Sorcery

What did Tolkein have to say about the subject of Sorcery? How much of it did Sauron aqcuire from his own accord through experimentation alone? Great spells were mastered by the Lord of the Nazgul & the Mouth of Sauron, yet they must have had a source. Was it possible for anyone (including Hobbits) to master these spells?

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien wrote one letter (at least a draft) on the subject. In one dated in the Fall of 1954 he distinguishes between two kinds of magic: magia and goeteia. Both sides use both in LotR, with different motives. Magia is working with natural things and changing something about them, like producing fire from wet wood. Goeteia is calling up spirits of some kind, which in Middle Earth, would be Maiar, I suppose, or perhaps the dead, like Aragorn did in the Paths of the Dead. So Tolkien distinguishes between good and evil magic by motive and purpose rather than by type.

By talking about "spells to be mastered", it seems you're talking about magia. Tolkien also says in his About Hobbits section before the beginning of LotR that Hobbits don't do magic, except for the seeming 'magic' of hiding from lumbering humans.

Spells seem to have been the domain of Gandalf and Elves, though Dwarves seem to have had some knowledge of rune spells. Men seem to have tended toward goeteia.

[Boromir88]

Before I can maybe shed some light on 'sorcery' in Tolkien, I think it will be good to give a little background of magic in general.

I think magic comes in two basic forms in Tolkien's story...the Art Form and the Sorcery Form.

The Art form is the creative side of magic...healing, entertainment, protecting. This is the form that Elves seems to be most comfortable with. It tends to be the better side of magic. Some examples...Gandalf's Fireworks, Elrond or Aragorn's healing abilities, Galadriel's mirror.

Then there is the Sorcery form, which is the offensive or destructive magic. Sorcery is much easier to be used for evil purposes, although I don't think Sorcery is always, all the time, 'evil.' It's just that Sorcery is much easier to use for the purposes of Evil, than the art side of magic.

I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether ’magic’ in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the ’deceits of the Enemy’. Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other ’free’ wills. The Enemy’s operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but ’magic’ that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and ’life’~Letter 155

Here, Tolkien talks about magia and goeteia.

goeteia, sounds more to be the psychological mind games. The Enemy uses goeteia to dominate over other wills, install fear and sub-ordination. Where the Elves and those like use goeteia entirely for artistic purposes. (Galadriel perhaps as an example?)

Then comes magia, which is actual physical effects in the world...Tolkien notes the fire in the wet faggot. Again, here magia isn't bad by nature, but can be used for evil purposes...all depending upon the motives one uses it. Is it for beneficial reasons, as Gandalf uses? Or is it to destroy and bulldoze?

The best example of Sorcery I can give is Saruman's 'Fire of Orthanc.' A lot of people tend to think that the explosions Saruman employs at Helm's Deep was just first invention of gunpowder. I however, think it's clear Saruman uses his skill in sorcery to create the explosives. Letter 155 goes on to say:

The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap in time between the idea or desire and the result or effect.

A use for magia is to reduce labor and increase speed. If we look at this quote, I think it fits perfectly with the 'Fires of Orthanc,' used at Helm's Deep. Saruman needed to breach the defenses as quick and easy as possible. So, it's entirely plausible that Saruman uses his magia here (the Sorcery form), to create the 'fires of Orthanc' and break a gaping hole in the Helm's Deep defenses. As, this would greatly reduce the amount of labor and time it took to breach the defenses.

However, I don't think that Sorcery is evil at all, just the motives one uses it are, and since it is more of the offensive form of magic, it is more easily used with evil motives than the artistic form. Elves were most comfortable with with the Art form, though Sorcery could be useful to them as well...as an example Finrod's confrontation with Sauron on the isle of Tol Sirion.

Great spells were matered by the Lord of the Nazgul & the Mouth of Sauron, yet they must have had a source.

I don't know about Men being able to 'Master' Sorcery, however it is clear that Men were able to learn it. You bring up the Witch-King and the Mouth of Sauron. Men naturally are less capable of magic because they aren't born with that ability it seems, they have to learn it from another source as you mentioned.

The Nazgul got theirs from their rings:

Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old~The Silmarillion; Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

And the Mouth of Sauron was rumoured to have learned Sorcery from Sauron:

...and because of his cunning he grew even higher in the Lords' favour...and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron.~The Black Gate Opens

I would also like to point out the Blade of the Westernesse was a blade wrought with spells for the bane of Mordor (The Witch-King). So, where did the Witch-King's enemies, come up with the ability to create swords that were designed to destroy the Witch-king...and I think it's easily established that the special sword did it's purpose:

No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.~Pelennor Fields

I think the 'magic beings'...like Sauron, Gandalf, the Elves...etc had the inherent power, and capability to use magia for the Art Form or the Sorcery form. Where Men were non-magical beings and it had to be learnt by them. It could be learnt by Men, but at what price for them, becomes a good question?

Edit: As I was posting along with lmp...this is just something I have thought about. Perhaps we have magia (the physical, actual effects in the world) the goeteia (the mental effects) and both can be broken down into the Artistic form of magic and the Sorcery form of magic?

[radagastly]

Cambridge Dictionaries Online defines sorcery as:

a type of magic in which spirits (= beings that cannot be seen), especially evil ones, are used to make things happen

If that is specifically what you are referring to, then the Barrow-Wight, (not our own esteemed Barrow Wight, but the Ghost Prince of Cardolan), was a victim of sorcery. He was raised (or actually re-raised) from the dead by the Witch-King to keep an "eye" on the Barrow Downs knowing that the Ring, and therefore, its bearer, would be passing eastward toward either Elrond or Galadriel for advice and that they might have to pass through the 'Downs to get there. (I've always felt that was the reason Tom Bombadil kept the Hobbits at his house for an extra day, because the Witch King was wandering the 'Downs and the Old Forest while they were there, but that's another thread.)

Clearly, Aragorn used the same kind of power to bring the Dead with him from the Paths of the Dead. In Middle Earth, magic of all kinds is neutral, but the motive on how it is used defines whether it is Good or Evil.

Tolkien was a Catholic, and I was raised as such. As a student of Mythology and Religion (inextricable from word-history), Tolkien would have been aware of those religions (such as Voudon [Voodoo] and Santaria, to name a couple], that pray to the Saints for some kind of intervention, but would also have known that praying to the Catholic Saints for their intervention was really no different, except for the motives of the individuals doing the asking. Good and Evil lie in the human heart, not in the means uesd to achieve their particular end. There is at least as much "positive" motive behind Voodoo as there is 'negative.' It's not all about just sacrificing chickens and goats.

In The Hobbit , Tolkien names Sauron "The Necromancer," another name for a sorcerer. A necromancer raises the Dead. Appropriate, considering he was probably reviving the Nazgul at the time. They weren't dead, but they were certainly no longer alive. Who else might he have been raising from the Dead? Or was Sorcery just a "Front" to make him look more human (Numenorian)? He fled as soon as he was discovered. What does it take to persuade someone away from the Halls of Mandos? And how do you effect their escape? And, what if they are human and have already departed the Circles of the World? How do you get them back?

It's a tricksy sort of magic, this Sorcery. The other kind taps into the power of Middle Earth itself, much easier. Nearly as easy as performing magic here, in the real world.

Did Tolkien have anything to say about how powerful the Mouth of Sauron was? If he was ever in Sauron's favour & learned great sorcery from him, was he even higher in rank in Mordor than the Witch-King?

The Mouth of Sauron was more powerful than the witch king, of course. Otherwise Sauron would have named the witch king Barad Dur's lieutenent.

[littlemanpoet]

I think it fair to equate Goetia with Sorcery and Magia with Spells. So I would have to disagree with your suggestion, Boromir. Saruman did not use evil spirits for the explosions, as far as we know; at least, the text of LotR doesn't suggest it in any way.

As for the Mouth of Sauron versus the Witch King, the Rings were all about sorcery as their power resulted in the undeadness of the Ringwraiths. They were not dead but they were not alive in a human physical sense: they were in the negative Ring-world, which seems identifiable with the spirit world. Think of Weathertop and Frodo's 'vision' of Glorfindel as a being of white flame at the ford. So the Mouth of Sauron is 'into' sorcery, for he is apparently using the power of evil spirits to prolong his life far beyond that of his fellow humans; but he, unlike the ringwraiths, is not undead.

Whereas the Mouth is lieutenant of Barad-Dur, the Witch King is 'field marshall', for all practical purposes, of the armies of Mordor, and lieutenant at Minas Morgul; so they are equal in rank, having different kinds of roles. The Mouth's is 'political', whereas the Witchking's is military. Both are slaves of Sauron. Who is more powerful? I'm not sure. The Witchking is single-minded, having no more self-will (though he is self-conscious enough to understand the prophecy about himself), and is therefore a very effective tool. The Mouth is vain and ambitious and a coward for all his dubious control over evil spirits, and still wears his "mortal coils", and for all his power still loves his life, which in a certain sense translates as a weakness and lack of singlemindedness. Will he die for the sake of Sauron if offered his life in exchange for betraying him? One has to wonder.

For me the single-mindedness and ferocious will to do every last thing Sauron wants makes the Witchking seem more powerful to me than the cowardly, obsequious Mouth.

[Boromir88]

So I would have to disagree with your suggestion, Boromir. Saruman did not use evil spirits for the explosions, as far as we know; at least, the text of LotR doesn't suggest it in any way.

I don't think I suggested that he did. I suggested that he used magia to increase the speed and efficiency of blasting through the wall. I'm not familiar with the definition of sorcery that radagastly gives...to me that sounds more like necromancy, hence the Necromancer who is someone who had control over the dead/spirits.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but sorcery to me was thought of as the offensive side of magic or the destructive. Control over the spirits/dead would be a form of sorcery, but not all sorcery needs to deal with dead spirits. Where Artistic side is more defensive, preservation, protection, and healing.

So the Mouth of Sauron is 'into' sorcery, for he is apparently using the power of evil spirits to prolong his life far beyond that of his fellow humans; but he, unlike the ringwraiths, is not undead.~lmp

I don't think there's any reason to believe that the Mouth of Sauron was particularly that old, or prolonging his life at all:

And he entered the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again~The Black Gate Opens

This would be the T.A. 2951:

Sauron declares himself openly and gathers power in Mordor. He begins the rebuilding of Barad-dûr. Gollum turns towards Mordor. Sauron sends three of the Nazgûl to reoccupy Dol Guldur.~Appendix B; Chronology of the West Lands, The Third Age.

This would mean he would have been in Sauron's service (by the time of the War of the Ring) for about 70 years. There is no reason to assume then that the Mouth had an unreasonable lifespan, he probably would have been nearing 100 (or close to that age) by the time we are talking about, which for a Numenorean wouldn't be an abnormal age.

Edit:

If he was ever in Sauron's favour & learned great sorcery from him, was he even higher in rank in Mordor than the Witch-King?~Mansun

In terms of power, I don't know if a definitive answer can be reached. The Witch-King was granted extra powers by Sauron at the battle of Pelennor Fields, and was the commander of his armies. The Mouth of Sauron, had learned Sorcery, but sadly that's all we know, we don't see exactly how powerful he is, or what his capabilities are.

In terms of rank, the Mouth of Sauron was surely higher. He was Sauron's messenger, herald, and the Lieutenant of Barad-dur, where the Witch-King commanded Sauron's army. We are told the Mouth of Sauron was more cruel than any orc, and knew Sauron's mind better than anyone else. As Sauron's ambassador, representative, herald...however you want to put it, this would surely put him above the Witch-King in terms of rank. I've argued the possibility that if Sauron was successful in his domination of Middle-earth, he would have booted Saruman from Orthanc and placed in the Mouth in charge. Sauron knew Saruman's plans of betraying him, and was only using Saruman to serve his own purposes. The Mouth was somebody it seemed that Sauron trusted more than anyone else. Plus Sauron loved order and co-ordination:

...it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co- ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction.~Morgoth's Ring

So, I wouldn't doubt it if Sauron dominion became complete, he would have booted Saruman and place the Mouth of Sauron to rule over Orthanc (of course still being the supreme Ruler...much like the Melkor and Sauron relationship).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I don't think I suggested that he did.

Sorry for my faulty perception.

[qutoe]I'm not familiar with the definition of sorcery that radagastly gives...to me that sounds more like necromancy, hence the Necromancer who is someone who had control over the dead/spirits.[/quote]I found Tolkien's words in that letter to be inconclusive by virtue of not defining his terms (which we don't expect from him seeing as it's only a letter), so I looked them up in the dictionary myself, which is my reason for equating goetia with sorcery and magia with spells.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that the Mouth of Sauron was particularly that old, or prolonging his life at all...

I had thought that Black Numenoreans had situated themselves in Umbar upon the sinking of Numenor, but were no longer the rulers of Umbar after it was conquered by Gondor sometime into the Third Age. Therefore they would have been forced to reside elsewhere. This of course does not prove that the Mouth of Sauron had lived that long, but I seem to have gathered from somewhere in my reading that he did. I shall have to go researdh the point.

In terms of power, I don't know if a definitive answer can be reached.

Probably not. However, your comments seem geared more towards rank than power. The Mouth of Sauron obviously had ambitions in regard to Orthanc, which the Witch King did not share. But that is because the Witch King was a creature of a different nature. I still think the Witch King was more powerful; and if Sauron had regained the possession of the Ring, the Witch King would have become much more powerful though he might not have outranked the Mouth of Sauron.

[Boromir88]

I found Tolkien's words in that letter to be inconclusive by virtue of not defining his terms (which we don't expect from him seeing as it's only a letter), so I looked them up in the dictionary myself, which is my reason for equating goetia with sorcery and magia with spells.

I agree, it's tough and inconclusive...like I said, I wasn't familiar with the definition radagastly gave as being applied to Sorcery, it just seems to fit better with Necromancy...it's fully possible that I'm wrong and reading too much into everything.

I still think the Witch King was more powerful; and if Sauron had regained the possession of the Ring, the Witch King would have become much more powerful though he might not have outranked the Mouth of Sauron.

I tend to agree. Simply because we don't know about the Mouth of Sauron's capabilities, but we know what the Witch-King to do...and seeing as he was the one that commanded the army, that makes me think he was more powerful than the Mouth.

Sorry, can't be any further help with the Mouth of Sauron's age.

[Saurreg]

So we have established that there are two types of extraordinary power manipulations in Middle-earth, namely the manipulation of physical objects and the manipulation of incoporeal spirits.

But back to Mansun's question: how are such manipulations carried out? What is the way to do so? Are only maiars, the first-born and selected men (Isildur and Aragon) capable of magia and goetia. If so then why only them? Did they possess some innate ability? Did their very nature that allowed them to do so?

[Boromir88]

But back to Mansun's question: how are such manipulations carried out? What is the way to do so? Are only maiars, the first-born and selected men (Isildur and Aragon) capable of magia and goetia. If so then why only them? Did they possess some innate ability? Did their very nature that allowed them to do so?~Saurreg

With Maiar and the Elves, they just seem to possess magical capabilities naturally. It is their own innate power.

Men, it seems to be a little trickier. I don't know if Isildur has any special magical capabilities...if you are referring to the curse that he put on the Dead Army, I don't think it had anything to do with some magical ability of Isildur. Oaths are a very strong and powerful force in Middle-earth and it was more that the Dead Army were subjects of their own curse than something that Isildur did. The Men of the Mountain pledged an oath to Isildur and they went back on their oath as they fell into worshipping Sauron. Isildur just seems to serve more as an agent, as the curse was because the Men of the Mountain broke their oath made to Isildur. They weren't cursed because Isildur said they were, but because they broke an oath, and oaths have a strong binding power in Middle-earth.

Aragorn, I wonder if healing was something that he learned...we know that he lived with Elrond for a while, and he grew up with the Elves. We also know it's not just Aragorn making use of some good herbs, as he does appear to have some magical effect in combatting the Nazgul's black breath:

’Then taking two leaves, he laid them on his hands and breathed on them, and he crushed them, and straightaway a living freshness filled the room, as if the air itself awoke and tingled sparkling with joy.’~Houses of Healing

But, I wonder if he learned this from his years with the Elves, or if it was just some power and ability that he had?

[The Sixth Wizard]

Just one small thing; Pippin said at the end of the Black Gate Opens that he would almost draw equal to 'old Merry.' Obviously a hobbit's word does not count for much, but he had seen both the WK and the Mouth before he thought that.

Bye!

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

If I remember correctly it was Kingsfoil (Athelas) he used, the same thing he used to bath Frodos wound. He state quite clearly that it was a plant brought from Numenor and that the Rangers was some of the only one that still knew about its healing powers. So it is not an elven tradition, they might know it as well, but I doubt that they are more skillful with it than Aragorn.

I suspect that Aragorn would have been the one that could get most out of this plant at all. It has a connection Numenor, called Kingsfoil and there is the old saying about healing from the hands of the king.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

With Maiar and the Elves, they just seem to possess magical capabilities naturally. It is their own innate power.

I can accept that the maiar were able to control other spiritual forces because they were in essence spirits themselves. What I have in mibd is perhaps the domination of the maiar on an astro/spiritual plane over the lesser spiritual faces.

But I am not so sure of high the elves were able to manipulate flesh and matter. Perhpas that was a gift of the creator?

And speaking of the poor spirits that were used under sorcery, were did they come from. Were they lesser entities that entered the universe with the Ainur or were the created together with the world?

Oaths are a very strong and powerful force in Middle-earth .

,They weren't cursed because Isildur said they were, but because they broke an oath, and oaths have a strong binding power in Middle-earth.

Now that's something new to me. I think oaths themselves must have some sort of a bidding power as you have placed it - akin to the powers the maiar used for their bidding. Otherwise words spoken hold little substance. But by what power did oath work by? Did one have to swear upon the Gods of Arda or Illuvatar himself so as to get that deity's endorsement for an oath to work? Or was the Oath of Isildur created through whatever powers Isildur innately possessed?

[Boromir88]

But I am not so sure of high the elves were able to manipulate flesh and matter. Perhpas that was a gift of the creator?~Saurreg

I'm pretty much just guessing and making observations, nothing is conclusive or clear.

Now that's something new to me. I think oaths themselves must have some sort of a bidding power as you have placed it - akin to the powers the maiar used for their bidding. Otherwise words spoken hold little substance. But by what power did oath work by? Did one have to swear upon the Gods of Arda or Illuvatar himself so as to get that deity's endorsement for an oath to work? Or was the Oath of Isildur created through whatever powers Isildur innately possessed?

The way I thought of it was that Isildur was just an agent delivering the terms of the curse...in that sort of way.

Perhaps davem's old thread over oath-breaking might be of some more help. You mention the substance of words, and I think there is a special binding power of oaths. Which is the big reason as to why the Fellowship took no oath as far as staying with the company, they could come or go as they please. For if they were to take an oath of staying with Fellowship for so long they were bound to their words...sort of like a contract.

When Isildur curses the Men of the Mountain:

"Though shalt be the last king. And if the West prove mightier than thy Black Master, this curse I lay upon thee and thy folk: to rest never until your oath is fulfilled. For this war will last through the years uncounted, and you shall be summoned once again ere the end."~The Passing of the Grey Company

I don't know if there is any special power within Isildur that cursed the Dead Army...Isildur lays out the terms (being the one that the Men of the Mountain had pledged the oath to) as far is if they wanted to break the curse (and to break it they would have to fulfill the oath that they made). But, I've always thought that the power was in the oath, as the Dead Army had broken their oath...so they pretty much were the cause of their own curse...and Isildur comes by and lays out the terms if they want to break it.

The act of taking an oath is like a binding contract, which is why if you make one, (precisely why the Fellowship was not bound to any oath) you better be prepared to fulfill that oath, or face the consequences.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

I think oaths themselves must have some sort of a bidding power as you have placed it - akin to the powers the maiar used for their bidding. Otherwise words spoken hold little substance. But by what power did oath work by? Did one have to swear upon the Gods of Arda or Illuvatar himself so as to get that deity's endorsement for an oath to work?

JBoromir has touched on this already, but I'd like to expand on it. Words were important to Tolkien. So important, in fact, that he was convinced that they are important to everyone whether we realize it or not. Words carry meaning, and therein have power. To speak an oath is to bind oneself to a future course of action that, due to the power of words, must come true. Swearing an oath by Iluvatar (as did Feanor and his sons) binds the oath to the power of Iluvatar. If one swears by one's own father, then the powers inherent in one's father (to beget, to thrive, to provide for family, to rule over his house), are the things which bind the oath speaker. Failure to keep an oath brings down these powers against one.

This is an example of my sig below: words and oaths still hold in the real world, though people would like to deny it. Sure, it's my opinion, but I think it's accurate.

This relates to sorcery (goetia) and spirits as well. Sorcery is the act of binding spirits by means of words and names of power. Spells (magia) are similar: words spoken cause a thing to act in a way that is against its basic nature, or speeds it up or enriches it.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I don't know about Men being able to 'Master' Sorcery, however it is clear that Men were able to learn it.

Hm, I disagree; to quote the last paragraph from the letter you reffered to:

Originally Posted by Letter #155

Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while Aragorn is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'

Tolkien is aware of the pesky subject of the supposedly magical numenorean blades, but then again, a solution to that problem might be that the blades were made by a descendant of elves, therefore having inherent magic; interestingly enough, there is this statement by Erendis in Unfinished Tales, The further course of the narative:"Men in Numenor are half-Elves, especially the high men; they are neither the one nor the other", [or of Imrazor of Dol Amroth and of Mithrellas as Legolas recognizes in the Last debate, RotK:"at length they came to the Prince Imrahil, and Legolas looked at him and bowed low; for he saw that here indeed was one who had elven-blood in his veins." - but this is rather unlikely, since their line started only in 1980 Third Age, according to the Unfinnished Tales, Amroth and Nimrodel, and the blades could not have gotten into the barrow downs after their infestation by wights around 1600]. It could also be possible that the blades were made in collaboration with elves (or dwarves, but that is less likely).

[Aiwendil]

I wish I had time for a long, well-reasoned post on this interesting subject. But I offer only a minor note, in connection with the issue of humans using magic.

Raynor is right to point out that the 'blade of Westernesse' issue might be solved by the fact that the Numenoreans had some Elvish blood. But I wonder why, if such an easy solution was available, Tolkien still considered it a problem. In any case, I don't know how much authority ought to be attributed to the letter, since Tolkien himself seems to have reconsidered it and, as I recall, never sent it in the end.

Also, I can think of two further, and to my mind much more problematic, examples of Men using magic.

First is Beorn. I know, some will say that The Hobbit shouldn't count, as it was written as a children's book and not originally intended to be part of the mythology. But all indications are that Tolkien did come to consider it a valid, and indeed important, part of his Legendarium. One could, I suppose, say that Beorn was not in fact a human. But this, I think, substitutes a greater problem for a lesser one: if he was not human, what in Arda was he?

The second example is that of the Druedain. That this people is in the possession of some kind of magical skill is quite evident from the essay on them in UT and, particularly, from the story of 'The Faithful Stone' told there.

When one adds these instances to the examples of the Mouth of Sauron's claim to be a sorcerer, Isildur's curse upon the Dead Men, Aragorn's healing skills, and the blade of Westernesse, I think it becomes evident, or at least probable, that Men can in fact use magic.

[Raynor]

But this, I think, substitutes a greater problem for a lesser one: if he was not human, what in Arda was he?

Tolkien did attest he was human:

Originally Posted by Letter #144

Beorn is dead. He appeared in The Hobbit. It was then the year Third Age 2940. We are now in the years 3018-19 . Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man.

The question is, was he a pure man? Or did he have some other influence in his blood, which would validate his magic?

The second example is that of the Druedain. That this people is in the possession of some kind of magical skill is quite evident from the essay on them in UT and, particularly, from the story of 'The Faithful Stone' told there.

Well, that could be chalked up to heresay; moreover, the drugs were supposed to go to Numenor, and were eligible for the gifts of Eonwe, power, life and knowledge. Who knows, maybe Eonwe didn't forget them and still gave them something.

When one adds these instances to the examples of the Mouth of Sauron's claim to be a sorcerer

It is said that the power of the two trees and the presence of the holy ones immensely increased the status of the elves; isn't it possible that the presence of Sauron, Melkor's greatest maia, the one who inherited a good deal of his power, could affect, in a somewhat similar manner, the status of the mouthie?

I think it becomes evident, or at least probable, that Men can in fact use magic.

I think the problem is not use of magic, but 'generating' it. Even the hobbits can wield the ring's powers to some extent, but none could make one; humans can look in Galadriel's mirror, they can see through the palantiri, they can "sense" the coming of orcs using elven blades, but they can produce magic, we never hear of such a thing from a "pure" human.

Originally Posted by frodo1021

The Mouth of Sauron was more powerful than the witch king, of course. Otherwise Sauron would have named the witch king Barad Dur's lieutenent.

I disagree here totally - on what basis have you made this judgement? Even from the logic that you have tried to use, the Mouth of Sauron appears to be the higher in rank by being the Lieutenant of Mordor & the Witch King only the Captain, but what evidence is there that he was more powerful than the Witch King? Gandalf never spoke of the Mouth of Sauron posing a threat to Middle Earth, yet was anxious of the Witch King & claimed him to be Sauron's greatest servant.

The Witch King was probably chosen as Captain as this was to be his forte - to drive the armies of Mordor into madness before the host of Gondor; he was certainly no political figure & was utterly corrupted by the Ring. The Mouth of Sauron was yet free of any such power, & through his cunning had grown into Sauron's favour. As somone said in an earlier post, the Mouth of Sauron was mainly a political figure for Sauron, to speak for him as best he could. If the throne of the Dark Lord was ever to become vacant, it would have been interesting to see if the Witch King would claim the title of Dark Lord ahead of the Mouth of Sauron?

[ninja91]

I agree, Mansun. The Witch King was the leader of the armies, whereas the Mouth of Sauron was merely just a delegate of the Eye, regardless of his power. Sauron, in my opinion, would want his most powerful servant to carry out his will by force, and that is why he chose the Witch King.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Whereas the Mouth is lieutenant of Barad-Dur, the Witch King is 'field marshall', for all practical purposes, of the armies of Mordor, and lieutenant at Minas Morgul; so they are equal in rank, having different kinds of roles. The Mouth's is 'political', whereas the Witchking's is military. Both are slaves of Sauron. Who is more powerful? I'm not sure. The Witchking is single-minded, having no more self-will (though he is self-conscious enough to understand the prophecy about himself), and is therefore a very effective tool. The Mouth is vain and ambitious and a coward for all his dubious control over evil spirits, and still wears his "mortal coils", and for all his power still loves his life, which in a certain sense translates as a weakness and lack of singlemindedness. Will he die for the sake of Sauron if offered his life in exchange for betraying him? One has to wonder.

And to add to LMP's post, in the Silmarillion, the champions of Morgoth (Gothmog & Sauron) were referred to as the High Captains, as in captain-generals of the old; now that was telling of their prestige and rank.

A lieutenant of antiquity was simply a subordinate that represented a superior.

So back to topic on sorcery, magiks and oaths. Kudos to Mister Raynor for enlightening us on why the touch of a King could heal. May I submit that the same half-elven lineage of Aragon also applied to Isildur (infact the bloodline would be stronger) and that as such, the Oath of Isildur had in itself some sort of power in sorcery?

Do not think of me as stubborn! I have read the link to Davem's marvellous thread and it did not establish the basis of the binding powers of oaths. As such I still wonder. Isildur as half-elven and possessing to a degree the power of the firstborn might shed some light on this matter.

[Boromir88]

I agree, Mansun. The Witch King was the leader of the armies, whereas the Mouth of Sauron was merely just a delegate of the Eye, regardless of his power.~ninja

I disagree with the term 'merely a delegate.' The Mouth of Sauron was his herald, a very high position within Mordor. Take Elrond for instance who was Gil-galad's herald during the War of the Last Alliance...and Elrond could have taken up the Noldor Kingship after Gil-galad's death had he wanted to. The Mouth clearly outranks the Witch-King...again the Witch-King may be more powerful but the Mouth of Sauron is higher up in the echelons.

I would also take the statements that The Mouth knew more of the mind of Sauron than anyone else, and that he was more cruel than any orc, as to mean that he would have been very capable at doing what Sauron wanted him for...which was very likely that Sauron would have place the Mouth to rule in Orthanc:

'But they [Men] shall help to rebuild Isengard which they have wantonly destroyed, and that shall be Sauron's, and there his lieutenant shall dwell: not Saruman, but one more worthy of trust.'~The Black Gate Opens

So, the Mouth wasn't merely this delegate or ambassador of Sauron. He was his Lieutenant of Barad-dur, his herald, he was second only to Sauron, and Sauron was going to place him in Isengard had his victory come to pass.

To actually address the thread now that I've gotten way to off track...

Raynor, that is a good quote explaining Aragorn, but I still feel that it's not always the case for Men. As I got the impression that the Mouth of Sauron had learned sorcery, it wasn't something that he just had the power to do.

Saurreg, I can't say anymore than this...no matter who's making an oath to whom, I got the impression that there was a power in the words, and to break the oath would mean the person has to face some sort of consequences. Doesn't matter if an Elf is making one, a Maiar, or a hobbit...etc, to make an oath there is some sort of binding power and it doesn't have anything to do with some power of the individual.

Let's take the Oath Eorl made to Cirion, both were men, neither that we know of have any special magical abilities...but still forever Gondor and Rohan were bound by this oath. Cirion gave Eorl land to rule, and in return Eorl (and his descendants) would have to answer to Gondor's call of aid. Theoden is fully aware of this oath, and is probably the main propelling force as far as why he goes to Gondor's call, of course he's also a good guy....but who knows what consequences would have faced Theoden and his people had he not fulfilled his part of the oath.

What kind of Sorcery was old Bombadil a master of? I presume of the same kind as that of High Elves?

[littlemanpoet]

Well said on oaths, Boromir.

Raynor, I think you are correct that Men could not generate magic but could manipulate items that bore or contained magic.

One such item would be a Man himself. This, I think, is what is going on with Beorn: he has by some unnamed means gotten Bear-soul in his being.

The Woses manipulate things that are fraught (or tainted depending on your pov) with magic.

Kingship is from way back in our own history an office loaded with magical roots. The gods would 'luck' a king, and as long as the king did what the gods wanted and not what they didn't want, their luck would stay with him, and thus he had healing from the gods. When he started losing battles, the folk he ruled would understand that the gods' luck had fallen from him and another must be found who was 'lucked' by the gods. This would relate to Aragorn as the king with healing hands in that authority is probably understood in Gondorian (descended from Numenorean) cirlces to derive from Eru. Thus Aragorn is "lucked" by Eru, in a manner of speaking.

My sense is that Bombadil is a creature of a different nature than the Elves. Whereas they held fëar of fire, Bombadil is an entity of Earth. All his magic is derived from the Earth. Whence from there? According to the cosmology, I would have to assume that it derived from Valinor and ultimately Eru, but that is drawing conclusions rather than based on anything Tolkien ever wrote.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I would also take the statements that The Mouth knew more of the mind of Sauron than anyone else,

Err, the paragraph in The Black Gate Opens says "and knew much of the mind of Sauron".

again the Witch-King may be more powerful but the Mouth of Sauron is higher up in the echelons.

I disagree; in Sauon's hierarchy, I believe that one's power is what defines one's status.

he was second only to Sauron

I don't know of any such evidence; if anything, I am having in mind the passage that he forgot even his own name - now given the importance that names have in these tales (Sauron doesn't allow his right name to be spoken, cf Book III, chapter 1, page416), I believe that the mouthie sort of sank in status. Afaik, this is the only refference in LotR to the mouthie, while there are, altogether, much more numerous refferences in LotR, Silmarillion and UT to the nazgul; the witch-king is reffered to as the most powerful nazgul, and the nazguls altogether are the most powerful, trusted and capable servants. It is also the wikie who leads the main thrusts, he makes Angmar, it is he who reclaims Mordor, he serves Sauron for far longer (from 2251, Secod Age according to the Tale of years) than the mouthie (who rose to Sauron's service at the rebuilding of the Dark Tower, ~2951 Third Age, according to Appendix A).

As I got the impression that the Mouth of Sauron had learned sorcery, it wasn't something that he just had the power to do.

Then again, neither the mouthie (nor Aragorn) are "pure" man, so in his case it is allowed to master magic.

Originally Posted by lmp

My sense is that Bombadil is a creature of a different nature than the Elves. Whereas they held fëar of fire, Bombadil is an entity of Earth.

Hm, I am not aware that there are different types of fea, as you describe; [affinities, maybe, but if anything, Tom is purer than all characters, which would bring him closer to the (purrifying) principle of fire, Imo.]

[Boromir88]

Raynor, if a thread were to ever come up about who was the more higher ranked I would be more than glad to continue the debate...and possibly even prove to you as to why the Mouth clearly out-ranked the Witch-King. But this thread is not meant for that discussion.

Then again, neither the mouthie (nor Aragorn) are "pure" man, so in his case it is allowed to master magic.

The problem is you seem to be disregarding the word 'learned':

and because of his cunning he grew even higher in the Lord's favour; and he learned great sorcery...

Tolkien was very much a linguist, and on the back of Letters he remarks that there wasn't one of his over 600,000 words (his guesstimate) that he didn't go over and consider. So, I don't think this should just be cast aside because of something he states in one of his letters.

Maybe I'm misreading, but I got the impression you were suggesting that since the Mouth, and Aragorn, would have some elvish blood in them, they naturally possessed the ability to use magic...where I disagree in that it was something (at least in the Mouth's case at this point) that he had to learn how to do. Perhaps he can potentially be magically capable, but it was still something he had to learn how to use.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The problem is you seem to be disregarding the word 'learned':

I am not disregarding it; the quote from the letters forbids "pure" humans from coming by to magic by lore or spells, given that they don't have it inherently - but the mouthie doesn't fall into that cathegory. I doubt that, for humans, there is any one "high" skill that we are born with which is a priori developed apropriately, without need of learning - a "mundane" example is talking. So, my argument goes along the lines that the mouthie was having the required raw materials to work on in order to master magic, while "pure" humans don't - but that still required learning, apprenticeship if you will. I would also reffer to the istari: they too have magic abilities, being maiar; but since they are incarnate, they too have to learn (or re-learn, in their case) a lot.

[Boromir88]

Oh, now I fully understand what you're saying...it was most likely my fault, but before I thought you were saying that since Aragorn and the Mouth were not pure men they were magically capable, hence they could simply just perform magic.

So, my argument goes along the lines that the mouthie was having the required raw materials to work on in order to master magic, while "pure" humans don't - but that still required learning, apprenticeship if you will.

I agree, I think it goes along the nature vs. nurture debate of sociology. Which is more important in the developement of the child? Nature (their genes, how they are born) or nurture (how they are brought up in society). Now the concensus is that both are equally important. A child is born with certain raw potentials, however they can not fully use and unlock that potential without experiencing the nurture or the environment around them.

So, for instance the Mouth, he has the genetic potential to use sorcery (given that he is not a 'pure man') however it is something that he has to learn and be taught as far as how to use it...

[Mänwe]

A - Aim,

Well the aim is obvious, to attempt an answer at Mansun’s queries and to comment on all views that have been posted so far. Without of course repeating what has already been most eloquently viewed by all here, though there being a noticeable exception. I am also aware that my post coming so late in the proceedings may hark back to points already discussed, though it is my intention to add my own ideas.

A(i) - For Clarity,

There has been discussion on the meanings of the words ‘magia’ and ‘goetia’, both of which only personal but rational and well thought definitions have been used. Boromir88, however Tolkien does go so far as to define a term, ‘goetia’. Its definition is to be found amongst the maze of footnotes accompanying the letters. The following text is in support of littlemanpoet, for it is my belief also, that Tolkien is more worried about “motive then type”.

A(i)a)

“‘155] 1. Greek γοητεία (γόης, sorcerer); the English form Goety is defined in the O.E.D. as 'witchcraft or magic performed by the invocation and employment of evil spirits; necromancy.'‘ – (Footnotes)

However this only goes to support the definitions that have already been voiced in this thread. And with limited other actual meaning of the word offered by Tolkien, I think we must make do with the above definition and those provided by established dictionaries. ‘goetia’ is therefore sorcery and necromancy, the summoning and control of spirits; necromancy and the influence of events and physical phenomenon.

Then we have ‘magia’, and I am in full agreement with the definition that is offered up here. To quote;

A(i)b)

‘‘But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction between magia and goetia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy'. Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goetia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use.’” – (Letter #155)

The presence of a distinction is proof enough the terms cannot be the same, however to me Tolkien seems to be reluctant to concede there being one. He is never clear cut on the issue, perhaps it is another of those mistakes he has made with his trilogy, like that of the prose involving the ‘return’ of Gandalf.

“I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word;” – (Letter #155)

And to define ‘magia’ through the conventional means we get ‘witchcraft’ which defined further takes us full circle to ‘sorcery’.

The only difference I think therefore is this ‘latent’ distinction given, that ‘magia’ is white magic; used by “good”, and ‘goetia’ for evil purposes and thus used by “evil”. And the fact there is some evidence for one affecting the physical realm opposed to the mind and body.

That as a definition is highly convoluted and hard to continue through with debate, yet it is not that reason I choose to adopt the easier option! Which is I think to entertain the idea that they are the same and may be used by either. Agreeing with Boromir88 that it is motives that defines whether it is “good” or “evil”.

I do not think we should confuse things further with religion. Radagastly you say that Tolkien was a Catholic, this is true, however there was no hint of religion in LoTR, if there was it was not his intention. At least not in the context of ‘real world’ religions you speak of. LoTR had simple beliefs for those inhabiting Middle Earth.

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world.” – (Letter #142)


B(i) – Who might command ‘magic’?

B(i)a) – Witch King

We all have identified him as one who might command the use of our friendly and easily definable terms! The evidence for,

Boromir88 again provides us with our first piece;

Originally posted by Boromir88

The Nazgul got theirs from their rings:

Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old~ The Silmarillion; Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

And for seconds;

"…cried aloud in a dreadful voice, speaking in some forgotten tongue words of power and terror to rend both heart and stone. Thrice he cried. Thrice the great ram boomed. And suddenly upon the last stroke the Gate of Gondor broke. As if stricken by some blasting spell it burst asunder." (Return of the King, The Siege of Gondor)

B(i)a)(i) - Source

I would refer to the quote I quoted from Boromir88 in B(i)a).

B(i)b) - Mouth of Sauron

Evidence for him being able to use ‘magic’ again has been provided.

“...and because of his cunning he grew even higher in the Lords' favour; and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron.” - (Return of the King, The Black Gate Opens)

Very little, but sufficient.

B(i)b)(i) - Source

I would refer to the quote I quoted in B(i)b). The source was Sauron.

B(ii) - Who was the more powerful?

It was first discussed as to the ‘what’ the Mouth of Sauron was. Littemanpoet stated that,

“So the Mouth of Sauron is 'into' sorcery, for he is apparently using the power of evil spirits to prolong his life far beyond that of his fellow humans; but he, unlike the ringwraiths, is not undead.”

Boromir88 makes an exemplary rebuke of this point, highlighting the fact that he was of Black Numenorean descendant, thus his life span would be considerably longer than the norm. I would also add a quote of my own to support this view, for I am in agreement with Boromir88 here,

“The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man.” – (The Black Gate Opens, Return of the King) [My bold]

We know that Tolkien does not use his words lightly, a rather powerful quote to support this comes from letter #131, to Milton Waldman,

“Hardly a word in its 600,000 or more has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style, and contribution to the whole of all the features, incidents, and chapters has been laboriously pondered.” – (Letter #131)

Thus his choice of the word ‘living’ can only mean one thing, that he was still taking breath and was in no need of support of any sort of ‘magic’ to sustain him. The Dark Tower ’first rose again’ in TA 2951. At the point of this conversation in the War we are at TA 3019 - a difference of 68 years. The Average lifespan of the Heirs of Elendil from HoME 12 Chapter V11, then the Northern Line we have as 182 years and the Southern Line as 219 years.

So the Mouth of Sauron at his oldest if we are to take him as the purest of blood, he would live to be 219. However if we take the average lifespan of the Stewards who ruled from the time the Dark Tower was rebuilt then we get 102.
Thus we must decide upon an age in which he entered the service of Sauron, bearing in mind that it was by his ‘cunning’ that he was promoted.

“…because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord’s favour; and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron.’” – (The Black Gate Opens, Return of the King)

Therefore we could have him as quite young. The above quote also I think proves the fact that if he meant for the Witch King to be a Lieutenant then he would have said though. Therefore I have to disagree with your point littlemanpoet that he was, and that they were of equal rank.

I am in the agreement with Boromir88 and others who believe that the Mouth of Sauron was higher in rank. Lieutenant of Barad-dur isn’t some fancy foppish title, we have specific textual evidence that he had risen in Sauron’s favour, none so for the Witch King, and thus was of higher rank.

“But they shall help to rebuild Isengard which they have wantonly destroyed, and that shall be Sauron’s, and there his lieutenant shall dwell: not Saruman, but one more worthy of trust.’ Looking in the Messenger’s eyes they read his thought. He was to be that lieutenant, and gather all that remained of the West under his sway; he would be their tyrant and they his slaves.” – (The Black Gate Opens, Return of the King)

Sauron would have had the Mouth in place of Saruman not the Witch King, who is described in letter #246 being “reduced to impotence” after the War. I say this because if Sauron were to repossess the One Ring, it would be while Sam and Frodo were in Mordor, after and perhaps during the battle at the Black Gate. Perhaps I am fixing the evidence to fit my theory…

Moving onto who was more powerful, then those who stated that it was the Witch King because he had command of the armies, would historically be correct. Roman generals popular with the armies were feared by the Senate, for they could seize control should they wish it.

Originally posted by littlemanpoet

“The Witchking is single-minded, having no more self-will (though he is self-conscious enough to understand the prophecy about himself), and is therefore a very effective tool.”

Therein lies the answer, he was less powerful than the Mouth of Sauron because of his lack of ambition. Drawing again from one of my above quotes;

“He was to be that lieutenant, and gather all that remained of the West under his sway; he would be their tyrant and they his slaves.” – (The Black Gate Opens, Return of the King)

The Witch King would have remained as the ‘go getter’ for Sauron. Although I concede there is an example that distorts both the ‘rank’ and ‘power’ struggle we are contending with. The Witch King was ruler of Angmar once.

B(i)c) – Elves

I am in agreement with Boromir88’s point that Elves had ‘magic’ inherently. They were Children of Iluvatar and therefore in essence created from the greatest feat of ‘magic’ which was the creation of Middle Earth. Also it is said that the Elves learned from Sauron as we see the Mouth of Sauron had, thus it would seem Tolkien’s point in letter #155 is contradicted.

““Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by 'lore' or spells;..” – (Letter #155)

However it was not sent, at least not this portion of the text and thus perhaps his mind was changed as it ever was during the creation of LoTR.

"The particular branch of the High-Elves concerned, the Noldor or Loremasters, were always on the side of 'science and technology', as we should call it: they wanted to have the knowledge that Sauron genuinely had, and those of Eregion refused the warnings of Gil-galad and Elrond. The particular 'desire' of the Eregion Elves - an 'allegory' if you like of a love of machinery, and technical devices - is also symbolised by their special friendship with the Dwarves of Moria.” – (Letter #153)

There are other examples of the ‘magic’ used by Elves,

“'By the arts of Felagund their own forms and faces were changed into the likeness of orcs; and thus disguised they came far upon their northward road,'” - (Of Beren and Luthien, The Silmarillion)

Alas, I have quoted from the Silmarillion, a book which for me is not always solid proof, despite Tolkien stating that “my heart is in the Silmarillion”, and so I am loath to reject its evidence at times. We can also consider Galadriel’s mirror as a form of ‘magic’. And is a perfect example of ‘magic’ being inherent.

Galadriel’s' mirror cannot exist without the presence of Galadriel ergo it is her 'magic' that creates it. It is her breath that activates it. Unlike the One it has no objective existence of its own- it is recreated each time she pours water and breathes on it.

"'With water from the stream Galadriel filled the basin to the brim, and breathed on it, and when the water was still again she spoke.” Here is the Mirror of Galadriel", she said. 'I have brought you here so that you may look into it if you will." (Fellowship of the Ring -The Mirror of Galadriel)

Galadriel's breath is that which brings the Mirror to life.

Gandalf states while contemplating the Elvish word that would open the Gates of Moria;

"I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves or Men or Orcs, that was ever used for such a purpose." (Fellowship of the Ring, A Journey in the Dark)

It is clear that the ‘Firstborn’ possessed something, and so I would add could Men, or those descended from Elves. Yet I would explore this issue in the next section.

B(i)d) – Men

The construction of Orthanc was overseen by men, and there is the following quote;

“Many of the Ents were hurling themselves against the Orthanc-rock; but that defeated them. It is very smooth and hard. Some wizardry is in it, perhaps, older and stronger than Saruman's. Anyway they could not get a grip on it, or make a crack in it; and they were bruising and wounding themselves against it.” - (The Two Towers, Chapter 8, The Road to Isengard) [My bold]

The quote speaks for itself, though it is surprising to see the suggestion of something greater in power than Saruman. Then there are the works from Westernesse that have already been highlighted;

“So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.” - (Return of the King, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields)

Again the quote from Gandalf,

"I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves or Men or Orcs, that was ever used for such a purpose." (FotR, A Journey in the Dark)

And the existence of Beorn,

"Though a skin-changer and no doubt a but of a magician, Beorn was a Man." – (Letter #144)

So can we not safely say that Men may obtain this ‘magic’ and could not the knowledge be handed down through the generations?

C)(i) – First Idea

In this section I would just like to question a few things that might put a new angle on the discussion,

I believe that ‘magic’ could be obtained by all despite the following use of the text by Raynor,

“Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while Aragorn is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien” – (Letter #155)

I disagree with this point that Men were unable to learn it, and consequently agreeing with Boromir88 that they could. So into the open I throw this idea ‘magic’ is the same or closely related to ‘machinery’.

"The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap in time between the idea or desire and the result or effect." (Letter #155) [My bold]

I believe the above quotes show that ‘machinery’ is a form of ‘magic’. My emphasis reflects upon the modern day technique of rationalisation through the implementation of ‘machinery’ to replace workers.

"But at Eregion great work began - and the Elves came their nearest to falling to 'magic' and machinery. With the aid of Sauron's lore they made Rings of Power ('power' is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except as applied to the gods)." - (Letter #131)

The act of creating something through craft that would ‘produce’ ‘magic’ was this ‘machinery’ they had almost fallen too, ‘machinery’ not literally, but in the sense of rationalisation. The Rings of Power were to be used as we all know as aids for the Elves to preserve their world around them.

C(ii) – Idea Two

Magic was becoming far less important in Middle Earth as the years progressed. The age of his magic is over, this is accepted by Gandalf, Galadriel, and Elrond, and most of their kind, which is why they cross Over the Sea.
Gandalf says to Aragorn:

“‘The Third Age of the world is ended, and the new age is begun; and it is your task to order its beginning and to preserve what may be preserved. For though much has been saved much must now pass away, and the power of the Three Rings also is ended. And all the lands that you see, and most of those that lie round about them, shall be dwelling s of Men, and the Elder Kindred shall fade or depart.'” - (Return of the King, The Steward and the King) [My bold]

The comment that “the Elder Kindred shall fade or depart.” has already been anticipated -and accepted, by both Elrond and Glorfindel:

“‘But maybe when the One has gone, the Three will fail and many fair things will fade and be forgotten. That is my belief. Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance'; said Glofindel, ‘if by it the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion taken away for ever.'” - (Fellowship of the Ring, The Council of Elrond)

And Galadriel too:

“‘Yet if you succeed, then our power is diminished, and Lothlorien will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep it away. We must depart into the West, or dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and be forgotten…Yet they will cast all away rather than submit to Sauron; for they know him now.'” - (Fellowship of the Ring, The Mirror of Galadriel)

And closure for the Third Age is finally given in these words,

“‘Then Elrond and Galadriel rode on; for the Third Age was over, and the Days of the Rings were passed, and an end was come of the story and the song of those times.'” – (Return of the King, The Grey Havens)

Thus the interesting observation that ‘song’ is ‘magic’, for as I have already said it was ‘song’ that created Middle Earth. Spell = chant = enchantment = Latin. incantare (to sing) = chant = song.

“At least part of the magic that they wield for the good or evil of man is power to play on the desires of his body and his heart.” - (On fairy-stories)

And the following definitions of Spell, lead us to enchantment, which plays on the heart. Thus ‘magic’ is finally lost, shown in the words,

“…an end was come of the story and the song of those times.'” – (Return of the King, The Grey Havens)

It is ‘song’ that Tom Bombadil uses as ‘magic’

“I’ll freeze his marrow cold, if he don’t behave himself. I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Old Man Willow!’” (Chapter Six, The Old Forest)

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Manwe

‘goetia’ is therefore sorcery and necromancy, the summoning and control of spirits; necromancy and the influence of events and physical phenomenon.

This disregards the p.o.v. given in the letter #151:

Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy'. Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use... The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate.

Therefore, goetheia is a scene play, deceiving (hear hear Sun Tzi) while only magic produces real effects.

The only difference I think therefore is this ‘latent’ distinction given, that ‘magia’ is white magic; used by “good”, and ‘goetia’ for evil purposes and thus used by “evil”.

I disagree again, they are both rather neutral both sides use both, same source:

Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives...Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life'.

Radagastly you say that Tolkien was a Catholic, this is true, however there was no hint of religion in LoTR, if there was it was not his intention.

There are two passing refferences in LotR:

Originally Posted by The shadow of the past, ForR

Gandalf crept to one side of the window. Then with a dart he sprang to the sill, and thrust a long arm out and downwards. There was a squawk, and up came Sam Gamgee's curly head hauled by one ear.
- Well, well, bless my beard! said Gandalf. Sam Gamgee is it? Now what may you be doing?
- Lor bless you, Mr. Gandalf, sir! said Sam. Nothing!

Originally Posted by A conspiracy unmasked, FotR

Merry went to the door:
- What about supper and beer in the throat? he called.

Frodo came out drying his hair.
- There's so much water in the air that I'm coming into the kitchen to finish, he said.

-Lawks! said Merry, looking in. The stone floor was swimming.

And more specifically, here is Tolkien's insight:

Originally Posted by Letter #165

The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it 'contained no religion' (and 'no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of 'natural theology'. The odd fact that there are no churches, temples, or religious rites and ceremonies, is simply part of the historical climate depicted. It will be sufficiently explained, if (as now seems likely) the Silmarillion and other legends of the First and Second Ages are published. I am in any case myself a Christian; but the 'Third Age' was not a Christian world.

Originally Posted by Letter #156

It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted.

I am in the agreement with Boromir88 and others who believe that the Mouth of Sauron was higher in rank. Lieutenant of Barad-dur isn’t some fancy foppish title, we have specific textual evidence that he had risen in Sauron’s favour, none so for the Witch King, and thus was of higher rank.
...
Therein lies the answer, he was less powerful than the Mouth of Sauron because of his lack of ambition.

Rising in title does not equal holding the highest rank after Sauron. In the Hunt for the ring, the nazguls are presente as "his mightiest servants", who "were by far the most powerful of his servants". What particular action do we see from the mouthie? He ran with his tail between his legs, in his only piece of action. He is good at administering, perhaps, but only behind friendly lines. The real commanders are the nazgul.

Sauron would have had the Mouth in place of Saruman not the Witch King, who is described in letter #246 being “reduced to impotence” after the War.

I don't see the relevance of this comparison; no one would compare the status of the wikie with anything; he was literally out of the scene after the Pellenor Fields; after that moment, if you compare him to anyone, you can prove anything you like, but it doesn;t have much weight.

I disagree with this point that Men were unable to learn it, and consequently agreeing with Boromir88 that they could. So into the open I throw this idea ‘magic’ is the same or closely related to ‘machinery’.

"The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap in time between the idea or desire and the result or effect." (Letter #155)

I disagree that magic and machinery are the same; let's see the quote again:

Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' – with destructive and evil effects — because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia – quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work – is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means.

So machinery is a surrogate, not a subspecies, of magic.

Magic was becoming far less important in Middle Earth as the years progressed. The age of his magic is over, this is accepted by Gandalf, Galadriel, and Elrond, and most of their kind, which is why they cross Over the Sea.

The age of magic is over and the age of elves is over... the age of Men begin... Men are said in the letters not to be able to use magic.... if man can use magic and their age begin, but there is no magic, do they actually use magic (as in to generate it)? I believe you are arguing against yourself.

[Mänwe]

Originally posted by Raynor

This disregards the p.o.v. given in the letter #151:

The following passage you have provided does not come within letter 151, I think you mean to say letter 155. However I disregard this passage to some extent because it was part of a draft that was not sent. Could we not say he reconsidered what he had written, why else would be not have sent it?

Originally posted by Raynor

Quote:
The only difference I think therefore is this ‘latent’ distinction given, that ‘magia’ is white magic; used by “good”, and ‘goetia’ for evil purposes and thus used by “evil”.

I disagree again, they are both rather neutral both sides use both, same source:

This is however again part of a letter that was not sent. That is extremely poor grounds to base an arguement upon. But I think the only other option would be to concede to your point. There is very limited material for us to go upon.

The reason I take my stance in the way I have, is because there is no actual 'published' evidence for what Tolkien thought, so as has been done I have fallen back upon modern definition, using a little of Tolkien's, this being the greek etymology of the word "goeteia". I apologise if I am being difficult.

Your first two quotes regarding references to 'religion' I am unsure on. Namely because I am unfamiliar with the words 'Lor' and 'Lawks' as elluding to anything religious. Could you elaborate on those for me?

Moving onto your first quote regarding Tolkien's insight, I completely misread what he was stating here when I used it as evidence against religion. Your bringing it to my attention the second time has alerted me to it. Thank you! I must concede.

~~~~~~~

Originally posted by Raynor

Rising in title does not equal holding the highest rank after Sauron. In the Hunt for the ring, the nazguls are presente as "his mightiest servants", who "were by far the most powerful of his servants".

I do not think I am saying that. He rose in favour, it was this that gave him the 'key' to obtaining the title of 'Mouth of Sauron'. Although on second thoughts the passage in the "Black Gate is Open", it does seem rather self proclaimed. Your thoughts? (Though I would go for the 'brain' over 'brawn' on most occasions, the Nazgul being the 'brawn'.) Certainly it was his ambition that made him the more powerful though? I therefore refer back to my section B(ii).

Again I am sorry but I am unfamiliar with another term you have used, "wikie"?

~~~~~~~

To coin a cricket phrase, again I must concede another 'soft wicket', in regards to your rebuke on 'machinery' being a surrogate and not subspecies.

And yes those two points regarding 'magic' of men, and the decline of 'magic' are a little contradictory, though really they should be kept as two seperate views. Besides what is a good piece of arguement if you do not attempt to trip yourself?

[Raynor]

The following passage you have provided does not come within letter 151, I think you mean to say letter 155.

Hm, what was I thinking? Thanks for pointing that out.

Namely because I am unfamiliar with the words 'Lor' and 'Lawks' as elluding to anything religious. Could you elaborate on those for me?

I believe these are the two mentionings to Eru that Tolkien reffered to in his BBC interview.

He rose in favour, it was this that gave him the 'key' to obtaining the title of 'Mouth of Sauron'. Although on second thoughts the passage in the "Black Gate is Open", it does seem rather self proclaimed.

I agree; moreover, I believe that all of Sauron's terms would be just another trick of his; after all, he expected absolute worship on behalf of all inhabitants of Middle-Earth, so I don't see why he would leave men leaving between Anduin and the gap of Rohan govern their own affairs. He might have even deceived the mouthie (mouth of Sauron) in believing he will given whatever high rank - for the heck of it, for giving him an incentive to do his best, to test his enemies, etc.

Again I am sorry but I am unfamiliar with another term you have used, "wikie"?

Witch-king; (other terms I enjoy: Gandie for Gandalf, Glorfy for Glorfindel - another example of how lazyness can be creative )

Besides what is a good piece of arguement if you do not attempt to trip yourself?

I have tripped myself so often so monumentaly that I resolutely refuse to remember .

[Boromir88]

Raynor, you've sucked me in...

You will find no disagreement with me that the Nazgul were more deadly and powerful servants than the Mouth of Sauron, you quite clearly show this...but I disagree with this assumption:

I disagree; in Sauon's hierarchy, I believe that one's power is what defines one's status.

I disagree with this, because Sauron wasn't much of a leader or a fighter. As Denethor observes:

"Denethor laughed bitterly. 'Nay, not yet, Master Peregrin! He will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling."~The Siege of Gondor

Sauron wasn't the military commander type...in fact Sauron doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to him fighting in general. The two times he does engage in a battle he loses. As Denethor observes he much prefers to sit back, use others as his weapons, and take a back stage approach. So, I disagree with the assumption that being more powerful means you are higher-ranked in Sauron's hierarchy.

I think it has more to do with are you the person Sauron wants for the job. We know that unlike Morgoth, Sauron loved order and co-ordination...these virtues he had all the way until his end:

"He [Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co- ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. (It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.)"~Morgoth's Ring; Myths Transformed

To Sauron it's not about how powerful one is, or how deadly one is, he is a lover of order and co-ordination. Which is why we are led to believe that the Mouth of Sauron will get Orthanc once Sauron finishes off these 'Men.'

'But they [Men] shall help to rebuild Isengard which they have wantonly destroyed, and that shall be Sauron's, and there his lieutenant shall dwell: not Saruman, but one more worthy of trust.'~The Black Gate Opens

As Grishnakh shows us ("Saruman is a fool: a dirty, treacherous fool; but the Eye is on him." The Uruk-hai), and here again with the Mouth, Sauron knew fully aware of what Saruman was up to. He knew Saruman was planning to betray him, but he wanted to get as much use out of him as possible, and so when this War is over, he boots Saruman and places someone he feels he can trust and who can do the job.

We know that the Mouth fits both of these qualifiers. He knew much of Sauron's mind and grew in Sauron's favour. Now the Ringwraiths were complete slaves to Sauron's will, so he could trust them too, but I think it's clear that the Mouth of Sauron can be just as much trusted as the Nazgul.

1. You mention The Mouth of Sauron had forgotten his name...this is to emphasize the fact that The Mouth had lost his true identity. As you point out, names were very important, and with a name, comes the identity you have the person you are. Well, people who have fallen completely to Sauron's dominion have no memory of their name.

Examples: The Nazgul are not named, the leader is given some titles...but none are his names. And it's also debateable as to whether Khamul was actually the name of one of the Nazgul, or whether that was just a title he was given. Anyway, point being, the Nazgul are all unnamed because they don't have an identity, they don't know their past life, they are complete slaves to Sauron's will.

Gollum, Gollum still has a bit of hope left for his redemption because he can remember his name, and Frodo brings this out. There was a small corner of Gollum's mind that still remained uncorrupted by the Ring, and this was the ability of Gollum to recognize his name...Smeagol, and at least have an identity of his past life. However, once Gollum's chance of redemption is gone, he is now completely Gollum, he has forgotten his true name.

Same here for the Mouth of Sauron, to emphasize that symbolism that he has lost his past history, his identity, he can no longer remember his name. Just like the Nazgul, he is completely under Sauron's domination. In fact, the Mouth is actually compared to looking like a Ringwraith, only as Manwe points out he was still a living man.

2. The Mouth of Sauron would be a person Sauron would want for the job. He's sent the Nazgul to occupy Dol Guldur before...we know he doesn't trust orcs (I mean who would)...Saruman doesn't even trust orcs, Merry and Pippin note that he had "Men guards." Sauron is able to trust Men more than orcs, especially I would think a Man that has forgotten his identity and in pretty much all ways besides the fact that he's living, he resembles a Nazgul.

Also, again the Mouth was more cruel than any orc (what does that tell us about his authoritative capability?) and he knew much of Sauron's mind...implying he had probably held council with Sauron on other occasions.

Now begs the question who is the higher-ranked...The Mouth of Sauron or The Witch-King.

Well the Witch-King commands Sauron's armies...so as far as militarily goes, he is probably at the top of the ladder.

But as far as policy, government runnings in Barad-dur, the Mouth of Sauron would be above in Rank compared to the Witch-King...because he is the Lieutenant of Barad-dur. He was going to take Saruman's place and run over Orthanc after Sauron finished with his war. And I can say this with certainty, because The Mouth knew much about Sauron (meaning he probably knew how Sauron felt about Saruman), and we also know that Sauron loved order and co-ordination. He would be able to rule more effectively his 'New World under his domain" with someone like the Mouth Ruling over Orthanc.

Again going back to the Mouth of Sauron as being Sauron's herald...Now I think that a lot of people really don't understand what a true herald was, as a herald simply wasn't a trumpeter or harbinger.

As noted before Elrond was Gil-galad's herald, and it was a position that had quite a bit of power along with a list of duties. The herald was an Officer of Arms, and his duties included both diplomatic and military affairs. Diplomatic in the regards that he would deliver messages from the King, he could make proclomations, he acted as an ambassador, as well as serving as the armorial expert on the Battlefield...meaning he was greatly involved with the armory and issued certain regimental colors, the coat-of-arms, recorder of genealogies...among other things. The herald (especially the herald of a King) was someone who was very high up in status as well as high up in the ranks. He really isn't anything like the modern day conception of someone who presides over tournaments and acts as a superintendant of ceremonies.

Basically, the Mouth was someone of importance when it came to policy, and the dealings of Barad-dur...where the Witch-King was Sauron's servant and commander on the battlefield. As far as positioning and ranking would go, it would make sense for Sauron to give his second-in-command the tower of Orthanc to rule over and run things...especially to someone like the Mouth of Sauron.

Who was able to grow in Sauron's favour.
Who would have provided better control and order to Sauron's 'new kingdom.'
Who was more cruel than any orc.
Who was his Lieutenant of Barad-dur...which to me suggests this is a higher position than the Commander of the army.

The Nazgul may have been more powerful than the Mouth of Sauron, but I don't think Sauron's hierarchy is based upon how powerful one is. It is about who can be the most effective in running, controlling, and co-ordination.

[Mänwe]

Originally posted by Raynor,

I believe these are the two mentionings to Eru that Tolkien reffered to in his BBC interview.

Really! Well thank you for including them in your post otherwise I would never have known, I am surprised. Another point I must concede.

Originally posted by Raynor,

I agree; moreover, I believe that all of Sauron's terms would be just another trick of his;

True, though I was thinking along the lines of himself (Mouth of Sauron) giving himself this title, thus sounding, 'self proclaimed'.

Thank you also for alerting me to other 'nicknames' you have for these characters, no doubt I shall see them all used before the end...

What are your thoughts as 'song' as 'magic'?

~~~~~~~

Originally posted by Boromir88

...he boots Saruman and places someone he feels he can trust and who can do the job.

What makes you think it would be as easy as that? We are aware of the limitations 'set' upon the Istari in regards to their 'power', seeing as Saruman had fallen into corruption, would he not find it just as easy to break this rule. And challenge Sauron directly with the power he has. Or rather had till his defeat at Helm's Deep. (i.e. had he triumphed, how soon would he have moved?)

I believe my post concurs with yours on the view that Sauron 'praised' you for who you are. Repetition of the quote;

“…because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord’s favour; and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron.’” – (The Black Gate Opens, Return of the King)

'cunning' being the operative word here. I would also like to highlight a point you made Boromir88 in your superb post, that the Mouth of Sauron was 'Second-in-Command'.

Here I think the hammer strikes true, while the Witch-King (perhaps Raynor you might call him Kammy? ) would have control of the army on the battlefield. I do not think he would disobey an 'order' (this order albeit coming from Sauron) from the Mouth of Sauron. Thus I propose the 'rank' and 'power' go to Mouthie.

Because, as you have pointed out, Sauron loved order, hierachical order, and it seems some of his orders come through the Mouth of Sauron, thus this pattern of command would continue.

Originally posted by Boromir88

It is about who can be the most effective in running, controlling, and co-ordination.

Are these not traits for someone who is powerfull?

(I am warning myself here, we are now in the realms of speculation and although a rather stimulating debate of opinion, no real evidence is being used.)

(I would further add, that both your posting has been sublime, I wait to tribute you again, since the last time I did, however it seems I must "spread some more reputation around elsewhere" first.)

[Saurreg]

I agree with Mänwë's conclusion. This has been a stimulating topic but actual evidence on what Tolkien really intended sorcery in his world to be is unfortunately lacking.

If we have established that sorcery was the manipulation of spirits, we can only suggest how it was done and who could have done it. We do not even know where the original molested spirits came from. lol.

Kudos to Boromir88, Radagastly LMP, Raynor and Mänwë. You'll are be getting reps from me by providing all the quotes and extractions from Tolkien's letters and masterfully expounding your points. If the main purpose of the books discussion is to ask the questions (sorry about the oath bit) and learn, this thread delivered.

One thing I would like to highlight is that Sauron was actually successful in battles before. He captured Minas Tirith on Tol Sirion in the FA and then the stronghold of Eregion. We know not much on how he performed the second deed but in the first, he used (aha!) sorcery.

EDIT: Not directed at me, but I think a Song was the medium of spell in magia and that the act of singing it, was incantation for the particular spell to come into effect.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Sauron wasn't the military commander type

Let me get this straight: are you arguing that:
a) he was letting the war planning to others, because he wasn’t a military time? If anything, he acts in a totalitarian manner, trying to control everything and everywhere, so I don’t think this could be the case.

b) he was trying to reach his goals through… what? Political means? I certainly disagree with that. In the Silmarillion, Of the enemies, it is stated that he “walked behind [Melkor] on the same ruinous path down into the Void”. This is further reinforced in Myths Transformed, HoME X, where, in Notes on the motives in the Silmarillion, it is stated that: “Sauron had not served Morgoth, even in his last stages, without becoming infected by his lust for destruction, and his hatred of God (which must end in nihilism).”. Furthermore, in the Orcs chapter of that work, we find a note that says: “But there remained one flaw in his control, inevitable. In the kingdom of hate and fear, the strongest thing is hate. All his Orcs hated one another, and must be kept ever at war with some 'enemy' to prevent them from slaying one another”. It’s a dog-eat-dog out there. On the general level, Sauron has a growing propensity towards destruction; this is certainly an adoration of power [his master’s power is what drove in the beginning to adore him] and this is most likely reflected in his organisational structure – after all, organisations reflect certain philosophies, and this is one of destruction and of perpetual violence – I have no doubt that the big fish eats the small one.

As Denethor observes he much prefers to sit back, use others as his weapons, and take a back stage approach.

Taking the front row isn’t a prerequisite of a militaristic point of view. Just like Melkor, he keeps his behind safe, fearing for his bodily form, but that in no way means hinders his war agenda.

So, I disagree with the assumption that being more powerful means you are higher-ranked in Sauron's hierarchy.

In the light of my previously stated arguments, I consider this a non-sequitur.

these virtues he had all the way until his end

I disagree; those were the virtues he has in the beginning; in the end, as the Myths state, he went balistic.

but I think it's clear that the Mouth of Sauron can be just as much trusted as the Nazgul.

From what is that clear? If anything, he mishandled the parley with his enemies and displayed fear; worthy of contempt, and if you ask me, Sauron would have been aware of those shortcomings. Would the mouth be trusted to bring back the ring should it have been he that would have found it? I doubt that, he was a man, as you point out yourself, and therefore _very_ vulnerable to the ring – but the witch-king would bring the ring back to Sauron, as we know from Unfinished Tales, The Hunt for the Ring. Comparing the trustworthiness of these two doesn’t favor your candidate.

they don't know their past life

Why would you say that?

Also, again the Mouth was more cruel than any orc (what does that tell us about his authoritative capability?)

To me, not much. And it seems to me that you are now arguing that “martial” qualities do equal authority.

He was going to take Saruman's place and run over Orthanc after Sauron finished with his war.

We can argue this only post-factum; I see no reason to infer that should the withc-king be live, matters would be the same.

Again going back to the Mouth of Sauron as being Sauron's herald...

As stated before, this is not a job he seems to be up to.

Who was able to grow in Sauron's favour.

I believe that even some orcs or trolls could rise up the ranks; none of these instances equal second to Sauron

which to me suggests this is a higher position than the Commander of the army.

In my opinion, that is just speculation.

[Boromir88]

Let me get this straight: are you arguing that:
a) he was letting the war planning to others, because he wasn’t a military time? If anything, he acts in a totalitarian manner, trying to control everything and everywhere, so I don’t think this could be the case.

I never argued this stance...I said he wasn't the military commander type...meaning he wasn't the type to be at the front and lead armies. He was the type as Denethor observed to sit back and stay in his own walls.

b) he was trying to reach his goals through… what? Political means? I certainly disagree with that.

Again when did I say this?

Taking the front row isn’t a prerequisite of a militaristic point of view. Just like Melkor, he keeps his behind safe, fearing for his bodily form, but that in no way means hinders his war agenda.

I never said anything differently.

I disagree; those were the virtues he has in the beginning; in the end, as the Myths state, he went balistic.

I would like proof that Sauron had gone 'ballistic.' He still kept the very virtues of order and co-ordination. And he never reached Morgoth's stage of chaos nor the stage of nihilism:

"Sauron had never reached this stage of nihilistic madness. He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it.~Morgoth's Ring

From what is that clear? If anything, he mishandled the parley with his enemies and displayed fear; worthy of contempt, and if you ask me, Sauron would have been aware of those shortcomings.

Actually the parley was false. How do we know the parley was false, because it was already a planned trap:

He [Mouth of Sauron] gave a great cry, and turned, leaped upon his steed, and with his company galloped madly back to the Cirith Gorgor. But as they went his soldiers blew their horns in signal long arranged; and even before they came to the gate Sauron sprang his trap.~Black Gate Opens

Why would you say that?

I gave 3 reasonable examples (Gollum, The Nazgul, and The Mouth of Sauron) that show the importance of names. Your name is your identity (example the Ents, their names are the stories of their life as Treebeard explains)...Names are extremely important, they identify who you are. The Nazgul were not named, as their wills were completely bound to Sauron's will...just as the Mouth of Sauron had forgotten his name, he doesn't have an identity, only except that he is under Sauron's dominion. Just like when Gollum's hope of redemption was in the fact that he had been able to remember his name...Smeagol. If one loses their name, they lose their identity, it's a sign that they don't know who they are and are completely under the dominion of someone else. (In this case Sauron).

I doubt that, he was a man, as you point out yourself, and therefore _very_ vulnerable to the ring – but the witch-king would bring the ring back to Sauron, as we know from Unfinished Tales, The Hunt for the Ring. Comparing the trustworthiness of these two doesn’t favor your candidate.

I would like to see how you doubt that? I have shown that the Mouth was under Sauron's will because he has forgotten his own name...Tolkien also compares him to a Ringwraith...and just because somebody is a man doesn't mean they are automatically corrupted and tempted by the Ring.

We can argue this only post-factum; I see no reason to infer that should the withc-king be live, matters would be the same.

Again all this is, is inferring, where I have shown a quote showing that The Mouth of Sauron was going to rule over Orthanc.

As stated before, this is not a job he seems to be up to.

Why not? Because he fled from Gandalf? So what, a lot of people fled from Gandalf...The Witch-King fled from Gandalf, the Witch-King fled from Glorfindel, I would flee from Gandalf. If anything the Nazgul proved to be more incompetant at doing their duty than The Mouth of Sauron.

In my opinion, that is just speculation.

I would like to say why you think it is simply speculation? Both the WK and the Mouth had seperate duties...it is like the Sauron-Gothmog relationship. Gothmog led Morgoth's armies, and Sauron acted more like an administrator and was second to Morgoth. Typically, the military leader, does just that he leads the military, but doesn't serve for administrative purposes. Now there are occasions where of course one person can be in charge of both the military and government duties...Though in this system we had the Witch-King who led the military and The Mouth who took care of administrative duties in Barad-dur, and of course both were under Sauron's jurisdiction as he ruled over both of them.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I said he wasn't the military commander type...meaning he wasn't the type to be at the front and lead armies.

I am afraid you are restricting the meaning of military commander to those who are ahead of the armies – and in your next paragraph you seem to agree with me that this is wrong.

I would like proof that Sauron had gone 'ballistic.'

I believe I already gave it; he “became infected with lust for destruction”; – now that is just the opposite of order and organisation in terms of purposes, wouldn’t you say? Sure, this didn’t reach Melkor’s level, but Melkor is cathegory of his own. As it stands, Sauron is the most destructive force in Middle Earth – by purpose and alignment (hehe, RPG games) of inner power and of his armies. He may keep order and coordination, but that is something that is necessary for attaining a goal, which is destructive and evil in its nature; whatever kind of order evil will achieve, it is something so corrupt, that it wouldn’t fit the term anymore – because, as Tolkien states in the continuation of that quote, that that lust for destruction must end in nihilism.

Actually the parley was false.

I am quite certain that Sauron would have been happy to accept the surrender of his enemies in the terms decided by him. Anyway, anyone at war prepares for an unsuccessful parley, that doesn’t mean the parley itself was false.

I gave 3 reasonable examples (Gollum, The Nazgul, and The Mouth of Sauron) that show the importance of names. Your name is your identity (example the Ents, their names are the stories of their life as Treebeard explains)...Names are extremely important, they identify who you are. The Nazgul were not named, as their wills were completely bound to Sauron's will...just as the Mouth of Sauron had forgotten his name, he doesn't have an identity, only except that he is under Sauron's dominion. Just like when Gollum's hope of redemption was in the fact that he had been able to remember his name...Smeagol. If one loses their name, they lose their identity, it's a sign that they don't know who they are and are completely under the dominion of someone else. (In this case Sauron).

I am afraid you misunderstood my question; I was reffering to your supposition that the nazgul don’t remembe their past life; perhaps you could clarify that idea.

Tolkien also compares him to a Ringwraith

Yes, phisically.

and just because somebody is a man doesn't mean they are automatically corrupted and tempted by the Ring

Why? Concerning the temptation, Men were the easiest to corrupt even with the Nine rings, let alone with the one ring. Concerning corruption, although I didn’t originally argue along that line, he is already open to the corruption of Sauron’s power, which is, in fact, of the same nature with the ring’s power .

Again all this is, is inferring, where I have shown a quote showing that The Mouth of Sauron was going to rule over Orthanc.

I thought you dismissed the parley as being “for real”. In a certain sense, I agree with that, since it is stated in The Black Gate opens “Sauron had already laid his plans, and he had a mind first to play these mice cruelly before he struck to kill”. I believe we can view all of the mouth’s statement in that light: he was playing with their minds.

Why not? Because he fled from Gandalf?

Well, he had the hobbit items snatched from under his nose; he soiled his cloth out of fear of Aragorn when he invoked embassador protection. All in all, I fail to see how these admirable deeds surpass the 42 _centuries_ of service of the witch king.

I would like to say why you think it is simply speculation?

Well, because we have no proof in that direction. If anything, in wartime, people with military duties have a higher standing than those with administrative (more in the realm of "civil") duties.