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.

[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.

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?

[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?

[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.