Truthfully, I think it is a split decision. I think for every point I make, which is completely valid, there is an equally valid counterpoint. But I will continue, because I feel that the Ring is somehow more... something, and I like trying to think it out.

The reasons I say the Ring has more dominant characteristics are as follows:

Sauron is searching with a large portion of his resources to find it. In this I see Gollum, as I pointed out in my first post. He is so infatuatied with the Ring that he bends most of himself to get it back. I think if Sauron had been less concerned about finding his 'precious', he could have swept Gondor and Rohan much sooner and taken Middle-Earth rather easily.

As pointed out, the Ring does want to get back to Sauron. But to do this it does nothing. It simply is carried by a someone who will eventually succomb to the will of the One. In this way, by doing nothing, it will get back to Sauron. By simply existing, it is a driving force.

The Ring's effects are lasting. Gollum, and to a lesser extent Bilbo and Frodo, were eternally effected by bearing the Ring. Perhaps Sauron could overpower someone's will, but I think that once he stopped bending his will upon them, they would not feel such a pain as the Ring left. Of course, that's only conjecture.

Finally, I still say that the Ring seems more essential to the survival of the seperate-but-one will. It's destroyed, Sauron's finished. It's not destroyed, Sauron's still out there.

I can't help but think of the folktale of the Giant's Heart. The Giant places his heart in an object, puts it in a safe place & can go about his nefarious business in the knowledge that he cannot be killed.

Of course, Sauron negates this advantage by keeping the Ring on his person. Having said that, he does ensure that the Ring is all but impossible to destroy, both physically (it has to be thrown into the Fires of the Sammath Naur) &, if you will psychologically/spiritually (it will corrupt anyone who tries to take it to the Fire).

Actually, its a pretty good strategy - its as near impossible to destroy the Ring as it can be. The mistake Sauron makes is to think 'nearly impossible' is the same thing as impossible.

In one sense Sauron & the Ring are 'one', in another they are seperate entities, because Sauron has effectively split himself in two - Sauron is in Barad Dur, the Ring is with the Ring-bearers. The Ring, for instance, cannot physically kill Frodo, Sauron, if he got his hands on him, could - or worse.


In Osanwe Kenta (published in Vinyar Tengwar 39) Tolkien writes:

So, to incarnate makes a Valar/Maiar physically more powerful - they can slap you around for instance, but it also isolates the individual form other beings, & makes them dependant on the physical - from a need for food, clothing, shelter to having increasingly to rely on physical forms of communication (writing: the Ring verse, & speech).

The creation (or should we say 'manufacture' of the Ring is kind of the ultimate form of incarnation: rather than incarnating his fea in a living body, Sauron incarnates a part of it at least in an object: Sauron is pushing 'incarnation' to its extreme.

Sauron was beyond this. At the end of the Third Age he had become truly incarnate, in that he required a body to operate. He could no longer change his appearance or reclothe himself at will. If the Ring had not existed, his "death" at the hand of Elendil would likely have been the true end of him.

I don't think this confusion ever entered into it. The idea didn't even occur to him that someone would want to destroy the Ring. If it had, he probably would've been camping out at Mount Doom himself. Or maybe he'd have collapsed its opening, or sealed it with some invisible barrier.

You mean to be clothed makes an eala--in a sense--more powerful. In Tolkien's work the difference between these terms is essential, so I don't believe it's a minor quibble to point out that to incarnate implies a weakening of the being's spirit. Incarnation of an eala is never a willful act in Tolkien's work, and to be incarnate brings the possibility of being slain as an Incarnate (capital denotes those whose nature is incarnate). Meaning that the spirit that is released is greatly depleted and may never be able to take physical form, which it now requires to have any effective existence.

I don't think the same word or principle applies. When an eala incarnates, what he becomes is the physical manifestation of his "spiritual self". That's why Tolkien mentions the dark lords finally being unable to look fair and ever after appearing terrible. The Ring is not a physical incarnation of a portion of Sauron's power, it's an object infused with his power. As an aside, I believe that the will that is attributed to the Ring itself is not, in fact, due to any will put into the Ring, but is due to Sauron's will imposed on the Ring from afar. After all, he is said to 'always be in rapport with it.'

I think your analogy of the giant's heart fits well.

On the incarnate matter, if Sauron and Morgoth wanted to be powerful and ever-lasting, why did they even make themselves bodies to begin with? It just sounds plain stupid to me.

Possibly because as spirits they would have less control on the physical realm... sure, they could adopt a temporary shape (and that is probably how it started, as we see both Morgoth and Sauron able to appear as very beautiful and noble as well as very frightful and terrible) yet after a while they could no longer leave or change their physical shape.

Besides, we 'know' that by being incarnated they had really great physical powers... and that's what both Melkor and Sauron wanted, power and control over the physical world, as they knew the spiritual world belonged to Eru and the Valar

Yeah, there appears to be a necessity for a corporeal form for directly influencing physical things. It's probably a discussion in itself, however.

Here's a quikie: Sauron poured his will and power into it, so he really created the mastery in the ring. He couldve taken over middle-earth without it, middle earth was lucky enough to have the ring in possesion of a bearer and knowledge of the wise. If the fellowship was sent out one month later, frodo mmight have been still in the Morgai as the Captains of the West challenged at the black gate. The Ring would have really helped though, and pleased Sauron.
________
Mobil economy run

To start with I have to confess something: I haven't read through all the posts in this thread so it is possible that I repeat things that are already said. But anyway, here's my view on this topic:

It's hard to tell who's the master. Of Turin it is said "Master of fate, by fate mastered" and I think this is similiar to the Sauron-Ring case. "Sauron, Master of the Ring, by the Ring mastered".

But why would someone do something as stupid as putting his power in a simple piece of jewelry, making himself vulnerable? Well one thing is for sure, Sauron wasn't stupid. He wouldn't have made the Ring if it wouldn't grant him greater powers. And with it's power to rule over the other rings, it would have given him a strong weapon against the elves and men. Now that plan didn't work as it was supposed to, Celebrimbor suspected something and made the Three. But I think that the Ring still gave Sauron greater powers than he would have gotten without it.

The fact that it made him vulnerable then?. Well, except for not being stupid, we also know of his pride. He wouldn't dream of losing the Ring, he was after all the Dark Lord! Of course it made him vulnerable, but only if it was taken from him and that wasn't supposed to happen.

But can we say that the ring is the true master? I think not. Within lay the power of Sauron, so one can say that it was a part of him. And even if it had it's own powers, it couldn't use it in full without the hand of it's master, as well as it's master Sauron couldn't use his powers fully without the Ring. So it's a give and take relation. The fact that Sauron was destroyed with the ring doesn't prove that it was his master, but they were depending on each other. If there was some other way of erasing Sauron (throw him into the Void maybe?), then perhaps the power of the ring would have been undone with him?

Great stuff, Gothmog!

I have suddenly thought of something else. Since Sauron and the Ring are essentially the same, despite their seperation, we've said that it is likely that none could 'master' the other. But I wonder if Sauron could master himself?

Perhaps Sauron did not possess all the self-control we would normally think such a tyrant would have(not that most tyrants always display overwhelming self-control!). Meaning, he could not control himself due to his anger, pride, or arrogance. If he did lack enough self-control, then maybe it is not so far off to say that he could not control his alter self, which is the Ring. Basically, neither the Ring nor Sauron were the master, because Sauron did not have the 'will' (not the best word) to control even himself.

Although, if you then assume the fact that the Ring's main power was in controlling or dominating other wills, it could mean that Sauron put much of his (limited) self-controlling power into the Ring. This would make me wonder if it didn't weaken his own, thus giving the Ring more dominating power than it's maker.

Interesting thinking, but is the power of self-control the same as the power to dominate others? Or is it possible that Sauron, though a lack of self-control, was able to control other's as the Ring was?

The lack of self-control shown by Sauron is more depending on his pride, his greed and lack of feelings for other living beings. It's not the power of his will that is to weak, but he doesn't have the will to stop himself, he rather enjoys not stopping himself...

Sorry, I don't have time to fully explain my thoughts about this, but I'll hopefully be back soon...

Good theories. Looking back, it does seem likely that Sauron had little control over himself.

Sauron should have waited longer before making the One Ring, so that the suspicions of Celebrimbor would have wavered.