

*B - Sauron has the One and the Nine Rings, the nazgul have nothing.* This situation _may_ have occured in the late Second Age, if Sauron took the Nine from the nazgul shortly after he enslaved them. But B is somewhat of an overkill: why take the Nine from the wraiths, weakening them, if they were perfectly controlled in *A*? Then it also means that when Sauron's spirit left his body at the end of the Second Age, it took with it the Nine Rings - which is mentioned nowhere. I don't believe in *B*.

*C - Sauron has nothing, the nazgul have the Nine.* This situation may have taken place in the early Third Age, while Sauron was weak, formless and ringless and the nazgul were largely on their own. C would have happened in the case if the nazgul still wore the Nine Rings at the very end of the SA, and Sauron had to collect the Nine rings to himself in the Third Age, after taking shape in Mirkwood. He had to collect the Nine Rings to re-establish his control over the nazgul.
* 
D - Sauron has the Nine, the nazgul have nothing.* That is the situation of the late Third Age. The nazgul are controlled through the Nine Rings, "being each utterly subservient *to the ring that had enslaved him*, which Sauron held"-UT.

*So, there was A - then B or C - then D*

*A* and *D* are firmly established in canon but what has occured: *B or C* is open to speculation. 
I have always advocated for *A-C-D*.


How do we know Sauron needed to hold the Nine to control the Wraiths? 

Let us look at the story of the "Hunt for the Ring" as told in the Unfinished Tales. For those who are infamiliar with it I will summarize it briefly. 

Sauron learned from Gollum that the Ring was in possession of "Baggins" living in "the Shire". He decided to send some servants to look for it. He couldn't trust any of the mortals with the Ring, so he had to send his nazgul who were utterly subservient to the Nine Rings that enslaved them and that Sauron now himself held. 

He wanted the nazgul to explore Anorien first (Anorien is a part of Gondor), then Rohan. He ordered the nazgul to pass through these populated lands invisible. The most _obvious_ thing for Sauron to do was to lend them their Rings - so they could be invisible while wearing the Rings and have their clothes visible when taking them off. But no. Sauron didn't lend the 9 Rings to the nazgul. So the poor guys had to go on foot, unshod, unclad, and most likely weaponless - not a very pleasant way of travelling even for a wraith. 

Why? 
1. I suppose Sauron didn't trust the nazgul to come anywhere near the One Ring if he hadn't the absolute guarantee of their loyalty in his hands. The Witch-King in particular was a sorcerer who knew a lot about wielding Rings - more than Gandalf, and certainly more than Aragorn. He could have claimed the One and become a big problem for Sauron - if Sauron didn't have the controlling Witch-King's ring safely in Barad-Dur. 
2. There was a strong possibility that a person of power (Gandalf or Saruman) would claim the One and try to command the nazgul. Then the only guarantee for their loyalty to Mordor would be the Nine Rings in Sauron's hands.


----------



## Firawyn (Dec 7, 2008)

Not to disregard your research in any way, Belegur, but to answer the first part of your question one need only look at the title of the book.

Lord of the Rings. 

Rings being plural, not singular, we can assume that Tolkien intended to figurehead Sauron as the lord of more than just the One Ring. In Tolkien's work (and all middle age history), a Lord is only a Lord if he possesses something. To strip a man of his Lord-hood would be to take the lands and possessions that made him a Lord. 

You will notice the the conclution of "The Lord of the Rings" is the fall of Sauron...since he is no longer a "Lord", the take of "The Lord of the Rings", is ended. 

To answer your "main" question, in my opinion I think that like Frodo, the Wraiths could do the will of Sauron, themselves, or whoever they chose. They were men once, but their wills were evedently weak enough to fall to the will of Sauron.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 7, 2008)

Belegûr said:


> *Were the Nine Rings of Power taken by Sauron from the Nine (once they were subservient completely to his will) as a precautionary measure to prevent them from being dominated by a Challenger to his Power? *
> 
> Aragorn, Faramir, Saruman and perhaps Denethor would all be candidates to Challenge Sauron with the One Ring in their possession. Also, in your opinion, was this done due to the fact that Sauron had lost possession of the One?


No. 

Tolkien wrote in _Letters _that of the Wise, only Elrond or Galadriel might have been able to keep the Ring from Sauron; of Mortals, no one could retain it, not even Aragorn. (I'm pretty sure I can locate that citation without too much difficulty.) Gandalf or Saruman - both Maiar themselves - with the Ring would still have been a near-run thing: they would probably have sought to avoid personal confrontation, and an Elda with the Ring would certainly have avoided face-to-face confrontation. 

Certainly an Aragorn or (more aptly) Denethor with the Ring would have challenged Sauron: that was the trap into which the Dark Lord fell when he kept his gaze on Minas Tirith and the mere 6,000 soldiers Aragorn led out to Morannon


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 8, 2008)

Gordis said:


> Great opening posts, Belegûr, and interesting question.


 
Please, call me *Úlairi*. That is my original username; and thanks.



Gordis said:


> I think the answer is rather simple: *Sauron kept the Nine Rings because it were these Rings that assured his dominion over the nazgul*.


 
Essentially, that is what I'm driving at. Thank you for such a brief answer. Unfortunately (and please do not take offence); I am looking for something a little more concrete than...



Gordis said:


> The nazgul were slaves of the Nine Rings - directly, and of the One only indirectly, through the Nine.


 
...especially as...



> *The Silmarillion - Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age*
> 
> *...they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and under the domination of the One...*


 
...and...



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Shadow of the Past *
> 
> '...*walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings*...'


 
So, it is only through the One Ring that Sauron controlled the Nine; it was over a prolonged period of time that they fell subservient to Sauron's will. The One Ring was a conduit of subjagation and thus was an indisposable requisite for maintaining control over the Nazgûl.



Gordis said:


> *Who possesses the Nine has primary control over Nazgul; who possesses the One has only secondary control*. Who possesses no Ring, has no control. Sorry, access is denied, try another time.


 
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it: "_One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them_"??? 



Gordis said:


> I don't believe that the weak and ringless Necromancer could effectively control the Ringwraiths, as Sauron did in the Second Age or at the end of the Third. There is no evidence that he did anywhere.


 
Woah there. That kind of unsupported speculation is unwarranted Gordis. For one: 



> *Unfinished Tales - The Hunt for the Ring *
> 
> At length he resolved that no others would serve him in this case but his mightiest servants, the Ringwraiths, *who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held.*


 
Thus, having *NO WILL BUT SAURON'S* infers that they could not act without his control. There's another little something in _Myths Transformed_ about this point as well. which inherently a quote from _The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Mount Doom_:



> *The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text VIII - Note VI*
> 
> ...his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, *and his captains suddently steerless, bereft of will*, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten.
> The note continues:
> *They had little or no will when not actually 'attended to' by the mind of Sauron*.


 
Let's see how active the Nazgûl were in the beginning of the Third Age, shall we?



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Appendix B: The Tale of Years - The Third Age*
> 
> _c._ 1100 The Wise (the Istari and the chief Eldar) discover that an evil power has made a stronghold at Dol Guldur. *It is thought to be one of the Nazgûl*.
> 
> ...


 
I just can't go on, there's so much more. They take Minas Ithil and rename it Minas Morgul. The Witch-king challenges and defeats Eärnur, King of Gondor. It 'appears' as though once the North-kingdom was destroyed the Nazgûl re-grouped and established military forts, constructs and armies in preparation for the return of you-know-who... Doesn't really sound like ineffective control on Sauron's part to me, but hey, I am Úlairi and have a little soft spot for my mindless boys in black.



Gordis said:


> Sure, I don't think any of the nazgul would willingly confront the Necromancer even at his weakest, because, after all, Sauron and the Ruling ring were one, and "filled them with fear as an object of terror in their religious cult" -L#246. But I totally see the Witch-King making a stronghold in Angmar all on his own, wielding war on Arnor for his own ends, and trying to avoid any contact with the Necromancer in Mirkwood.


 
I'm not even going to comment on that... feng shui, feng shui, feng shui...



Gordis said:


> Now let us look at the situation from the historical point of view. I will try to break the topic into possible schemes: historical or hypothetical.
> 
> *A -Sauron has the One Ring, the nazgul have the Nine Rings.* Original Second Age situation. It should have worked perfectly, as the One Ring controls the Nine Rings and thus controls the nazgul who have them.


 
Agreed but ultimately irrelevant.



Gordis said:


> *B - Sauron has the One and the Nine Rings, the nazgul have nothing.* This situation _may_ have occured in the late Second Age, if Sauron took the Nine from the nazgul shortly after he enslaved them. But B is somewhat of an overkill: why take the Nine from the wraiths, weakening them, if they were perfectly controlled in *A*? Then it also means that when Sauron's spirit left his body at the end of the Second Age, it took with it the Nine Rings - which is mentioned nowhere. I don't believe in *B*.


 
This one I like and agree with; but unfortunately there is no bearing on the discussion.



Gordis said:


> *C - Sauron has nothing, the nazgul have the Nine.* This situation may have taken place in the early Third Age, while Sauron was weak, formless and ringless and the nazgul were largely on their own. C would have happened in the case if the nazgul still wore the Nine Rings at the very end of the SA, and Sauron had to collect the Nine rings to himself in the Third Age, after taking shape in Mirkwood. He had to collect the Nine Rings to re-establish his control over the nazgul.


 
Unsubstantiated, but I like your thinking. However, I believe again the _Unfinished Tales_ and the _Myths Transformed _quotes solves this problem.



Gordis said:


> *D - Sauron has the Nine, the nazgul have nothing.* That is the situation of the late Third Age. The nazgul are controlled through the Nine Rings, "being each utterly subservient *to the ring that had enslaved him*, which Sauron held"-UT.
> 
> *So, there was A - then B or C - then D*
> 
> ...


 
This is what it's about!!! I don't disagree with this; but that doesn't mean I agree with it either.




Gordis said:


> How do we know Sauron needed to hold the Nine to control the Wraiths?


 
Good question, that's why I started a thread about it...  



Gordis said:


> He wanted the nazgul to explore Anorien first (Anorien is a part of Gondor), then Rohan. He ordered the nazgul to pass through these populated lands invisible.
> 
> The most _obvious_ thing for Sauron to do was to lend them their Rings - so they could be invisible while wearing the Rings and have their clothes visible when taking them off. But no. Sauron didn't lend the 9 Rings to the nazgul. So the poor guys had to go on foot, unshod, unclad, and most likely weaponless - not a very pleasant way of travelling even for a wraith.


 
This is interesting and I think you need to start a topic on it before I do - what I'm saying is I'll give you (some) credit for it. Consider this, on Weathertop the description does not place the Nazgûl in the garments they were in the physical world. When Frodo puts on the Ring and is transported to the _spirit-realm_, he sees them as wearing "long grey robes". They therefore didn't need the Nine Rings to confer invisibility; the "black wrappings" as Tolkien calls them were, IMO, a way of being clad physically to instil fear into their enemies which was their primary weapon. Thus they didn't need the Nine Rings for invisibility as they already were invisible.



Gordis said:


> Why?
> 1. I suppose Sauron didn't trust the nazgul to come anywhere near the One Ring if he hadn't the absolute guarantee of their loyalty in his hands. The Witch-King in particular was a sorcerer who knew a lot about wielding Rings - more than Gandalf, and certainly more than Aragorn. He could have claimed the One and become a big problem for Sauron - if Sauron didn't have the controlling Witch-King's ring safely in Barad-Dur.


 
Wow, ummmm, hmmmm... self-control. Just joshing. You need to listen to what you (and I also) have written:



Gordis said:


> He couldn't trust any of the mortals with the Ring, so he had to send his nazgul who were utterly subservient to the Nine Rings that enslaved them and that Sauron now himself held.


 
(1) Utterly subservient to Sauron. Tick.
(2) No will but Sauron's (my quote). Tick.
(3) The Witch-king claiming the One for himself? Big fat X.



Gordis said:


> 2. There was a strong possibility that a person of power (Gandalf or Saruman) would claim the One and try to command the nazgul. Then the only guarantee for their loyalty to Mordor would be the Nine Rings in Sauron's hands.


 
And unfortunately we're back where we started.


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 8, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> Not to disregard your research in any way, Belegur, but to answer the first part of your question one need only look at the title of the book.
> 
> Lord of the Rings.
> 
> Rings being plural, not singular, we can assume that Tolkien intended to figurehead Sauron as the lord of more than just the One Ring. In Tolkien's work (and all middle age history), a Lord is only a Lord if he possesses something. To strip a man of his Lord-hood would be to take the lands and possessions that made him a Lord.


 
Absolutely. And that "Lord-hood" can be stripped which, quintessentially, is an indisposable fragment of this discussion. Was it a precautionary measure to prevent the loss of these "magnificent possessions": the Nazgûl? The Nine Rings IMO are essentially an insurance policy, you have home & contents I assume? You also need to re-read the part about how that Lordship is established and maintained. Being the Lord of the Rings requires actual possession of the One Ring, which he did not have. Even the Three, whilst bearing no evil, were threatened by the presence of the One. When Sauron had no possession; Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf went right on wearing them...



Firawyn said:


> You will notice the the conclution of "The Lord of the Rings" is the fall of Sauron...since he is no longer a "Lord", the take of "The Lord of the Rings", is ended.


 
Ummmm, yes???



Firawyn said:


> To answer your "main" question, in my opinion I think that like Frodo, the Wraiths could do the will of Sauron, themselves, or whoever they chose. They were men once, but their wills were evedently weak enough to fall to the will of Sauron.


 
I'm going to have to quote _Letters_ again, aren't I? No, all I'll say is read _The Letters of JRR Tolkien _#_246_ which has an enormous bearing on this discussion. I omitted it (for ulterior reasons) hoping someone else would quote it; but unfortunately no.


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 8, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> No.
> 
> Tolkien wrote in _Letters _that of the Wise, only Elrond or Galadriel might have been able to keep the Ring from Sauron; of Mortals, no one could retain it, not even Aragorn. (I'm pretty sure I can locate that citation without too much difficulty.) Gandalf or Saruman - both Maiar themselves - with the Ring would still have been a near-run thing: they would probably have sought to avoid personal confrontation, and an Elda with the Ring would certainly have avoided face-to-face confrontation.


 
Yes, you're talking about _Letter _#_246_ which I am ecstatic about. However, you've (cleverly) circumvented the actual question. Your discussing a personal confrontation with Sauron - I'm discussing control of the Nazgûl. There is no reference in #246 (apart from Frodo's confrontation with the Nine) to the possibility of controlling the Nazgûl.



> *The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #131: To Milton Waldman
> 
> *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 and usurp his place.*


 
Look at the order here - it's *very* important:

(1) Some other _seizes_ it.
(2) They then become _possessed_ of it.
(3) They *challenge* Sauron.
(4) They then *become master of all that he had learned or done*.
(5) *AND THEN* they *overthrow or usurp his place*.

*Before and NOT AFTER *Sauron is defeated they can become *master of ALL HE HAD DONE* i.e. the Nazgûl.



Alcuin said:


> Certainly an Aragorn or (more aptly) Denethor with the Ring would have challenged Sauron: that was the trap into which the Dark Lord fell when he kept his gaze on Minas Tirith and the mere 6,000 soldiers Aragorn led out to Morannon


 
Abso-posi-lutely; but then again, that's not exactly what we're talking about; is it?


----------



## Gordis (Dec 8, 2008)

You know, *Ulairi,* after reading your last posts I find that don't like to discuss things with you - at all. You sport mocking tone, meaninglessly comment upon every line and don't even bother to try to _understand_ what others are trying to tell you. 
I am not going to continue posting in this thread - I think it is hopeless.


----------



## YayGollum (Dec 8, 2008)

I saw no need to take offense, Gordis person. I certainly saw things that might cause it, but both sides could make easy changes. The Ulairi person could learn that some people's skins are thinner than others and try to be a bit daintier, and you could try to take a ribbing and come back with stronger arguments. No? Why not? Well, it could be hopeless merely because you can't think up any stronger arguments. That would make sense. But not just the other thing.

Anyways, my opinion is that Sauron kept the nine human rings because, without his favorite, he didn't feel like much of a Lord Of Rings. He was attempting to keep appearances upwards, of course. I wonder if he also wore the Dwarven rings that he had. I also wonder why he never did anything with those rings. I recently read some hypothesis that all of the rings were made to control elves, for some reason, and some had just been passed around to the wrong races, for some other crazy reason. If so, and even if no, wouldn't they have been useful towards messing with someone else's brain, rather than just letting them collect dust? But oh well.  

He kept the human rings because he sent what were already Ringwraiths out on dangerous missions. If one of them got defeated, some random Ringwraith killer would be running around with a Ring Of Power, and Sauron couldn't even mess with him. I don't think that Sauron was especially afraid of anybody finding his favorite and wresting control of his Ringwraiths from him. Mental domination is his thing, and the One Ring is mostly him. Anybody else attempting to use it to control others wouldn't be as good. It would require more concentration, and they would already be distracted by attempting to resist doing whatever it wanted to do. 

Towards the other questions, no, the superly boring Frodo did not. He didn't have time to do much of anything. And, no, I don't see why Sauron would need to be defeated at chess (or in any other contest) to use the One Ring as it was made to be used, mentally controlling other people with Rings Of Power or, apparently, those that have been Ringwraithized.

Also, where has anybody gotten the idea that the Ringwraiths had any kind of willpower? From what I've read, they all seem to have lost the stuff. They've been that way for a while, so I don't think that they could have been faking it for so long. And once you lose your willpower, I don't see how it could come back. They are a breed of undead.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 8, 2008)

Úlairi said:


> …you've (cleverly) circumvented the actual question.


I did not “(cleverly) circumvent… the actual question.” I quite clearly wrote, 


Alcuin said:


> Tolkien wrote … that of the Wise, only Elrond or Galadriel might have been able to keep the Ring from Sauron; of Mortals, no one could retain it, not even Aragorn. … Gandalf or Saruman … would still have been a near-run thing: they would probably have sought to avoid personal confrontation, and an Elda with the Ring would certainly have avoided face-to-face confrontation.



-



Úlairi said:


> Your discussing a personal confrontation with Sauron - I'm discussing control of the Nazgûl. There is no reference in #246 (apart from Frodo's confrontation with the Nine) to the possibility of controlling the Nazgûl.


Thank you for the citation, *Úlairi*. I was quite tired from salt-mining and had no patience for looking it up myself. But at least we agree that there is a reference to this subject in the letter, which I had forgotten until you mentioned it:


> Sauron sent … the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring. … Frodo … had grown since [noparse][[/noparse]Weathertop[noparse]][/noparse]. 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 …; they would have … feigned to obey … minor commands … 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.


I think that is close to what you want to discuss, is it not?

So is this, from _Unfinished Tales_, “The Hunt for the Ring”, when Saruman avoids confrontation with the Nine, speaking to them by an enchantment laid upon the locked gate of Isengard (it was easier for me to find in the lumberyard of my mind),


> “I have it not, as surely its servants perceive without telling; for if I had it, then you would bow before me and call me Lord.”


Now, let us return to _Letter_ 246, to which you have been kind enough to direct my attention. A fuller quotation of the passage to which I referred is this:


> Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself. In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of “mortals” no one, not even Aragorn. In the contest with the Palantír Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present.


So you are partly right: at a distance, a Power had the opportunity to withhold the Dingus, perhaps, but in the actual presence of Sauron, so much less so that no Mortal could keep it from him.

As for the Wise – the chiefs of the Eldar and the Wizards (Gandalf and Saruman, at any rate: I think the phrase “the Wise” refers to the White Council, more or less), _Letter_ 246 continues,


> Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors.


I think Tolkien’s clear implication in this passage is that keeping the Ring from Sauron when he was not present would have been difficult in and of itself: it tended – indeed, it seems to have been designed – to overthrow the mind of its wearer and replace it with Sauron’s will, which willed its return to its maker. In actual confrontation with Sauron, even Gandalf wielding the Ring might have been overthrown. That is my interpretation; feel free to disagree if you think that Tolkien has also “(cleverly) circumvented” the matter. 



Úlairi said:


> Alcuin said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly an Aragorn or (more aptly) Denethor with the Ring would have challenged Sauron: that was the trap into which the Dark Lord fell when he kept his gaze on Minas Tirith and the mere 6,000 soldiers Aragorn led out to Morannon
> ...


What I choose to discuss in a thread, since it is not a class (or work!) assignment, is my own business until I am reined in by one of the moderators (which does happen from time to time). I do not think my musings far afield. 

Please don’t begrudge a good thread that meanders in its way.


----------



## Illuin (Dec 9, 2008)

> Originally posted by Úlairi
> _*Why did Sauron keep the Nine Rings in his possession if there was no threat to the dominion maintained over the Nazgûl? Was it a precautionary measure?*_


 
Again, a specific answer to that particular question is not written (though it maybe alluded to implicitly); so supposition is what we are left with. It’s clearly documented over and over that Sauron did indeed have the Nine Rings in his possession, so that part of the equation can be put on the shelf. The question you asked is WHY? 

The answer is alluded to here: 



> *The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #246: From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts) *
> 
> _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.*_


 
Particularly the last clause (underlined). Somehow "through the nine rings" Sauron had chief control. There was a some kind of metaphysical connection between the Nazgûl and the Nine Rings, though they weren‘t wearing them; and this letter (with it’s emphasis on "*which he held*") seems to imply that *because Sauron "held" the Nine Rings, the Nazgûl would ALWAYS be under Sauron’s control. *


Now all we can do is speculate. You told Gordis this:



> Originally posted by *Úlairi*
> _Essentially, that is what I'm driving at. Thank you for such a brief answer. Unfortunately (and please do not take offence); I am looking for something a little more concrete than: “The nazgul were slaves of the Nine Rings - directly, and of the One only indirectly, through the Nine.”_


 
Well, unfortunately "concrete" is not possible; because Tolkien is no longer around to provide us with a "concrete" answer. But referring back to that last clause in #246, I believe there is a bit more to it than what you propose in your original question (i.e. simply a "_precautionary measure_"). 

*



"Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills."

Click to expand...

* 
It would seem (speculation of course) that during the process of becoming a Wraith, a permanent essence, or conduit between Sauron and Wraith is formed (a "spiritual wormhole" as it were ), and when the process is over, that conduit is permanent. The Nine Rings are no longer needed; the process is done; the permanent connection is made. The Rings can now return to Sauron. The Nazgûl are still bound to their Rings, only now, through that conduit where the greater power now possesses them. Akin to the One Ring; it almost seems as if a part of the Nazgûl's essence (or instinct) is also embodied in the Nine Rings, and that instinct can be manipulated now that Sauron possesses them. It doesn't matter if Sauron does not have the One Ring at this point; because the spiritual connection has already been made. I believe this may be what Gordis was alluding to:



> Originally posted by Gordis
> _"The nazgul were slaves of the Nine Rings - directly, and of the One only indirectly, through the Nine."_


 
Now (speculation and imagination once again ); taking into consideration that last clause in #246; let’s say Aragorn hypothetically mastered control over The One Ring. Could he control the Nazgûl even though Sauron still possessed the Nine Rings? Or would the Nazgûl have to put on their Rings again for a "new conduit" to be formed between them and the new "Lord of The Rings"?

Of course we have Saruman from Unfinished Tales:

_



I have it not, as surely its servants perceive without telling; for if I had it, then you would bow before me and call me Lord.”

Click to expand...

_ 
Perhaps if it was someone with the strength of Aragorn or Saruman, it wouldn’t matter if Sauron had the Nine Rings or not, the Nazgûl would ultimately bow to another master. I'm also not entirely convinced that Saruman wasn't simply "doin' his thang" and spreading the BS on thick like he always does with his creepy voice powers. Anyway, just a few thoughts. I could go on all morning, but I have to get ready for another day. Speculation, sure; but we can only work with what we are given, and play with what we are not .


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 9, 2008)

YayGollum said:


> I saw no need to take offense, Gordis person. I certainly saw things that might cause it, but both sides could make easy changes. The Ulairi person could learn that some people's skins are thinner than others and try to be a bit daintier, and you could try to take a ribbing and come back with stronger arguments. No? Why not? Well, it could be hopeless merely because you can't think up any stronger arguments. That would make sense. But not just the other thing.



Well said, Yay. But I don't think I'm going to be any 'daintier'; as you eloquently put it. 



YayGollum said:


> He kept the human rings because he sent what were already Ringwraiths out on dangerous missions. If one of them got defeated, some random Ringwraith killer would be running around with a Ring Of Power, and Sauron couldn't even mess with him. I don't think that Sauron was especially afraid of anybody finding his favorite and wresting control of his Ringwraiths from him. Mental domination is his thing, and the One Ring is mostly him. Anybody else attempting to use it to control others wouldn't be as good. It would require more concentration, and they would already be distracted by attempting to resist doing whatever it wanted to do.



Now that's quite a thought-provoking concept. However, if that had been the case that new person may likely have fallen under the dominion of Sauron. And this particular concept apropos of this discussion is intrinsically crucial. Perhaps another question could be added: could Sauron's dominion over the mind of a newcomer to a Ring of Power be established without the One Ring? My initial reaction would be no as this was not the case for the Three; however, the Three forever remained unsullied; whereas the Nine had been (at this juncture), touched by the hand of Sauron.



YayGollum said:


> Also, where has anybody gotten the idea that the Ringwraiths had any kind of willpower? From what I've read, they all seem to have lost the stuff. They've been that way for a while, so I don't think that they could have been faking it for so long. And once you lose your willpower, I don't see how it could come back. They are a breed of undead.



Exactimundo Yay. They had no will but Sauron's own. Bereft of volition. 




Alcuin said:


> I did not “(cleverly) circumvent… the actual question.” I quite clearly wrote...





Alcuin said:


> Please don’t begrudge a good thread that meanders in its way.



Agree to disagree.



Alcuin said:


> Sauron sent … the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring. … Frodo … had grown since [Weathertop]. 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 …; they would have … feigned to obey … minor commands … 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.
> 
> I think that is close to what you want to discuss, is it not?



This has a very strong bearing on what I'm driving at yes; but it certainly isn't the while picture. This gives us one example of a Mortal in the position to assert dominion over the Nazgûl. What needs to be done here essentially is postulate from this. I think Tolkien's given us an unambiguous example. Although we've established no mortal could use the Ring successfully against Sauron; according the formulaic approach I took above; it doesn't rule out the possibility that Frodo could control the Nine. It *very clearly* stipulates that they couldn't have wholly resisted such an assertion of will by Frodo. So, is Sauron truly taking the precaution by keeping the Nine Rings to avoid the establishment of dominion over his property (all that he has learned and done)? To maintain his oppresive strangle-hold over the minds of the Nazgûl puppets?



Alcuin said:


> So is this, from Unfinished Tales, “The Hunt for the Ring”, when Saruman avoids confrontation with the Nine, speaking to them by an enchantment laid upon the locked gate of Isengard (it was easier for me to find in the lumberyard of my mind),
> Quote:
> “I have it not, as surely its servants perceive without telling; for if I had it, then you would bow before me and call me Lord.”



A magnificent find. I was completely unaware of this quote. In a situation where Saruman would assert lordship over the Nazgûl would they have then become wholly subservient to him? Saruman was of the same genus as Sauron; but did he have the inherent power to do so? We have an interesting tripartheid relationship here between the possessor of the One, the Nine Rings and Sauron. Did Sauron hold these as an insurance policy? Perhaps it could be put as three possibilities:


Did the One Ring itself (with Sauron as its master) maintain dominion over the Nine Rings to which the Nazgûl were utterly dominated? Or,
By holding the Nine Rings could Sauron establish control of the Nazgûl directly without the "requisite" of the One? Or,
Was Sauron, as master and Lord of the One Ring: after the usurpation of the wills of the Nazgûl maintaining his lordship over them without the need for the Nine?



Alcuin said:


> Now, let us return to Letter 246, to which you have been kind enough to direct my attention. A fuller quotation of the passage to which I referred is this:
> 
> So you are partly right: at a distance, a Power had the opportunity to withhold the Dingus, perhaps, but in the actual presence of Sauron, so much less so that no Mortal could keep it from him.



Yes, but you've also acknowledged (through Tolkien obviously) that a Challenge can be evinced at a distance. I'm glad you read through it as you and I are now on the same page. Now, could dominion of the Nazgûl be predicated from afar? Obviously such drastically blatant assertions would likely be quickly countered by Sauron; but Sauron may potentially no longer have such swift and impregnable agents to do his bidding such as the Nazgûl any longer! One could picture a situation where the Challenger actually uses the Nazgûl against their former master! What a concept!



Alcuin said:


> As for the Wise – the chiefs of the Eldar and the Wizards (Gandalf and Saruman, at any rate: I think the phrase “the Wise” refers to the White Council, more or less), Letter 246 continues,
> 
> I think Tolkien’s clear implication in this passage is that keeping the Ring from Sauron when he was not present would have been difficult in and of itself: it tended – indeed, it seems to have been designed – to overthrow the mind of its wearer and replace it with Sauron’s will, which willed its return to its maker. In actual confrontation with Sauron, even Gandalf wielding the Ring might have been overthrown. That is my interpretation; feel free to disagree if you think that Tolkien has also “(cleverly) circumvented” the matter.



I think you have actually circumvented again (but only slightly)! You're equating witholding the One Ring with predicating dominion over the Nazgûl (Predication) and the two need not necessarily be one and the same. A Challenge and what I will now refer to as "Predication" (see above) are not one and the same. The example I gave above such as a contest between the Nazgûl and Sauron demonstrates this. However this does not mean I don't see what (I think) you're driving at here. 



> On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron...





Alcuin said:


> I think Tolkien’s clear implication in this passage is that keeping the Ring from Sauron when he was not present would have been difficult in and of itself: it tended – indeed, it seems to have been designed – to overthrow the mind of its wearer and replace it with Sauron’s will



An interesting point, but I don't conceive that this was at all what Tolkien intended through the meaning of the word "allegiance". Whilst I personally like this concept; I can't bring myself to agree with it:



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - The Tower of Cirith Ungol*
> 
> He [Sam] felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the Ring, though it would torment him; *or to claim it, and challenge the Power that sat in its dark hold beyond the valley of shadows*. Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind: and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dûr. ... He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be.



I contend that "allegiance" in this sense is an 'imbued and inherent knowledge or mechanism' contained within the Ring to induce a desire of an assertion of will; to challenge Sauron. By doing so would achieve its goal of returning to the hand of its master as any Challenge would ultimately lead to the utter annihilation of the Challenger. Now you're making me "circumvent" myself!!! 



Alcuin said:


> What I choose to discuss in a thread, since it is not a class (or work!) assignment, is my own business until I am reined in by one of the moderators (which does happen from time to time). I do not think my musings far afield.
> 
> Please don’t begrudge a good thread that meanders in its way.



You know what Alcuin? You're alright! Class dismissed.


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 9, 2008)

Illuin said:


> Again, a specific answer to that particular question is not written (though it maybe alluded to implicitly); so supposition is what we are left with. It’s clearly documented over and over that Sauron did indeed have the Nine Rings in his possession, so that part of the equation can be put on the shelf. The question you asked is WHY?
> 
> The answer is alluded to here:
> 
> Particularly the last clause (underlined). Somehow "through the nine rings" Sauron had chief control. There was a some kind of metaphysical connection between the Nazgûl and the Nine Rings, though they weren‘t wearing them; and this letter (with it’s emphasis on "*which he held*") seems to imply that *because Sauron "held" the Nine Rings, the Nazgûl would ALWAYS be under Sauron’s control. *



And the winner to the most on-topic post is... (drumroll)... ILLUIN!!! Thank you very much for staying on top of things Illuin.  I particularly like the "metaphysical connection" reference. This is 100% correct and is exactly what I've been driving at.



Illuin said:


> Now all we can do is speculate. You told Gordis this:
> 
> Well, unfortunately "concrete" is not possible; because Tolkien is no longer around to provide us with a "concrete" answer. But referring back to that last clause in #246, I believe there is a bit more to it than what you propose in your original question (i.e. simply a "_precautionary measure_").



??? Refer me to where I said that!!!



Illuin said:


> It would seem (speculation of course) that during the process of becoming a Wraith, a permanent essence, or conduit between Sauron and Wraith is formed (a "spiritual wormhole" as it were ), and when the process is over, that conduit is permanent. The Nine Rings are no longer needed; the process is done; the permanent connection is made. The Rings can now return to Sauron. The Nazgûl are still bound to their Rings, only now, through that conduit where the greater power now possesses them. Akin to the One Ring; it almost seems as if a part of the Nazgûl's essence (or instinct) is also embodied in the Nine Rings, and that instinct can be manipulated now that Sauron possesses them. It doesn't matter if Sauron does not have the One Ring at this point; because the spiritual connection has already been made.


 
And that's what I was purporting in the list I wrote to Alcuin. This has been my contention also and I'm very impressed in the way which it was conveyed.



Illuin said:


> Now (speculation and imagination once again ); taking into consideration that last clause in #246; let’s say Aragorn hypothetically mastered control over The One Ring. Could he control the Nazgûl even though Sauron still possessed the Nine Rings? Or would the Nazgûl have to put on their Rings again for a "new conduit" to be formed between them and the new "Lord of The Rings"?



You've nailed it. Quintessentially (were no longer looking at this essentially  ) the question is can this "metaphysical connection" be disrupted and ultimately severed through the Challenge by a possessor of the One? Does Sauron's proprietary rights in the Nine Robots become forfeit once a Challenger of sufficient will and strength makes a possessory claim?



Illuin said:


> Perhaps if it was someone with the strength of Aragorn or Saruman, it wouldn’t matter if Sauron had the Nine Rings or not, the Nazgûl would ultimately bow to another master. I'm also not entirely convinced that Saruman wasn't simply "doin' his thang" and spreading the BS on thick like he always does with his creepy voice powers. Anyway, just a few thoughts. I could go on all morning, but I have to get ready for another day. Speculation, sure; but we can only work with what we are given, and play with what we are not .



This is where you and I (who have been word for word on the same page until now) possibly disagree. Emphasis on the word possibly, however, as the theory you are purporting is only one of the three possibilities listed above. It depends solely on the nature of the "spiritual wormhole" (as you put it). Perhaps it can be put this way? Sauron held the Nine Rings; was he then, through the Nine or not, the Master of the Nazgûl or was the One Ring their Master? Unfortunately it's late and I must sleep; I'll get back to this with some more evidence tomorrow but more likely the day after. This is starting to get interesting.


----------



## Illuin (Dec 9, 2008)

> Originally posted by Úlairi
> _I particularly like the "metaphysical connection" reference._


 
Well, given the somewhat limited information we have; it’s the only way I personally have understood this. However, I’m sure other forum members have theories that are equally viable.



> Originally posted by Úlairi
> _??? Refer me to where I said that!!!_


 
You mistakenly quoted _my response_ to your statement to Gordis. It’s the paragraph above that (in the quotation box). Honest mistake. Been there, done that .


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 9, 2008)

Úlairi said:


> Alcuin said:
> 
> 
> > Sauron sent … the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring. … Frodo … had grown since [Weathertop]. 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 …; they would have … feigned to obey … minor commands … 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...
> ...


Here you have made an assertion that is plainly contrary to the text. Frodo could not control the Nine: “*They [noparse][[/noparse]the Nazgûl[noparse]][/noparse] were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring.*” In the _Letter_, Tolkien says that as an analogy, we should consider a small man with a devastating weapon facing eight fierce, skilled warriors whose cult made the weapon an object of fear and worship; but the Nazgûl were not, nor according to this _Letter_ would they come, under the “control” of Frodo. 

I cannot agree with you here. You have made an incorrect assertion.



Úlairi said:


> In a situation where Saruman would assert lordship over the Nazgûl would they have then become wholly subservient to him? Saruman was of the same genus as Sauron; but did he have the inherent power to do so?


Saruman thought they would become subservient to him. It was the power of his voice, however, that persuaded the Lord of the Nazgûl to immediately take his merry band and head across Eriador to The Shire. (Read the text in _Unfinished Tales_.) 

“Saruman was of the same genus as Sauron” – what do you mean here, they were both of the Maiar of Aulë in their origins? Or that they were simply both Maiar? Tolkien does say that they were very similar in their origins, and that Sauron quickly understood Saruman and his motives, which gave him considerable advantage in dealing with the morally wobbly wizard. 

Tolkien does say that Gandalf could have wielded the Ring, and if you’ll notice, he also discusses Gandalf with the Ring confronting Sauron; the situation with Saruman should have been similar: 


> It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors.


-



Úlairi said:


> I think you have actually circumvented again…! You're equating witholding the One Ring with predicating dominion over the Nazgûl (Predication) and the two need not necessarily be one and the same. A Challenge and what I will now refer to as "Predication" (see above) are not one and the same. The example I gave above such as a contest between the Nazgûl and Sauron demonstrates this. However this does not mean I don't see what (I think) you're driving at here.


I’m not “going around” anything. I am asserting that, in _Tolkien’s_ example of _Gandalf_ possessing the One Ring _in the presence of_ Sauron and (presumably) of the Nazgûl as well, “*It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession*”. That’s the author’s private assessment; I was unaware that yours might be more accurate. 

This same reply goes for your description of “allegiance”. I agree with you that _“‘allegiance’ in this sense is an ‘imbued and inherent knowledge or mechanism’ contained within the Ring,” _*BUT NOT*_ “to induce a desire of an assertion of will; to challenge Sauron.”_ That was a deceit of the Ring’s, as Sam wisely recognized in the Pass of Cirith Ungol, an attempt by the Ring to get Sam to reveal himself to its maker. I think you are right in that this seems to have been an intention of the Ring’s: it was one of the things that Gandalf believed Sauron relied upon to convince himself that Aragorn had taken when he marched on Morannon. But it was not part of the “allegiance” of the Ring: it was either a deceit to reveal itself (as Sam recognized it), or it was simply a side-effect of the overbearing will of Sauron to dominate everyone around him that was embedded in the Ring.

The Ring was imbued with the evil will and most of the power of Sauron himself: in it was the greater part of himself, and he never envisaged that it might be destroyed. I think it had what we would call “programming”: it did various things under certain circumstances, such as slip off fingers, or call home (as with Frodo on Amon Hen), and it constantly urged the holder to consider it Precious and seek to prevent it harm. It also had an uncanny knack of drawing evil things to itself and asserting its control over the minds of those who had it: all these things, I think, are products of the fact that a large part of Sauron himself was in the Ring, and Sauron had a rather overwhelming personality. The Ring seems to me also to have some sort of sentience; but perhaps that is merely a trick of the tale, since Tolkien describes it as a “machine”. 


But as for “_allegiance_,” the “allegiance” of the Ring was to itself, and hence to its maker, Sauron, whose will and most of whose power were in it. That is why, I think, even if Gandalf wielded it in the presence of Sauron, Tolkien says that, “It would be a delicate balance.” The Nazgûl would be caught in that war of wills; and whichever side won, Ringless-Sauron or Ring-Gandalf, they would follow; otherwise, they might well lie on the ground and writhe in agony; or at best, be drawn first to one Ringlord and then to the other until the contest was settled.

In the meantime, to continue Tolkien’s example, if Gandalf bore the Ring _outside_ the presence of Sauron, and the Nazgûl showed up as they did at Saruman’s front door, and Gandalf (or Saruman) said, “Dance the watootsie”, the Nine Nasty Nazgûl would no doubt have a grand ole’ time. 


*Úlairi*, I am confused by your use of the words _predication_ and _evinced_. I have never quite mastered the art of Humpty-Dumpty. _To evince_ seems to me to generally mean “to demonstrate” something, and I am not certain how anything was demonstrated. _Predication_, from “_to predicate_”, might mean a sermon; there is certainly a bit of preaching in the forum from time to time. I assume you are not talking about _predicates_ in sentence structure; do you mean “the logical affirmation of something about another; … assignment of something to a class”?


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 12, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> Here you have made an assertion that is plainly contrary to the text. Frodo could not control the Nine: “*They [noparse][[/noparse]the Nazgûl[noparse]][/noparse] were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring.*” In the _Letter_, Tolkien says that as an analogy, we should consider a small man with a devastating weapon facing eight fierce, skilled warriors whose cult made the weapon an object of fear and worship; but the Nazgûl were not, nor according to this _Letter_ would they come, under the “control” of Frodo.
> 
> I cannot agree with you here. You have made an incorrect assertion.



*I completely disagree*. What I simply _failed_ to do was explain myself more clearly. You've taken Tolkien completely out of context here, Alcuin. If you re-read the paragraph above:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - _#_246:From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar_
> 
> *Frodo had become a considerable person, but of special kind: in spiritual enlargement rather than in increase of physical or mental power; his will was much stronger than it had been, but so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the Ring and with the object of destroying it. He needed time, much time, before he could control the Ring or (which in such a case is the same) before it could control him; before his will and arrogance could grow to a stature in which he could dominate other major hostile wills.*



There you have it. By considering the example of Frodo, in a situation where his will was undeveloped and lacking time to do so and equating that to any Mortal Challenger failing to establish lordship over the Nazgûl; you have taken the quote out of context. Tolkien was simply discussing the situation as it was at Mount Doom. Frodo needed time to _control_ the Ring and thus assert his will and dominion over the Nazgûl; which was a luxury that he unfortunately (due to Sauron's proximity) didn't have. Frodo, at that critical point at Sammath Naur was fundamentally incapable of wielding the Ring to any lasting effect as he is unable to withstand Sauron's sheer and oppressive might. The Ring's _power of lust_ over a prolonged period would, as we saw with Sam's delusions of grandeur, _increase_ Frodo _spiritually_ in both will and desire for domination; and hence he would issue a Challenge not simply over the lordship of the Ring itself, but over the Nazgûl. If you read also the paragraph above this one:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - _#_246:From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar_
> 
> *He had grown since then. Would they have been immune from its power if he had claimed it as an instrument of command and domination?
> Not wholly.*



Even at the point where Frodo claimed the One Ring as his own and established himself as its _new possessor_ (see below) if it had been claimed as an instrument of domination Frodo was ergo capable of claiming lordship over the Nazgûl, slaves of Sauron *through subservience to the One Ring*. Another quote that demonstrates Tolkien's view on the matter is:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #131: To Milton Waldman_
> *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 and usurp his place.*



The discussion on mortals in reference to these letters is that they would, ultimately, be obliterated by Sauron. However, the _Letter_ above elucidates that _some other_ (potentially Frodo) could Challenge Sauron and become master of all that was learnt and done by Sauron up until that point, which is inclusive of the lordship of the Nazgûl. Once such a Challenge was issued, Sauron would come in unveiled power and eradicate them from the face of the earth, re-affirming the lordship over his property as the Challenger and thus the Challenge no longer existed. If you look at a few posts above, there is the five-point formulaic explanation based on this _Letter_. An assertion of will and domination by Frodo simply could not have been wholly resisted by the Nazgûl; and a person of significant stature and strength could potentially assert such lordship. Tolkien does not rule this out *whatsoever* due to the Nazgûl understanding of lordship *apropos of Frodo*.



Alcuin said:


> Saruman thought they would become subservient to him. It was the power of his voice, however, that persuaded the Lord of the Nazgûl to immediately take his merry band and head across Eriador to The Shire. (Read the text in _Unfinished Tales_.)



That point was never in dispute. Saruman certainly did _think_ this; such was the _effect at a distance_ of the One Ring. However in reference to _Letter_ #_131_, Saruman is a perfect candidate not only to establish lordship over the Nazgûl; but also contend with the might of Sauron and be victorious in the ensuing confrontation. Now I'm perfectly aware that Tolkien in _Letter_ #_246_ that only Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel are considered to be successful contenders; but I would like to add Saruman into that mix. No doubt over time he had diminished in stature and potency; he was nonetheless a Maiar, an _Istar_ and thus a formidable opponent, especially with such a devastating weapon at his disposal, and I see that you agree:



Alcuin said:


> Tolkien does say that Gandalf could have wielded the Ring, and if you’ll notice, he also discusses Gandalf with the Ring confronting Sauron; the situation with Saruman should have been similar:



And is it is here that we are in complete agreeance.



Alcuin said:


> “Saruman was of the same genus as Sauron” – what do you mean here, they were both of the Maiar of Aulë in their origins? Or that they were simply both Maiar? Tolkien does say that they were very similar in their origins, and that Sauron quickly understood Saruman and his motives, which gave him considerable advantage in dealing with the morally wobbly wizard.



I meant a bit of both; but more toward the fact that they were both Maiar.



Alcuin said:


> I’m not “going around” anything. I am asserting that, in _Tolkien’s_ example of _Gandalf_ possessing the One Ring _in the presence of_ Sauron and (presumably) of the Nazgûl as well, “*It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession*”. That’s the author’s private assessment; I was unaware that yours might be more accurate.



You conveyed your (and not Tolkien's) concept of _allegiance_ to be that of:



Alcuin said:


> I think Tolkien’s clear implication in this passage is that keeping the Ring from Sauron when he was not present would have been difficult in and of itself: it tended – indeed, it seems to have been designed – *to overthrow the mind of its wearer and replace it with Sauron’s will, which willed its return to its maker*. In actual confrontation with Sauron, even Gandalf wielding the Ring might have been overthrown. That is my interpretation; feel free to disagree if you think that Tolkien has also “(cleverly) circumvented” the matter.



That (whilst a very interesting concept) is in no way whatsoever substantiated. The Nine Rings in this sense indeed _replaced the will of the_ Nazgûl _with Sauron's_; however the mechanistics involved with the One Ring were inherently different as it was the master of all Rings. Whilst I agree with this to an extent; that indeed Frodo's will was being _eroded_ by Sauron's ultimately irresistable dominance (through physical application of it); this _resistance_ also served to strengthen the will of Frodo (see _Letter_ #_131_). Thus Sauron's will never _replaced_ Frodo's; and especially Gandalf's.


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 12, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> This same reply goes for your description of “allegiance”. I agree with you that _“‘allegiance’ in this sense is an ‘imbued and inherent knowledge or mechanism’ contained within the Ring,” _*BUT NOT*_ “to induce a desire of an assertion of will; to challenge Sauron.”_ That was a deceit of the Ring’s, as Sam wisely recognized in the Pass of Cirith Ungol, an attempt by the Ring to get Sam to reveal himself to its maker. I think you are right in that this seems to have been an intention of the Ring’s: it was one of the things that Gandalf believed Sauron relied upon to convince himself that Aragorn had taken when he marched on Morannon. But it was not part of the “allegiance” of the Ring: it was either a deceit to reveal itself (as Sam recognized it), or it was simply a side-effect of the overbearing will of Sauron to dominate everyone around him that was embedded in the Ring.



I am willing to concede (some) ground on this point; as I have claimed that your interpretation of allegiance is unsubstantiated. As is mine in various respects. However, you (unwisely  ) have given an example of where this mechanism was employed by the One Ring before. I would contend (on a theoretical basis) that _allegiance_ in my context would be a surer and swifter way for the Ring to return to the hand of Sauron (and that is how I am interpreting _allegiance_ in this context). To elaborate further; that quote given where Sam is tempted by the Ring represents a quintessential dichotomy: _to wear or not to wear - that is the question_. Sam was presented (by the One Ring) with two options. There was a clear distinction between the will of the Ring and Sam's own will. It was through temptation *and not usurpation* that the Ring acted upon Sam. Sam did not feel diminished in anyway with respect to the Ring *but quite the opposite, he felt empowered*; as did Frodo. No individual in their right mind would conceive challenging Sauron mano-e-mano without the _deceit_ and _allegiance_ of the Ring to Sauron. If you have another look at the _Letter_ #_246_ quote above, Tolkien *equates* the control of the One Ring over its possessor to that of *his will and arrogance [growing] to a stature in which he could dominate other major hostile wills*. So _control of the Ring which is in allegiance with Sauron_ = _an inducement of a desire to assert one's will_. Thus if this was the primary action of the Ring upon the will of its wearer it would be logical to interpret the meaning of _allegiance_ within this construct. We are obviously going into the inherent _sentience_ of the Ring here; which was always a troublesome (but indeed my favourite of all) discussion. 



Alcuin said:


> But as for “_allegiance_,” the “allegiance” of the Ring was to itself, and hence to its maker, Sauron, whose will and most of whose power were in it. That is why, I think, even if Gandalf wielded it in the presence of Sauron, Tolkien says that, “It would be a delicate balance.” The Nazgûl would be caught in that war of wills; and whichever side won, Ringless-Sauron or Ring-Gandalf, they would follow; otherwise, they might well lie on the ground and writhe in agony; or at best, be drawn first to one Ringlord and then to the other until the contest was settled.



Here you and I agree completely as to where this _allegiance_ is dervied from. I am arguing (based on several quotes above) however, that lordship of the Nazgûl could be asserted *before[/i] such an outcome had eventuated. The example of the Nazgûl combating their former master is a demonstration of this idea. 



Alcuin said:



Úlairi, I am confused by your use of the words predication and evinced.

Click to expand...


I'm sorry, this is the Law student coming out in me. Evince here is expressly meant to be to declare. I will use the word declare from now on. Evince can be a synonym of declare; but you (and now I) understand it to be a poorly used one. As for predicate that is simply another word for assert. I'll continue to use those two interchangeably; but do not worry any longer about the word evince.*


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 20, 2008)

This discussion has reached any sense of finality whatsoever and I hope can be revitalized. I'll play nice if need be. This thread is being discussed on another board at the moment (in which I've played a small part ). 

Have a look at it here.

Perhaps we can divide the question into _smaller constituents_ and then come to a conclusion on the _topic in its entirety_.

I think the next valid question would be:

*With the Nine Rings in Sauron's possession was he able to exert his own influence (or being) over the Nazgûl without the requisite possession of the One Ring?*

If I've been overbearing then I promise I won't be from henceforward (in this thread ). I truly want to get to the bottom of this discussion and am open to any (logical) interpretation and potentially conjecture.  It may be discomforting to know that on the other board this topic has become quite popular! 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## YayGollum (Dec 20, 2008)

How's about you stop being overbearing everywhere? You seem to think that it could be helpful here. Would it be unhelpful elsewhere, or is it just too boring? The latter would be understandable. 

The answer to your question ---> Yes.

Yes, although, it makes little sense, when first I read the quotes about the nine human rings being more effective on these guys than Sauron's favorite. Okay, so, they wear their rings, then they lose their will to them. Once they've been Ringwraithized, they get to keep all of their creepy powers without wearing their rings. Are their wills trapped inside their rings, and Sauron has more direct control over them through that which they are now a part of than if he was using his favorite as an extra step? Could anyone do this, if they got a hold on the WitchKing's ring and figured out how to work the thing (I doubt that Sauron made many copies of the instruction manual)? I was confused because I had always thought of the One Ring as the only one with the evil power to control people. They came with different powers, and Sauron's was focused on controlling people. Did Sauron program in the option for him to control someone who'd been Ringwraithized by any random ring? That seems like a crazy person risk to take. Nah. I am figuring that Sauron could do it because he was an Ainur with a predilection for messing with people's brains, the rings were tied to their Ringwraiths, and Sauron had bits of himself in each of their rings, anyways. Mayhaps one of the elves who helped make them could have used the Ringwraiths, too.


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 21, 2008)

YayGollum said:


> How's about you stop being overbearing everywhere? You seem to think that it could be helpful here. Would it be unhelpful elsewhere, or is it just too boring? The latter would be understandable.


 
You know what Yay? I don't even have to be _overbearing_ in this thread with posts like that... as you've actually _inspired_ an idea that I've inferred from your post. I guess all I can say is... _thanks_. Wait! No! Being... TOO... *NICE... MUST... STOP... SELF* *veins in head begin to pulsate*



YayGollum said:


> The answer to your question ---> Yes.


 
I guess the above question in a sense was _rhetorical _as you and I are in complete agreeance; but if anyone has any viable theories as to why Sauron was incapable of exerting his power of the Nine Rings _separately _I'm all ears.



YayGollum said:


> Yes, although, it makes little sense, when first I read the quotes about the nine human rings being more effective on these guys than Sauron's favorite.


 
Where does it say this Yay? Somewhere in the _Histories_? That quote would be quite helpful to this discussion.



YayGollum said:


> Okay, so, they wear their rings, then they lose their will to them. Once they've been Ringwraithized, they get to keep all of their creepy powers without wearing their rings. Are their wills trapped inside their rings, and Sauron has more direct control over them through that which they are now a part of than if he was using his favorite as an extra step?'


 
I don't quite see it as an _entrapment of will_ but rather a _usurpation_. If you look at the above quotes there are a few references to the Nazgûl _having no will but Sauron's_. They fell prey to the dominion of the One Ring and lost their inherent identity in the process; merely becoming agents of Sauron's indomitable will. Perhaps an analysis of the _metaphysical connection_ between Sauron and the Nine Rings is in order. To analyze this; it is necessary to understand the inherent power of the One Ring in this respect. Once under the dominion of the One Ring they arguably become subservient to Sauron (see quotes above). Is there any need for the One Ring after such a subservience is established? However Saruman's veiled threat of becoming their Lord in UT and the possibility of Gandalf's victory in _Letter_ #_246_ places this in the context where both would become _master of all that he had learned or done since the One Ring's making_. Thus, to an extent the One Ring is needed to _maintain dominion_. This then leaves the explanation that the Nine Rings were perhaps a s_ecurity bond_ and Sauron could exert power over them through the Rings. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now for the idea. Sauron controlled the Nine Rings through the One Ring, master of all Rings and the One Ring was simply a _concentration_ of the Power of Sauron to establish dominance over the races of Middle-earth. He divulged a great part of his own _inherent being_ to achieve this. Thus once this was achieved all the Rings of Power were *not only* s_ubject_ to the One Ring; but Sauron's own being; as they are arguably *one and the same*. This may have been Sauron's greatest achievement as because he had done this; he _extended his inherent being or will_ (I often equate the two in this context). Thus the Nine Rings were merely extensions of Sauron's own being and any who attempted to use them fell under his dominion. This is perhaps a viable explanation as to why the One Ring appears to be dormant for centuries and then _re_-_awakens_ once Sauron (his being and will) is _re_-_kindled_ and why Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond were able to use their Rings during this period. In terms of the question as to why the Nazgûl were still capable of action without Sauron's possession of the One it was because he _no longer required it_. This brings up the interesting question, however, as to why the Three Rings (_if they are extensions of Sauron's inherent being_) did not subvert their bearers. Perhaps this was because they weren't touched by Sauron's hand, which may have been a requisite. Or because they were dominated by Sauron but would have been if they had continued to wear them in Sauron's continued presence (i.e. not being _disembodied_ at Gorgoroth).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



YayGollum said:


> Could anyone do this, if they got a hold on the WitchKing's ring and figured out how to work the thing (I doubt that Sauron made many copies of the instruction manual)? I was confused because I had always thought of the One Ring as the only one with the evil power to control people.


 
Funny you bring that up. When I first started reading Tolkien I believed the same thing until I realized the true nature behind the Nine and the Seven. The One Ring was simply master of a hierarchy of _Subverted Rings_, the One Ring (in a sense) being _subverted_ itself!  As for using the Witch-king's Ring; it would have had the same effect (on a Mortal Man) as it did on the Nazgûl and I imagine if there were a threat Sauron may have used the Eight to _reclaim_ it. That is an interesting question though. 



YayGollum said:


> They came with different powers, and Sauron's was focused on controlling people. Did Sauron program in the option for him to control someone who'd been Ringwraithized by any random ring? That seems like a crazy person risk to take. Nah. I am figuring that Sauron could do it because he was an Ainur with a predilection for messing with people's brains, the rings were tied to their Ringwraiths, and Sauron had bits of himself in each of their rings, anyways. Mayhaps one of the elves who helped make them could have used the Ringwraiths, too.


 
And this I agree with also; a _failsafe mechanism_. Interesting _Harry Potter_ reference.  Note Yay that you've *actually answered* the _intial question_ of whether Sauron did it as a _precautionary measure _in a certain respect here also. And here you've also mentioned the _bits of himself in the Rings _but what I'm claiming through his _Lordship_ is that not just _bits of the Rings_ had the being of Sauron contained within them but that Sauron was _present entirely through the One Ring_. His will in its e_ntirety_ was present in all Rings of Power, including the Three (but they are definitely a different matter).

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## YayGollum (Dec 22, 2008)

Firstly ---> *attempts to choke vomit down* I have nothing to do with that sickening harry potter stuff. I have dodged as much knowledge of the stuff as possible. Everyone who comes in contact with it becomes hypnotized! It happened all around me! It was horrifying! I changed the channel when I saw a commercial! I hid in the closet while my horrible family watched the movies! I couldn't look at their bookcases anymore! *shudders* It won't get me! 

Anyways, towards where Tolkien writes that the nine human rings were more effective than Sauron's favorite, I got the information from a quote that you provided. Their nine rings had primary control over their wills, meaning that the One Ring merely offered secondary control, I figure. Primary and a half? Oh, they were only primary because Sauron didn't have his favorite on him at the time? Nah. Employing the One Ring was still an extra step. Not a large deal. 

Also, I don't see that Sauron built such a failsafe mechanism into any of the rings. Whatever the nine human rings did with their bearer's wills, because they had been conquered by them, anybody who knew how could control the Ringwraiths if they had their rings. They were spiritually linked to the things. However one taps into a Ring Of Power, if one were to tap into a Ringwraith's, they would be faced with what might as well be all that's left of their soul, or their new excuse for a soul. I suppose that someone could figure out how to control the person connected to the ring, but I don't see that they were built with that in mind, unlike the One Ring, which was made to mess with the brains of those controlling other Rings Of Power. Mayhaps someone could discern the connection from any random ring and rework things so they could mess with the guy controlling the One Ring? Nah. It's better. 

The other Rings Of Power had mechanisms for working all kinds of cool magics for people, and they had a channel to the One Ring. I figure the whole thing about becoming a Ringwraith has Sauron in mind, pulling strings. I don't see that the other rings had any kind of will to them. Any non-Sauron-involved message with bearers would be along the lines of mortals heading for Valinor and burning out due to the overwhelming amounts of radiation (or creepy magic or whatever).

Towards all of the Rings Of Power might as well being Sauron, I call it craziness. They were tools, injected with Sauron's spiritual energy. Anglachel spoke, not with Eol's will, from afar, somehow. Some of his spiritual energy had gone into it, via what was apparently the natural method for great works of art by elves. It was made to be an awesome weapon, so it said, "Sure, I'll take whoever's blood. It's what I was made for. I'm good at it." The One Ring seemed to have been programmed a bit more specifically, but I don't see that Sauron divided his consciousness.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 23, 2008)

*I can't believe I read the whole thing......

Ulari, You might get better results if you didn't treat this discussion like you were a sophisticated Ivy League professor with a PHD pompously trying to teach a bunch of bumpkins from the Ozarks.......

The problem with Tolkien is you can often produce slighty varying quotes, especially when bringing in texts unpublished by the author & therefore not necessarily approved as 'canon' by him or even refined for publication.
Heck, some aren't even completed once through & are obviously at odds with those the author published.......

Yet, this is what we all go on.

Here's one:*

So is this, from Unfinished Tales, “The Hunt for the Ring”, when Saruman avoids confrontation with the Nine, speaking to them by an enchantment laid upon the locked gate of Isengard (it was easier for me to find in the lumberyard of my mind),


Quote:
“I have it not, as surely its servants perceive without telling; for if I had it, then you would bow before me and call me Lord.”

*Now this needs to be picked apart a bit.....

First, Saruman says it, not Gandalf, Who Tolkien uses as the all knowing 'voice of information' speaking in 'The Shadow of the Past'. Gandalf states this explectively in that chapter: "There is only one Power in this world that all about the Rings & their effects."
It's simply the deceptive voice of Saruman selling this line to the Black Riders.

Saruman despite having long studied Ringlore, does not have all the answers to the Ring. If he did, the ring on his finger he made himself could control the Nazgul instead of being powerless.

This line simply cannot be used as proof of anything.


Now, without any furthur adu (I know), back to the original question.
I can't believe that this hasn't been brought up - I always just assumed it was so obvious. 

First, I think the original two posts by our esteemed Prof. Ulari are quite impressive & chock full of great quotes.

I think there's adequate proof there that the Nazgul were slaves to their rings, walked in the 'Unseen' wraith world permanently & were under the Lordship of Sauron, One Ring on his finger or no.

It is quite certain that they wore the Nine until some time in the Third Age after Sauron began to grow.
Why?
If Sauron was wearing them in the Second Age, Isildur would've cut them off too......

Perhaps Sauron stored the Nine Rings in Barad-Dur?
Nope. Barad-Dur was destroyed at the end of the Second Age, save for it's foundations, rebuilt in the Third Age.

So, the Nazgul have the Nine Rings in the beginning of the Third Age, but don't do a darn thing on their own until after Sauron begins to stir. Then, we see the Witch-king of Angmar pop up 300 years later & after he takes down the North Kingdom, takes out Minas Ithil & the line of Anarion.

Now, what happens to their Rings?

Sometime during this period, they give their Nine Rings to Sauron when he demands them......

So much for the Nazgul having wills of their own.

Why, if the Nazgul have no wills of their own, does Sauron want their Rings?

*

The Shadow of the Past:

'So it is now: The Nine he (Sauron) has gathered to himself; the Seven also, or are destroyed...."

*It always seemed so simple to me:

They are called Rings of POWER.
Sauron has taken them back to enhance his own power, especially without the One Ring.
That's the same reason he's trying to collect the Seven.
Simple as that.*


----------

