What is the 👁️eye of Sauron?

[Bucky]

The two quotes from FOTR would seem to be in conflict with each other, in which case we must try to break the conflict. Tolkien in his letters says the Nazgul are no longer in physical possession of the Nine. Sauron is.

Very good......

"Meditate upon this I will"

Personally, I like Sauron holding the Nine myself.

Why?

1. It shows his dominance over the Nazgul to the point of "I'll take your Rings & there is nothing you can do about it, slaves."

2. It gives Sauron more power.

3. It shows more clearly Sauron's greedy Dark Lord, "I must have EVERYTHING" nature.

4. The Nazgul are so bound up in the fate of The Ring (s) & 'faded' into the Wraithworld, they don't even need their Rings to sustain them anymore.

5. Nine Rings for Sauron' nine fingers - it's a perfect match.



BTW, Let me make one point going back a bit on the 'Eye'.....

While I feel the evidence points to Sauron's physical shape as Dark lord post Numenor as 'Cyclops', I certainly realize that there is also a metaphorical 'Eye Of Sauron'.
I am in NO WAY denying that.....
See Frodo on Amon Hen & the cloud that is 'looking' for him when he has the Ring on & how at that time Gandalf says he is 'struggling with The Eye'.....

In fact, I think the methaphorical only reinforces the physical reality that certainly seems to be mentioned in my quote from The Silmarillion.

 

[Helcaraxë]

But there is (also by Gandalf), from "The Shadow of the Past" in FOTR:and there is letter 246 of Tolkien's published letters:

The two quotes from FOTR would seem to be in conflict with each other, in which case we must try to break the conflict. Tolkien in his letters says the Nazgul are no longer in physical possession of the Nine. Sauron is.

Of course, "Gathered to himself" does not mean he necessarily held them. He could have "gathered" them indirectly and "held" them via the Nazgul.

~Helcaraxë

 

[Greenwood]

Of course, "Gathered to himself" does not mean he necessarily held them. He could have "gathered" them indirectly and "held" them via the Nazgul.

Why are multiple statements of Sauron "gathering" and "holding" the Nine metaphorical, while a lone statement of the Nazgul "holding" the Nine is automatically literal? I believe there are additional statements by Tolkien supporting Sauron having the Nine, but I will have to look for them.

 

[Bucky]

Of course, "Gathered to himself" does not mean he necessarily held them. He could have "gathered" them indirectly and "held" them via the Nazgul.

That really doesn't make any sense.........


That would just be the status quo since Second Age 1695 or so & make Gandalf's statement unnecessary as everyone knows that already.

Plus, we need to remember Gandalf knows Sauron has recovered 3 of The Seven.
How?
Gandalf has taken two trips to Dol Guldur & gleaned some knowledge.....

Also, don't forget that by the time Gandalf is speaking of Sauron having "gathered the Nine to himself", he's seen & talked to Gollum.....

Who's seen Sauron's nine fingers.
Which probably had that perfectly matching set of Nine Rings on them.

 

[Greenwood]

As Bucky points out, in the quote from Gandalf:

So it is now: the Nine he has gathered to himself; the Seven also, or they are destroyed ...

Gandalf's knows from personal knowledge that when he refers to the Seven he means that Sauron has actually gathered them to himself. Why then should we take the previous part of the sentence, in reference to the Nine to be meant metaphorically rather than literally?

 

[Flame of Udûn]

I don't think Suaron would have actually worn the Nine Rings.

 

[Paul]

I forget where it says it but i was reading the trilogy lately and i remember someone say something being left naked before the lidliss eye, could that mean somethig?

 

[Turin]

This is turining into a discussion on whether Souron held the nine rings, lets get back to topic ok?

I always thought of Souron as having a lookout chamber where he had like a super telescope and he could zoom in wherever he wanted, but I never thought that he actually had an eye on top of Barad Dur.

 

[Arvedui]

I don't think Suaron would have actually worn the Nine Rings.

Actually he could, considering that he had nine fingers left, and as he didn't have the One, there should be room enough for all nine of them.
Or did I misunderstand you a little now???

But still not totally off the topic. As has been said before, Sauron (not Souron) had a physical shape. how else could Gollum describe him the way he did, with four fingers one the one hand. It is not like Sauron was a great eye with one hand on one side and one at another....

And Sauron was not shaped as an eye when Isildur cut the ring from his hand.

 

[Turin]

Dang it! I always forget how to spell his name, a lot of people have already told me that I keep spelling it wrong but I can never remember the right way.

 

[nthman]

I always sort of guessed that supernatural sight of Sauron was somehow tied to the Palintir he possesed and that he was somehow perverting it to this end as well as using it to communicate with Saruman and drive Denethor mad with their respective palintirs.

 

[Turin]

I see that someone has edited the thread name, or did I spell it right to begin with? Thank you unnamed mod.

 

[Bucky]

I always sort of guessed that supernatural sight of Sauron was somehow tied to the Palintir he possesed and that he was somehow perverting it to this end as well as using it to communicate with Saruman and drive Denethor mad with their respective palintirs.

Partially, but not totally.

There's that cloud that appears to be searching for Frodo when he's on Amon Hen with The Ring on.
And, Gandalf plainly states he was 'struggling with the Eye' at this point....

Also, Galadriel says something to the effect of Sauron "reaching out withhis sight but being foiled" (paraphrase).
Whatever she says, it's stated that Sauron is trying to 'see' or 'read' her thought & can't.

so, it's more than the palantir.

i remember someone say something being left naked before the lidliss eye

I think that just means:

1. There's no eyelid.
2. More importantly, The Eye is ALWAYS watching; It never sleeps or loses vigilance.

 

[Flame of Udûn]

Actually he could, considering that he had nine fingers left, and as he didn't have the One, there should be room enough for all nine of them.
Or did I misunderstand you a little now???

I'm not saying he couldn't, just that he wouldn't. I consider the Wraiths to be only held in Middle-earth by the Rings' power. If Sauron were to wear the Rings, the "ownership" would be transfered to himself (not that he is not already the owner in a more broad sense), meaning that the Wraiths would die absolutely. A similar case is the reduction of Sauron's power if one of the Wise were to claim the One.
A side-note, why couldn't he wear more than one Ring on one finger, or toe for that matter?

 

[Arvedui]

Just forget it. I tried to make a lame joke, and lame it was...

I see that someone has edited the thread name, or did I spell it right to begin with? Thank you unnamed mod.

You're welcome.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

The "eye" of Sauron is like the hand of Saruman: his talisman, his token, his "badge". It appears to those whom he seeks (Galadriel mentions seeing the eye in her mirror and Frodo is "caught" by it on Amon Hen), but it certainly does not represent the totality of his physical form anymore than Saruman's white hand represents his physical totality. The free standing TV dish on the summit of Barad Dur as presented in TTT was silly. The eye should only have been shown with respect to those who saw it (Frodo on the Seat of Seeing) rather than simply existing suspended between two radio antennae.

Obviously, it is a difficult thing to "visualize" and therefore, if the Director is not careful, apt to spill over into inanity as it did in TTT and, apparently, elsewhere in the films. But, no, the last film I remember which had eyes running about was that old Forest Tucker sci/fi b&w 50s flick, "The Crawling Eye" - and somehow I don't think either Tolkien or Jackson intended Sauron to be presented that way!

 

[Bucky]

If Sauron were to wear the Rings, the "ownership" would be transfered to himself (not that he is not already the owner in a more broad sense), meaning that the Wraiths would die absolutely

Not true....

"A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades; he becomes in the end invisible permanently, & walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings."

See, after a period, they are permanently in the wraith world, not living or dead & as Tolkien has said elsewhere, the Nazgul are bound up in the fate of the One.

They no longer live in the mortal sense, so they do not need their Ring to keep them alive any longer as they aren't alive in the 'mortal' sense.

 

[Flame of Udûn]

When I said "die absolutely" I meant pass from Middle-earth, a short sojourn in Mandos, and then onto (perhaps) judgement by Eru. Concerning the Wraiths' bondage to the One, could you post a quote? (Not that I don't believe you, I just want to see for myself.)

 

[Bucky]

Concerning the Wraiths' bondage to the One, could you post a quote? (Not that I don't believe you, I just want to see for myself.)



Not 'bondage', but 'their fate is bound' to The One Ring'.


I'm usually pretty good at that, but this one could be tough.....

It's in one of the discussion's of Gandalf's on the Black Riders not dying or something like that.

I started checking, but it's going to take a while with Nazgul, Black Riders, & Ringwraiths to look up.

I wish I could just remember the exact passage.

I'll get back to you on it.