Big Mystery: The Nine Rings of Power

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

It happens that once again, I had a simple question and I hoped to look it up here. I was searching the forums for some info about the Nine Rings of Power. I found out that there are about ten threads concerning the Rings of Power in general (not including the One), four or five about the Seven, and about fifteen threads named "The Three Rings", "The Elven Rings", "What were the rings that the Elves had?" and similar. Not a scratch about the Nine. Or at least not a scratch I was looking for.

My question is very simple. But I would certainly like to see an answer for it. A solid proof. My question is:

Where were the Nine Rings at the Third Age?

Now why am I asking. The question is not as simple as it might seem. We know that after the forging and assault on Eregion, Sauron took the Nine Rings of Power and gave him to the nine mortal Men. These men eventually became Ringwraith. They no longer had their other will but their master's. The Rings originally gave them might, sorcerous powers or who knows what else. Then, they left their original homes, wherever they were, and joined Sauron's ranks in Mordor.

As we know, about the Seven Sauron soon learned that the Dwarves cannot be turned to slaves by them, so he wanted to collect them back. From those he got back, he kept them to himself. Wouldn't he do a similar thing with the Nine? Or what, did he leave them to the Nazgul? But he no longer needed the Nine to control the Nazgul, why should he? Or do you say a Nazgul would "die" or something like that, had you took off his Ring? What I am sure of, is that he'd certainly not quickly turn back into a normal man and crying "hooray, I'm free" returned to Rhun (or wherever he came from).
And then there was that trouble with the fall of Mordor.

Originally Posted by LotR Appendix B

3441 Sauron overthrown by Elendil and Gil-galad, who perish. Isildur takes the One Ring. Sauron passes away and the Ringwraiths go into the shadows.

Sauron was gone, and the Ringwraith have "gone into the shadows". How do you imagine it? Was there a squad of shadowy, trembling spirits fleeing across the plains to the East, each with his own Ring on hand? Or did they just "pass into the shadow world", lurking around if it can be even said, in almost non-existence, until their master came back - but then, what about their Rings? They were material! Were they just lying in the pile of debris that became of Barad-Dur until the time came? But even then the Nazgul would have to take a long journey to Mordor to regain them and then go back to Dol Guldur to serve their master.

That's not all the questions, however. It continues:

Originally Posted by LotR Appendix B

c. 1300 Evil things begin to multiply again. (...)The Nazgûl reappear. The chief of these comes north to Angmar.

Okay, here we have the time when the Nazgul "reappear". It is of note that Sauron appeared in Mirkwood some 250 years before that. What does "reappear" mean here - that the world became once again aware of them? I don't think so - no one knew the Witch-King is a Nazgul for quite some time, and even the Wise had a clue. From what Gandalf says to Frodo, one could think that there was not much known about the Nazgul being around again until the War of the Ring, at least not among anybody besides the Wise:

Originally Posted by FotR Chapter 2: Shadow of the Past

Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow, his most terrible servants. Long ago. It is many a year since the Nine walked abroad. Yet who knows? As the Shadow grows once more, they too may walk again.

So it is likely, based on the sources we have, that the Ringwraith actually came "out of the shadows" again some time after their master did. This really implies they were not present in the world in any percievable way. Not even to be seen (as the Nazgul without clothes are incorporeal and without form), but also, um, something as if they didn't even exist at that period. And where were the Nine rings all the thousand years? Lying somewhere on the ground, waiting for the dim siluet of a Ringwraith appearing at the time of Sauron's coming next to them? Dwarven rings were still with their masters. Elven rings we know of. The One was in the water. But the Nine...? At this point Sauron couldn't have collected them from the Ringwraith back during the Second Age, because Isildur then would just pick ten rings instead of one, as we know he didn't.

After some time then, the Nazgul came to Mordor, besieged Minas Morgul, shortly after Barad-Dur was rebuilt and everything went just fine. Whatever might have happened before, we are told that

Originally Posted by FotR Chapter 2: Shadow of the Past

So it is now: the Nine he has gathered to himself

(meaning Rings, of course.) But what should we imagine under "gathered to himself"? At this point, as much as it didn't seem likely in the previous case, I'd like to propose my theory of Sauron really collectig the Rings from the Nazgul and keeping them to himself. I have several good reasons for it:

• He had the Ringwraith totally under his control, Rings or not Rings, as I said above.
• He collected the Dwarven rings and did nothing with them; of course the situation here was a little bit different, because he already learned that the Dwarves cannot be turned to shadows (though he promised them to Dáin, but more like a bribery and actually I think as we know Sauron, that treacherous dog would probably keep the Rings to himself anyway, or just slay Dáin after he had the One back). I also presume if he got his hand on the Three, he'd also keep them.
• It's not a problem to have thirteen rings on nine fingers, you can have several rings on one finger, and if Sauron really wanted to be the Lord of Middle-Earth and the true "Lord of the Rings", this would be certainly fitting. We know he was collecting the Rings as much as he could, if only for the reason that possibly some Ring he heard about here or there might be the One.
• The Nazgul, ahem ahem, "died" at Bruinen. And we are with the same problem as above.
  

  Originally Posted by FotR, Book Two, Chapter 2: Council of Elrond

  The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him. We hope that they were all unhorsed and unmasked, and so made for a while less dangerous; but we must find out for certain.
  (...)
  Three of the black horses had been found at once drowned in the flooded Ford. On the rocks of the rapids below it searchers discovered the bodies of five more, and also a long black cloak, slashed and tattered. Of the Black Riders no other trace was to be seen, and nowhere was their presence to be felt. It seemed that they had vanished from the North.
  "Eight out of the Nine are accounted for at least," said Gandalf. 'It is rash to be too sure, yet I think that we may hope now that the Ringwraiths were scattered, and have been obliged to return as best they could to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless.

  Nothing else was found. They probably wouldn't leave the Rings in place if they could, but "empty and shapeless" is quite well evaluating description.
• One of the Nazgul was killed by Legolas - shot down from the sky. I'd also like to know what happened to the Ring.
• And lastly, the Witch-King was killed on Pelennor. If he had the Ring on his hand at that time, then it must have been lying next to his... clothes. His spirit, however, departed, as we know. So the Ring with which his life was connected so much was now simply lying there on the ground? And what about at the time of casting the One to the Fire - did Faramir&Eowyn, looking from the walls of Minas Tirith, see a miniature explosion on the place the flying creature was buried? Or what? (I'm not saying that the Ring must have produced pyrotechnical effects when it lost its power, but it's interesting anyway).

The original idea had risen from the fact that nowhere, as far as I know, there is said that a Nazgul had a Ring on his hand. If someone finds a quote proving this, then I'd appreciate it. Otherwise... I'm awaiting opinions on the presented subject.

[narfforc]

I have always thought that The Nine Rings were with The Nazgul, however you raise a good point, I have not got the passage at hand, but I am sure it states it somewhere, I also think at this time of Sauron's spirit fleeing Numenor and taking up the Great Ring again, which implies/means he left it behind when taken prisoner by Ar-Pharazon, or how could his bodiless spirit carry it back from The Downfall, this is not true of The Nazgul as they have a spirit body as such that is knitted together by power, or how else could they cloth themselves in solid matter . I have often wondered if Sauron was tempted to give the three that remained of The Seven to some other persons, would Sarumans greed for power and his jealousy of Gandalf overcome his wisdom, The Three could be worn by a non-elf why not one of the lesser rings. It seems a waste to have them idle, was the Ring that Saruman wore on his finger one of the Seven, we only have Sarumans word that he was a Ring-maker and we know how easily lies came to his mouth. I do not think that the destruction of The Lord of the Nazgul would have resulted in his Ring being destroyed, although once the One was destroyed it would just be a piece of metal. I believe that Legolas shot the winged steed and not the Ringwraith, as an arrow would not do any damage to a Nazgul.


P.S Just read The Council of Elrond, it states that the Nine are with The Nazgul, (The Nine the Nazgul keep states Gandalf).

Good subject Legate


.

[Thinlómien]

But maybe the Witch-King's Ring was destroyed (or it vanished just like the nazgûl himself) when he was killed...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by narfforc

P.S Just read The Council of Elrond, it states that the Nine are with The Nazgul, (The Nine the Nazgul keep states Gandalf).

Ah! Really thanks for that one, narfforc. Because it is, I believe, the only place where there is stated that the Nazgul indeed have the Rings. This is what I really thought strange: even when Frodo has the Ring on, there isn't mentioned, for example, that "he saw a terrible figure of a fallen King, who wore a ring on his finger".

Of course, if someone wanted to use it, the claim of Gandalf that the Nazgul keep the Nine could be contested with Galadriel's words to Frodo. We might say Gandalf and Galadriel could both have the same authority and knowledge on that subject - it would be probably best to hear Saruman's opinion on this, because he was an expert on the Rings, as Gandalf says. Galadriel's statement seems to oppose the quoted:

Originally Posted by Mirror of Galadriel

You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine.

This implies that Sauron himself has the Nine - though, of course, this is quite literal explanation. In the context however, it is quite probable that Galadriel means "Sauron has power over the Seven and the Nine" (not to mention he even doesn't have all of the Seven, only three of them) in contrast to the Three, which remain hidden and unstained.

On the other hand, the subject now moves to the line of "what the heck now happened with the Rings at the beginning of the 3rd age?" This has something to do with the incorporalness of the Ringwraith, and what exactly they can do.

Originally Posted by Many Meetings

"I know," said Frodo. "They were terrible to behold! But why could we all see their horses?"
"Because they are real horses; just as the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living."

The nazgul have real horses, real clothes, and of course, real rings. They can use the corporeal items even though they are incorporeal themselves. We could presume, if a Nazgul was not completely killed, but just lost his robes and equipment e.g. in the Bruinen flood, he would just look around and collect his sword&dagger&the Ring and then leave to purchase some new clothes. But the situation at the end of the 2nd Age is somewhat different: Sauron was "dead", the Nazgul disappeared - and what of the Rings?

Originally Posted by narfforc

I believe that Legolas shot the winged steed and not the Ringwraith, as an arrow would not do any damage to a Nazgul.

Of course, of course - but they fell from the sky, that's what I'm talking about, I didn't say it correctly. The creature fell down to the ground and the Ringwraith as well. Now, you know, I can easily imagine an incorporeal nazgul parachutist crawling on the riverbank and searching for his Ring...

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

But maybe the Witch-King's Ring was destroyed (or it vanished just like the nazgûl himself) when he was killed...

Maybe. Or maybe there is a skipped passage in the book and there was something more sinister behind Eomer's cry "Death, death take us all..."

Once again, really thanks for your contributions to this topic to both of you! And I'm awaiting if anyone else has anything to say to this.

[The Might]

Ok...I'm a little confused here, so if I am right
The whole question here is did the Nazgul still have the Rings or did Sauron hold the Rings during the War of the Ring?
Well, as stated in the UT, when Sauron sent the Nazgul on their errand towards the end of June 3018, he still held the Rings.

...being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held ~ UT, Hunt for the Ring

But as is pointed out, they seem to have had the Rings with them when they travel to Eriador...which doesn't make any sense
I'm really confused now

Also, allow me to quote from the Letters:

I do not think they could have attacked him with violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive; they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his that did not interfere with their errand – laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills.

This letter deals with Frodo's 'failure' in the Sammath Naur and so, it clearly states that the Nazgul did not have their rings during the battle at the Black Gate, and so also probably not during the Siege of Minas Tirith (so much for the WK idea).

I think they never possesed the Rings during this whole time, and that they were always held by Sauron.
As far as what Frodo saw is concerned, I am not sure what to say

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, basically, had there not been the quote that narfforc mentioned, I'd say the Rings really were on Sauron's hand all the time... the more on what you brought forth here, TM... this was actually my first idea in this topic...

As we have only Gandalf's word on that, maybe he was simply mistaken? He didn't even see the Ringwraith - only at Weathertop (or from the height of Orthanc, which is not of any value), and while Galadriel's word might not be that important, the Author's word seems to imply that indeed the Rings were not in the possession of the Nazgul, and the Author's word should be considered of the highest authority.
The trouble is that the word "held", at all the times, can be interpretated as "had in power" or something like that, whereas that the Nine Riders "kept" the rings is pretty clear - and also, it is them who are the subjects, not Sauron.

As when TM mentioned UT, I looked there and this part took my interest:

Originally Posted by Unfinished Tales

The Lord of Morgul therefore led his companions over Anduin, unclad and unmounted, and invisible to eyes, and yet a terror to all living things that they passed near.
(...)They reached the west-shores of Anduin a little north of Sarn Gebir, as they had trysted; and there received horses and raiment that were secretly ferried over the River.

Now I don't think, if the Nazgul were wearing their rings still, that they'd take them off at one moment, cross the river (as it is said, on 1st July in Osgiliath) and then (16 days later at Sarn Gebir) took them back. And the idea of nine rings floating in mid-air through Anórien seems quite funny and unlikely.

[narfforc]

When Frodo puts on the Ring he is invisible you do not see a ring floating in mid-air, I believe this to be true of The Nine, because the Rings had totally ensnared them they and their rings are now invisible. When it comes to what Gandalf says in The Council of Elrond I put more trust in his words for they are what Tokien says and is happy with it in published form, I do not wish to be a bore but anything in UT is only what he was thinking of writing, nothing was ever finalised.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by narfforc

When Frodo puts on the Ring he is invisible you do not see a ring floating in mid-air, I believe this to be true of The Nine, because the Rings had totally ensnared them they and their rings are now invisible.

Well, but this is surely not the same case. It is the power of the One Ring to turn its bearer invisible, we don't know anything like that about the Nine in particular. And the Nazgul, when they were clothed, had everything visible - black cloaks, swords... why not the Rings? Why should the Rings themselves be invisible, when the Ringwraith wanted to be visible? When Frodo put the Ring on, he disappeared with all his possessions, Sting, clothes. The garments and weapons of Ringwraith were visible. So I wouldn't consider this much of an evidence.

Originally Posted by narfforc

When it comes to what Gandalf says in The Council of Elrond I put more trust in his words for they are what Tokien says and is happy with it in published form, I do not wish to be a bore but anything in UT is only what he was thinking of writing, nothing was ever finalised.

Good point, though, we still have more evidence even from just the LotR, direct or indirect, that seems to imply that the Rings actually were not in the possession of the Nazgul, but of Sauron. But I still tend to bear the part TM quoted as one of great importance, because it says pretty explicitely that Sauron it was who had the Rings in possession. This would probably be for a debate about the canon, which, of course...

Another quote from the Silmarillion:

Originally Posted by Of the Rings of Power

It is Sauron himself who has taken shape again and now grows apace; and he is gathering again all the Rings to his hand;

Here, when interpretated literally, this is another word by Gandalf - so about the same value as the one quoted from the Council - and here he speaks of Sauron gathering all the Rings to his hand. This is actually what I imagined: that Sauron, after the Second-age fiasco, was now really gathering the Rings back, not any more to give them to someone else, but to hold them and be the true Lord of (all) the Rings. Because when he had the One back, he wouldn't need some other Rings to control some Dwarves or Elves or Men, as it is said, it would be "ultimate victory" for him. And he, in my opinion, didn't need the nine Men to wear the Nine from the moment they turned into Ringwraith, because they already had only a will of his own, and not of theirs.

[The Might]

Indeed...that's a pretty clear contradiction

I took a look at tuckburough.net (along with the EoA my favourite encyclopedia) and on the page about the Nine Rings there is a pretty clear note:

Sauron is said to be in possession of the Nine Rings in The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 61 and 382; Unfinished Tales, p. 338 and 343; Letter #246. However, in The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 263, it says "The Nine the Nazgul keep."

It seems they have also noticed this exact contradiction.
Was this something Gandalf was wrong about?

[narfforc]

My first instinct was to say that the rings were with Sauron, what made me change my mind was Gandalf's words at The Council, some wise people are present and none contradict the statement that Gandalf makes , however I will concede that in other parts of LotRs this is contradicted, if this is so it is Tolkien to blame not Gandalf.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Sure But what you say is exactly what I thought: when you showed me the quote, I was pretty convinced that this might be actually the evidence we seek to say: "Yes, the Nazgul had the Rings." However, the more we dig into it, the more it seems we are losing in it.

[Morwen]

Gandalf's statement to Frodo in Shadow of the Past, that Sauron, at that point, held the Nine makes more sense to me than his later assertion at the the Council of Elrond, "the nine the Nazgul keep". Since Sauron no longer had the One Ring that would rule all the others, it seems to make sense that he needs the Nine in his possession to ensure his link to and dominance of the Ringwraiths.


Still, between his 1st and second assertions, Gandalf did encounter some of the Nazgul at Weathertop. Perhaps he learned something in that encounter that caused him to alter his view as to who held the Nine. But if that is the case he doesn't mention it at the Council.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Remember "'His cat,' he says, though she owns him not?" Or "I pray the Lord my soul to keep?" Tolkien loves inversions and old phrasings, and Gandalf may well be saying "The Nine keep the Nazgul."

More likely, he never noticed or corrected this statement after he had thought more about the problem. Sauron after he lost the One simply couldn't exercise dominion over the Nazgul if they still had their Rings: they would have been free agents.

The most extensive discussion of the matter is found in Letter #246, which in part discusses what would have happened at the Sammath Naur without Gollum's intervention.

Sauron sent at once the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring....they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of [Frodo's] that did not interfere with their errand - laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills.

I doubt it gets more explicit than that.

[narfforc]

This contradiction is noted by Hammond and Scull in A Readers Companion however they offer no explanation. Having read a bit more of this I am sure Tolkien changed his mind at some stage and may have left in Gandalfs statement by mistake. In HoME vol12 under The Tale of Years of The Third Age for the date:

c.1350 Evil things begin to multiply again. Orcs increase rapidly and delve in the Misty Mountains, and attack the Dwarves. The Ringwraiths stir once more. The chief of these, the wielders of the Nine Rings, becomes the Witch-king of the realm of Angmar in the north beyond Arnor, and makes war on the remnants of the Dunedain.

In Appendix B (The Tale of Years) of The Lord of the Rings for the date:

c.1300 Evil things begin to multiply again. Orcs increase in the Misty Mountains and attack the Dwarves. The Nazgul reappear. The chief of these comes north to Angmar. The Periannath migrate westwards; many settle at Bree.


So quite clearly from the published version Tolkien had edited out the word 'wielders' which implied that the Nazgul held the Nine.

Wield (Hold and Use).

Another piece of editing occurs during The Siege of Gondor HoME vol8 (The War of the Ring)in this form:

The Nazgul came once more, slaves of the Nine Rings, and to each, since now they were utterly subject to his will, their Lord had given again that ring of power that he had used of old.

This was replaced in RotK by: The Nazgul came again, and as their Dark Lord now grew and put forth his strength, so their voices, which uttered only his will and his malice, were filled with evil and horror.

Once again Tolkien is moving away from the Nazgul holding their Rings.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

It is of course a mistake by Tolkien, probably a mistake in his writing Gandalf's words at the Council.

But I suppose, technically, if you're going by canon, you would have to say that the Nazgul possess their Rings. "The Nine the Nazgul keep" is not an inverted thought; it is a clear statement from Gandalf, and the context shows his meaning.

Could Gandalf be mistaken? Of course; who cannot? But, I'll just ask the question and open myself up: Is Gandalf ever shown to be mistaken about anything in the text? There are things he's unsure about, definitely. But is he ever wrong? He may doubt whether something is X or Y (e.g., not knowing the identity of Durin's Bane), but does he say something is X when it's really Y?

I'm not saying he doesn't; I just can't recall if he does or not.

That's point one for believing Gandalf.

Point two: Tolkien responded to a critical remark about some of Treebeard's statements by saying (and sorry, I must paraphrase), Treebeard is very old and very knowledgeable, but "he is not one of the Wise" (direct quote) and there's a lot he doesn't understand.

Gandalf, on the other hand, is unquestionably one of the Wise; the implication is that we can trust statements about things like Nazgul if one of the Wise makes them.

So those are grounds for believing Gandalf's unequivocal statement.

Having said all that, I do indeed believe that Gandalf's statement is merely a leftover mistake by Tolkien: he states multiple times in UT and the Letters and implies elsewhere that Sauron keeps the Nine Rings.

Of course, neither the Letters nor the UT are "canonical"; I believe most Tolkien geeks would agree. So I suppose it comes down to whether you're a strict constructionist, going totally by what Tolkien approved for publication, or more of a liberal.

[The Might]

William Cloud Hickli may well be right
The sentence The Nine keep the Nazgul does make sense, it would mean that it is through the Nine Rings that Sauron was still controlling the Ringwraiths...so far it's the best explanation

[Morwen]

It is of course a mistake by Tolkien, probably a mistake in his writing Gandalf's words at the Council.

But I suppose, technically, if you're going by canon, you would have to say that the Nazgul possess their Rings. "The Nine the Nazgul keep" is not an inverted thought; it is a clear statement from Gandalf, and the context shows his meaning.

Could Gandalf be mistaken? Of course; who cannot? But, I'll just ask the question and open myself up: Is Gandalf ever shown to be mistaken about anything in the text? There are things he's unsure about, definitely. But is he ever wrong? He may doubt whether something is X or Y (e.g., not knowing the identity of Durin's Bane), but does he say something is X when it's really Y?

The problem though is that the contradiction exists within the canon.

So it is now: the Nine he has gathered to himself; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed.
Gandalf to Frodo - The Shadow of the Past, FotR

However, Gandalf later states,

Yet it is a ring. What then? The Nine the Nazgul keep. The Seven are taken or destroyed.

The Council of Elrond, FotR

I agree that "The Nine the Nazgul keep" is not an inverted thought. Gandalf is making a statement about the possession/location of the Rings of Power. However he appears to have changed his mind as to who actually holds the Nine. If there are sources outside of the canon which support the first statement, i.e. that Sauron holds the Nine, then I think it should be preferred to Gandalf's later pronouncement.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morwen

Gandalf is making a statement about the possession/location of the Rings of Power. However he appears to have changed his mind as to who actually holds the Nine. If there are sources outside of the canon which support the first statement, i.e. that Sauron holds the Nine, then I think it should be preferred to Gandalf's later pronouncement.

Exactly. The point is, that Gandalf was ambivalent even inside LotR (and not just Gandalf - there are even others who speak their words to that matter, e.g. Galadriel).

...and whether you like it or not (Hooray! It's here!), UT is canon for me, as much as the Sil. (but please let's not debate about this further - this is not our topic, after all, and we all want to stay alive )

[narfforc]

Robert Foster in his Complete Guide to Middle-earth has the Nazgul being destroyed with their rings when the One Ring was unmade in Orodruin, this could mean the Rings wherever they lie either with Sauron or with the Nazgul, he also goes on to say that the ring worn by the Lord of the Nazgul may have been preserved, with this statement I think that he is trying to say that the Rings may have been with the Nazgul, mainly because the remaining eight Nazgul are involved with the tumults of Orodruin, whereas the Lord of the Nazgul is destroyed on the Pelennor. I do not know where his source comes from (at the moment), however I will continue to dig (for the sake of this excellent topic, thanks to Legate), what I will say is this and in the words of Christopher Tolkien himself:


'Mr Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-Earth supplies, as I have found through frequent use, an admirable work of reference.'

High praise from one so learned and wise in the lore of Middle-Earth.


Elven Sillyloonymen Ohmygoshello (I am starry-eyed by your greeting).


.

[narfforc]

On page 302 of The Silmarillion (Of the Rings of Power and the Third age) Mithrandir speaking to The White Council states: Soon he will be too strong for you, even without the Great Ring; for he rules the Nine, and of the Seven he has recovered three...

It is strange that Tolkien uses the word rules and not holds, keeps or weilds.

In Unfinished Tales (The Hunt for the Ring) we are told: They were by far the most powerful of his servants, and the most suitable for such a mission, since they they were entirely enslaved to their Nine Rings, which he (Sauron) now himself held.


I have the feeling that Tolkien saw Sauron with the Nine, one can hold power in Government and rule at the same time.