Big Mystery: The Nine Rings of Power

[narfforc]

I have always thought that The Nine Rings were with The Nazgul, however you raise a good point, I have not got the passage at hand, but I am sure it states it somewhere, I also think at this time of Sauron's spirit fleeing Numenor and taking up the Great Ring again, which implies/means he left it behind when taken prisoner by Ar-Pharazon, or how could his bodiless spirit carry it back from The Downfall, this is not true of The Nazgul as they have a spirit body as such that is knitted together by power, or how else could they cloth themselves in solid matter . I have often wondered if Sauron was tempted to give the three that remained of The Seven to some other persons, would Sarumans greed for power and his jealousy of Gandalf overcome his wisdom, The Three could be worn by a non-elf why not one of the lesser rings. It seems a waste to have them idle, was the Ring that Saruman wore on his finger one of the Seven, we only have Sarumans word that he was a Ring-maker and we know how easily lies came to his mouth. I do not think that the destruction of The Lord of the Nazgul would have resulted in his Ring being destroyed, although once the One was destroyed it would just be a piece of metal. I believe that Legolas shot the winged steed and not the Ringwraith, as an arrow would not do any damage to a Nazgul.


P.S Just read The Council of Elrond, it states that the Nine are with The Nazgul, (The Nine the Nazgul keep states Gandalf).

Good subject Legate


.

[Thinlómien]

But maybe the Witch-King's Ring was destroyed (or it vanished just like the nazgûl himself) when he was killed...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by narfforc

P.S Just read The Council of Elrond, it states that the Nine are with The Nazgul, (The Nine the Nazgul keep states Gandalf).

Ah! Really thanks for that one, narfforc. Because it is, I believe, the only place where there is stated that the Nazgul indeed have the Rings. This is what I really thought strange: even when Frodo has the Ring on, there isn't mentioned, for example, that "he saw a terrible figure of a fallen King, who wore a ring on his finger".

Of course, if someone wanted to use it, the claim of Gandalf that the Nazgul keep the Nine could be contested with Galadriel's words to Frodo. We might say Gandalf and Galadriel could both have the same authority and knowledge on that subject - it would be probably best to hear Saruman's opinion on this, because he was an expert on the Rings, as Gandalf says. Galadriel's statement seems to oppose the quoted:

Originally Posted by Mirror of Galadriel

You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine.

This implies that Sauron himself has the Nine - though, of course, this is quite literal explanation. In the context however, it is quite probable that Galadriel means "Sauron has power over the Seven and the Nine" (not to mention he even doesn't have all of the Seven, only three of them) in contrast to the Three, which remain hidden and unstained.

On the other hand, the subject now moves to the line of "what the heck now happened with the Rings at the beginning of the 3rd age?" This has something to do with the incorporalness of the Ringwraith, and what exactly they can do.

Originally Posted by Many Meetings

"I know," said Frodo. "They were terrible to behold! But why could we all see their horses?"
"Because they are real horses; just as the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living."

The nazgul have real horses, real clothes, and of course, real rings. They can use the corporeal items even though they are incorporeal themselves. We could presume, if a Nazgul was not completely killed, but just lost his robes and equipment e.g. in the Bruinen flood, he would just look around and collect his sword&dagger&the Ring and then leave to purchase some new clothes. But the situation at the end of the 2nd Age is somewhat different: Sauron was "dead", the Nazgul disappeared - and what of the Rings?

Originally Posted by narfforc

I believe that Legolas shot the winged steed and not the Ringwraith, as an arrow would not do any damage to a Nazgul.

Of course, of course - but they fell from the sky, that's what I'm talking about, I didn't say it correctly. The creature fell down to the ground and the Ringwraith as well. Now, you know, I can easily imagine an incorporeal nazgul parachutist crawling on the riverbank and searching for his Ring...

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

But maybe the Witch-King's Ring was destroyed (or it vanished just like the nazgûl himself) when he was killed...

Maybe. Or maybe there is a skipped passage in the book and there was something more sinister behind Eomer's cry "Death, death take us all..."

Once again, really thanks for your contributions to this topic to both of you! And I'm awaiting if anyone else has anything to say to this.

[The Might]

Ok...I'm a little confused here, so if I am right
The whole question here is did the Nazgul still have the Rings or did Sauron hold the Rings during the War of the Ring?
Well, as stated in the UT, when Sauron sent the Nazgul on their errand towards the end of June 3018, he still held the Rings.

...being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held ~ UT, Hunt for the Ring

But as is pointed out, they seem to have had the Rings with them when they travel to Eriador...which doesn't make any sense
I'm really confused now

Also, allow me to quote from the Letters:

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.

This letter deals with Frodo's 'failure' in the Sammath Naur and so, it clearly states that the Nazgul did not have their rings during the battle at the Black Gate, and so also probably not during the Siege of Minas Tirith (so much for the WK idea).

I think they never possesed the Rings during this whole time, and that they were always held by Sauron.
As far as what Frodo saw is concerned, I am not sure what to say

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, basically, had there not been the quote that narfforc mentioned, I'd say the Rings really were on Sauron's hand all the time... the more on what you brought forth here, TM... this was actually my first idea in this topic...

As we have only Gandalf's word on that, maybe he was simply mistaken? He didn't even see the Ringwraith - only at Weathertop (or from the height of Orthanc, which is not of any value), and while Galadriel's word might not be that important, the Author's word seems to imply that indeed the Rings were not in the possession of the Nazgul, and the Author's word should be considered of the highest authority.
The trouble is that the word "held", at all the times, can be interpretated as "had in power" or something like that, whereas that the Nine Riders "kept" the rings is pretty clear - and also, it is them who are the subjects, not Sauron.

As when TM mentioned UT, I looked there and this part took my interest:

Originally Posted by Unfinished Tales

The Lord of Morgul therefore led his companions over Anduin, unclad and unmounted, and invisible to eyes, and yet a terror to all living things that they passed near.
(...)They reached the west-shores of Anduin a little north of Sarn Gebir, as they had trysted; and there received horses and raiment that were secretly ferried over the River.

Now I don't think, if the Nazgul were wearing their rings still, that they'd take them off at one moment, cross the river (as it is said, on 1st July in Osgiliath) and then (16 days later at Sarn Gebir) took them back. And the idea of nine rings floating in mid-air through Anórien seems quite funny and unlikely.

[narfforc]

When Frodo puts on the Ring he is invisible you do not see a ring floating in mid-air, I believe this to be true of The Nine, because the Rings had totally ensnared them they and their rings are now invisible. When it comes to what Gandalf says in The Council of Elrond I put more trust in his words for they are what Tokien says and is happy with it in published form, I do not wish to be a bore but anything in UT is only what he was thinking of writing, nothing was ever finalised.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by narfforc

When Frodo puts on the Ring he is invisible you do not see a ring floating in mid-air, I believe this to be true of The Nine, because the Rings had totally ensnared them they and their rings are now invisible.

Well, but this is surely not the same case. It is the power of the One Ring to turn its bearer invisible, we don't know anything like that about the Nine in particular. And the Nazgul, when they were clothed, had everything visible - black cloaks, swords... why not the Rings? Why should the Rings themselves be invisible, when the Ringwraith wanted to be visible? When Frodo put the Ring on, he disappeared with all his possessions, Sting, clothes. The garments and weapons of Ringwraith were visible. So I wouldn't consider this much of an evidence.

Originally Posted by narfforc

When it comes to what Gandalf says in The Council of Elrond I put more trust in his words for they are what Tokien says and is happy with it in published form, I do not wish to be a bore but anything in UT is only what he was thinking of writing, nothing was ever finalised.

Good point, though, we still have more evidence even from just the LotR, direct or indirect, that seems to imply that the Rings actually were not in the possession of the Nazgul, but of Sauron. But I still tend to bear the part TM quoted as one of great importance, because it says pretty explicitely that Sauron it was who had the Rings in possession. This would probably be for a debate about the canon, which, of course...

Another quote from the Silmarillion:

Originally Posted by Of the Rings of Power

It is Sauron himself who has taken shape again and now grows apace; and he is gathering again all the Rings to his hand;

Here, when interpretated literally, this is another word by Gandalf - so about the same value as the one quoted from the Council - and here he speaks of Sauron gathering all the Rings to his hand. This is actually what I imagined: that Sauron, after the Second-age fiasco, was now really gathering the Rings back, not any more to give them to someone else, but to hold them and be the true Lord of (all) the Rings. Because when he had the One back, he wouldn't need some other Rings to control some Dwarves or Elves or Men, as it is said, it would be "ultimate victory" for him. And he, in my opinion, didn't need the nine Men to wear the Nine from the moment they turned into Ringwraith, because they already had only a will of his own, and not of theirs.

[The Might]

Indeed...that's a pretty clear contradiction

I took a look at tuckburough.net (along with the EoA my favourite encyclopedia) and on the page about the Nine Rings there is a pretty clear note:

Sauron is said to be in possession of the Nine Rings in The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 61 and 382; Unfinished Tales, p. 338 and 343; Letter #246. However, in The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 263, it says "The Nine the Nazgul keep."

It seems they have also noticed this exact contradiction.
Was this something Gandalf was wrong about?