Sympathy for the Devil?

[Mithadan]

I truly regret using the word "sympathy" in any of my posts in this thread, as it has detracted from the real question. Of course, Sauron is not a sympathetic character. In some ways, he is even less sympathetic than Morgoth. Morgoth is Loki; the trickster, the eternal rebel and contrarian. If someone says to him "white", he responds with "black" because of who he is. The Valar raise a mountain and he flattens it. The Valar fill a sea and he empties it. He is truly evil, yet at times it is evil in a faintly charming way, in the same way that we sometimes appreciate a scoundrel. Moreover, we do not see him clearly. He is somewhat nebulous, like a great cloud on the horizon. While we don't see Sauron clearly either, at least during the Third Age, we do learn a lot more about his evil acts (three Ages worth) than those of Morgoth.

The real (intended) topic of this thread is simply whether or not Sauron suffered the same type of torment that the other Ringbearers did when deprived of their "Precious". Yes, the essence of the Ring and its power derives from Sauron; he stripped himself of much of his native strength and infused the Ring with it. But this does not mean that he does not suffer from the loss of the Ring. Indeed, the taking of the Ring from him by Isildur "kills" him.

When he manages to reassemble himself, Sauron does not return to Mordor. Instead, he sets up shop in Dol Guldur, near the Gladden Fields where Isildur disappeared. Yes, Dol Guldur is a great place to hide, yet it seems he had no problem doing so in the East. Nor does Dol Guldur have any over-riding strategic value. It is not near his primary enemy, Gondor. It is near Anduin, but does not give him control of the river. It is near Moria, which has already been abandoned by the Dwarves. It is near Lorien, but he clearly does not have the strength to attack Galadriel at that time. Even during the War of the Ring, any attacks staged from Dol Guldur were of secondary import at best. No, he occupied Dol Guldur primarily as a location from which to search for the Ring and, perhaps secondarily to create an evil presence to scare anyone else away from the neighborhood. This resembles the single-minded pursuit of the Ring that we see in Gollum.

Yet, when he does discover the location of the Ring, his efforts to take it or intercept it are almost lackadaisical. This would seem contrary to the concept of the Ring being a tormenting, driving force to Sauron. He seems willing to risk it being hidden or falling into the hands of one of his enemies, under the apparent assumption that he will inevitably prevail militarily.

Much is made of Bolbo's choice to surrender the Ring to Frodo. It was difficult, but he managed to do it. Someone else voluntarily laid down the Ring; Sauron. It seems that when the Numenoreans assailed him and he surrendered, he left the Ring behind, likely in the deepest vault of Barad-Dur, and took it up again after he had crafted himself a body following the drowning of Numenor. So, maybe the Ring did not exert such a hold upon him as it did upon its Mortal bearers.

[Formendacil]

Well, regarding Sauron being able to put aside his Ring (Númenor), that strikes me as, in a sense, a case of self-mastery. The Ring, after all, IS Sauron. It's his essence that is diffused through it, and which gives it its power. It occurs to me that there might a sort of analogy that could be made with addictions: for anyone else, there are physical side-effects of withdrawal, since a foreign substance (object rather) that the "user" has become accustomed to having has been withdrawn (or willingly given up, as in Bilbo's case), as well as any psychological trauma, but in the case of Sauron it seems much more like giving up a habit, because insofar as the Ring is an extension of himself, he's really just stopped using that part of himself--the distinction here being that Sauron has stopped using something natural to him (natural in a sense anyway), whereas any other Ringbearer is having to stop using something that is not natural to him--a foreign substance, so to speak.

I do stress, however, lest the topic go that way, that I do not see the Ring as an allegory for drugs so much as drugs being a useful allegory for the Ring.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Someone else voluntarily laid down the Ring; Sauron. It seems that when the Numenoreans assailed him and he surrendered, he left the Ring behind, likely in the deepest vault of Barad-Dur, and took it up again after he had crafted himself a body following the drowning of Numenor. So, maybe the Ring did not exert such a hold upon him as it did upon its Mortal bearers.

Sorry, but no. Sauron did take the Ring with him to Numenor:

He naturally had the One Ring, and so very soon dominated the minds and wills of most of the Númenóreans.” -L #211

Though reduced to ‘a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind’, I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring” back to Middle-earth after the drowning of Númenor. -L #211

I think he was able to make the One invisible, much in the same way as Galadriel, Gandalf etc concealed the Three. What helped was that Ar-Pharazon had no idea that the One existed in the first place: the Elves always kept the matter secret from their human allies:

I do not think Ar-Pharazôn knew anything about the One Ring. The Elves kept the matter of the Rings very secret, as long as they could. In any case Ar-Pharazôn was not in communication with them.-L #211 (280)

Apart from that, even if Sauron was mentally strong enough to part from the Ring willingly even for a short time, he couldn't do so, IMO. He needed to wield the Ring to control the Nine and the Seven and to prevent the bearers of the Three to wear and use their Rings as they did in the TA.

If he left the Ring in Barad Dur how could he be sure that his Nazgul won't steal it? To be 100% sure of their loyalty, he would have had to take the Nine Rings from them and to take these in Numenor with him instead of the One - a silly solution.

[Morsul the Dark]

Sauron assumed the ring had been destroyed.... Or so one would assume considering his lack of action over 3000 years. If he had been so agonized over its loss but knew it still existed he would have started looking for it much sooner, in my opinion.

I mean the wraiths supposedly could sense it when it was worn so they should have been sniffing around the misty mountains for those last 500 years when Gollum wore it constantly.

So no I don't feel sorry for Sauron because to me his actions seem to suggest he did not lament the ring.

Of course when he found out the ring still existed everything went to hell. but I think it was simply a loss of patience. He would have won if the ring remained unfound it just would have taken more time. He wanted two things his full power back and to protect the ring.

He (in my opinion) knew the ring was his only weakness, that is why He hunted it so desperately. He simply didn't think a hobbit would know how to destroy it. So that is why he moved on Minas Tirith and Saruman went up against Rohan. the two last bastions of power in Middle Earth.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I disagree, Morsul. Had the Ring been 'put to the sword', so to speak, Sauron would certainly have known, as he would have been reduced to some sort of ghost creature. The Ring was a great part of Sauron, but no great part of him was destroyed, so he can't have had any reason to think the Ring destroyed. He must have assumed it was lost, probably in the Great Sea. His fervent action came after he learned the Ring had been found, and wasn't lost anymore.

But to answer the original question, no I don't think Sauron suffered. The other Ringbearers suffered because the power of Sauron had corrupted them; Sauron himself could hardly be corrupted by his own power. Sauron's suffering came from the thought that a mighty Lord of Middle-earth could use his own power against him.

[Mithadan]

Regarding the question of whether Sauron had the Ring with him in Numenor, there is a nice thread from some years back on this issue (in which I made many of the same arguments raised here by Gordis ). This thread can be found at the following link: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...n+numenor+ring.

To put that thread in context, that discussion arose at around the time when various members were debating the relative "reliability" of sources outside the primary works (such as Letters, HoME, Unfinished Tales and even whether the Silmarillion should be considered a "primary work"). While the letter quoted by Gordis and the other letter quoted in the linked thread seem absolute, there is some text that suggests or implies that Sauron did not take the Ring with him to Numenor, and there exist valid arguments that this was the case if one chooses to discount the letters.

[Gordis]

On a side-issue here:

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Regarding the question of whether Sauron had the Ring with him in Numenor, there is a nice thread from some years back on this issue (in which I made many of the same arguments raised here by Gordis ). This thread can be found at the following link: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...n+numenor+ring.

To put that thread in context, that discussion arose at around the time when various members were debating the relative "reliability" of sources outside the primary works (such as Letters, HoME, Unfinished Tales and even whether the Silmarillion should be considered a "primary work"). While the letter quoted by Gordis and the other letter quoted in the linked thread seem absolute, there is some text that suggests or implies that Sauron did not take the Ring with him to Numenor, and there exist valid arguments that this was the case if one chooses to discount the letters.

Thanks for the link.
I think nobody has the right to disregard the clear statement in the Letters, especially when (IMO) it doesn't really contradict the text of "the Rings of Power and the Third Age": "He took up again the great Ring and clothed himself in power"
Sauron carried the Ring back to ME in spirit-form: he could carry it, but nor wield. He had to make himself a new body with a new finger before taking up the Ring again and starting to wield it. It took him about 100 years with the Ring in his possession.

Also nobody in this thread questioned the loyalty of the Ulairi, whether they could be trusted to guard the One back at the end of the SA or not. Some quoted UT, "the Hunt for the Ring," forgetting that the reason why Sauron could trust the Nazgul an Age later -in TA 3018 - was given: because he kept the Nine Rings himself, that's why. At the end of SA the Nazgul still wore their Rings, so to control them during his absence Sauron either had to keep the One or to take the Nine Rings to himself and carry these rings to Numenor. His options were limited.

[Mithadan]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Also nobody in this thread questioned the loyalty of the Ulairi, whether they could be trusted to guard the One back at the end of the SA or not. Some quoted UT, "the Hunt for the Ring," forgetting that the reason why Sauron could trust the Nazgul an Age later -in TA 3018 - was given: because he kept the Nine Rings himself, that's why. At the end of SA the Nazgul still wore their Rings, so to control them during his absence Sauron either had to keep the One or to take the Nine Rings to himself and carry these rings to Numenor. His options were limited.

Again, good points, but ones that are not clearly established in any way. As to whether Sauron physically held the Nine Rings, this has been debated several times before. One thread is here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...n+nazgul+rings . There is at least one older thread but I could not locate it. There is textual evidence going both ways.

As to Sauron's control over the Nazgul, after Isildur took the Ring, Sauron was not present and had neither the One nor the Nine. Yet there is no indication that the Nazgul rebelled or, indeed, did anything other than to wait for his return and advance his cause.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I think that if Sauron suffered because of the loss of the Ring, it was not the same kind of torment that lesser bearers of it would have felt. Sitting there for three thousand years without it, his "torment" would have been, I think, bitterness and anger, mostly directed toward the Men and Elves who deprived him of his Ring and its power. I rather doubt he would have consciously blamed himself for not considering the possibility of its loss, but like most profoundly bitter and angry persons who are in denial of their own part in their current circumstances, it would have gnawed at him, even unacknowledged. And yet, that bitterness and anger often comes to dominate the lives of those who will not let go of it.

So did he feel some kind of torment over the loss of the Ring? Psychologically, yes, I imagine he did. Was it the kind of suffering for which I could pity him? Not really, no more than I could feel sympathy for an abuser who is upset because his victim finds a way to stop the abuse. Of course, there's a huge amount of personal experience behind this train of thought, so take it as you will.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

No, he occupied Dol Guldur primarily as a location from which to search for the Ring

Not at all. Sauron had no inkling what had become of the Ring until the very late Third Age. Circa TA 1000 he couldn't return to Mordor- Gondor was at the height of its imperial power, and Mordor was closely guarded. Why southern Mirkwood? The real reason of course was that T had said so in The Hobbit. But if we must back-write, it seems clear that Sauron wanted a place where he could remain concealed and his identity secret, while at the same time keeping an eye on his enemies. Amon Lanc was centrally located, hard to reach, and close to both the frontier provinces of Gondor and the main traffic artery of Middle-earth, as well as the Hithaeglir where Orcs still lurked. Lorien wasn't a factor, since Galadriel would not take up residence there for another 1800 years.

According to The Tale of Years, when Gandalf re-enters Dol Guldur in TA 2850, he learns who the Necromancer is, and that he is "seeking for news of the One." While Sauron would have known the Ring still existed, there is no reason at all to think that he knew what had happened to it, or even if it was still in Middle-earth. Only a century later, ca. 2939, does Sauron begin to search the River near the Gladden. From this Saruman concludes that Sauron "has learned of Isildur's end;" unsaid but just as important, Sauron has finally learned that Isildur took it in the first place.

[alatar]

Was Cirdan tormented by the loss of Narya, when the Shipwright gave it over to Gandalf, meaning, when a Ring was in alignment with the character of the bearer (good=good), and the relative power of said Ring was close to that of bearer (maia=very old elf or maia), all factored with the amount of exposure, there wasn't so much torment at the loss.

Sauron, maker of the One, voluntarily sets it down. Cirdan gives his away.

Sam has a little torment; Frodo much more. Bilbo not too much, and Gollum, though wicked, was conflicted - on the edge of good and evil - and so very tormented.

On the other hand, something's not adding up...

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I disagree, Morsul. Had the Ring been 'put to the sword', so to speak, Sauron would certainly have known, as he would have been reduced to some sort of ghost creature. The Ring was a great part of Sauron, but no great part of him was destroyed, so he can't have had any reason to think the Ring destroyed. He must have assumed it was lost, probably in the Great Sea. His fervent action came after he learned the Ring had been found, and wasn't lost anymore.

But to answer the original question, no I don't think Sauron suffered. The other Ringbearers suffered because the power of Sauron had corrupted them; Sauron himself could hardly be corrupted by his own power. Sauron's suffering came from the thought that a mighty Lord of Middle-earth could use his own power against him.

yes but did he know that he would perish if the ring did? perhaps he thought that power was destroyed but he remained

[Boromir88]

yes but did he know that he would perish if the ring did? perhaps he thought that power was destroyed but he remained~Morsul

Another interesting question...

When Sauron was beaten, and the Ring cut from his finger by Isildur, I think there were a couple reasons why Elrond et all didn't force Isildur to destroy the Ring.

First, it's Isildur, Elrond and Cirdan were really not in a position to force him to do anything with the Ring. Isildur had claimed it as payment for the death of his father and brother (an arguably legal claim).

But also, no one expected Sauron to be able to rebuild. I believe they just suggested for Isildur to destroy it because it would sort of "cleanse" the world from Sauron's evil. But, it isn't figured out until...well the Council of Elrond that the only way to prevent Sauron from reforming again would be to destroy the Ring.

What's also interesting is in the Appendix, In the TA 2060 it is feared by the wise that Sauron is reforming. However, he does not start trying to start gathering news about Isildur and the Ring until 2850. I don't think this is mere laziness by Sauron, yes he retreats int the East for a while, but he had went to Dol Guldur by 2460. Perhaps Sauron believed the Ring was destroyed? But after finding out about Isildur's death near Gladden fields he figured out the Ring was not destroyed and began searching.

[Hakon]

I am sure Sauron would have known if the ring wad destroyed. The ring is part of himsef. He would know. I think that Sauron thought the ring was lost forever as someone above said lost in the great sea.

[Pitchwife]

Sorry for going far off-topic, but I can't help it.

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Morgoth is Loki; the trickster, the eternal rebel and contrarian.

No, no, and no again! While the trickster certainly is the eternal rebel and contrarian, con-man and deceiver, he is also a beneficial culture-hero (think of Prometheus in Greek mythology); not to forget his humorous side, always making fun of himself and others. Loki contains all these aspects - he even was involved in creating the first human couple (if you accept that Loður in the Voluspa is another name for him), not to mention all the times he helped the Gods out of serious trouble (like getting Thor's hammer back, getting the better of the Giant architect who built Valhall, etc.; true, in some cases he got the Gods into the trouble first, but there's always both sides in him).
None of this in Morgoth, who is simply destructive and power-crazy. The early Melko of BoLT may have had some Loki-like traits: offering to build the pillars for the Lamps of the Valar, only to cheat them by making the pillars of ice that melted once the Lamps were ignited - now, that's something Loki might have done. But as far as I can see, all this was completely lost later; and as for the creative side of the trickster, that's entirely absent in Morgoth.

Sorry again for this off-topic post, but I just couldn't stand by quietly and hear my favourite Norse God wronged. Please proceed.