Sorcery

[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?

[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.

[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 .