Pippin and the PalantÃ*r

[Ilúvatar]

This came from the Savvy Orc thread. What is Sauron referring to here when he says "this dainty"

'...Then he came. He did no speak so that I coudl hear words. He just looked, and I understood.

'"So you have come back? Why have you neglected to report for so long?"

'I did not answer. He siad: "Who are you?" I still did not answer, but it hurt me horribly; and he pressed me, so I said: "A hobbit."

'Then suddenly he seemed to see me, and he laughed at me. It was cruel. It was like being stabbed with knives. I struggled. But he said: "Wait a moment! We shall meet again soon. Tell Saruman that this dainty is not for him. I will send for it at once. Do you understand? Say just that!"'

Please for those who have posted Savvy Orc thread, repost your responses here.

[Kirinki54]

My opinion is that by "dainty", Sauron referred to the Hobbit. The choice of phrase and the impersonalized way to talk about a mere Hobbit implies.
But I also believe that Sauron hoped that said dainty would in fact yield information about the Ring.
Sauron did not think that Pippin held/had held it. If so he would suspect that Saruman had gotten to it first - and if so he would surely have learned that!

[The Gaffer]

I don't know if it's that clear. I think that Sauron must have suspected that Saruman might have the Ring, or at least know of its whereabouts from the hobbit.

How would he "surely" have learned that? The crux of the Aragorn/palantir/drawing out Sauron's forces plot is that Sauron thinks that the Ring might have been seized by one of his enemies.

Great use of ambiguity by the master story-teller.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

And another use of ambiguity is employing the word "it" instead of "him". Does "it" refer to the Ring or to Pippin?

[Bacchus]

I think the dainty has to be Pippin. We know that Sauron sent a Nazgul to collect the dainty (the second one that flies over Tol Baran). If Sauron had even the slightest thought that Saruman held the Ring, sending a Nazgul to collect it would have been the worst possible course of action.

Also, Gandalf tells Pippin that Sauron wanted Pippin in the Tower, to deal with slowly, and that Sauron would for a time be consumed with thoughts of the hobbit.

[Attalus]

As I posted on the other thread, I think Sauron's response would have been entirely different if he had thought that Saruman, of all people, had acquired the Ring. The "dainty" was Pippin, himself, who would be tortured in Barad-dûr until every last scrap of knowledge that he had would have been obtained. As quoted above, Gandalf said that "[Sauron] wanted you quickly, so that he could deal with you, in the Tower, slowly." Of course, if this had come to pass, Pippin would have revealed the deliberations of the Council of Elrond, to which he was an eavesdropper, and the fact that Frodo was abroad with the Ring. Bacchus' comment that sending a Nazgûl to Isengard if Saruman had the Ring would have been bad for Sauron was interesting, and I had never thought the matter through. The Nazgûl would have come under Saruman's spell, and doubtless have much to say of Sauron's secrets.

[Bacchus]

The term dainty is used in another context that might be suggestive. Sauron occasionally drove captives into Shelob's Lair, an action described as analogous to the case in which "a man might toss a dainty to his cat." This suggests to me that 'dainty' tends to be a person, rather than an object.

[Attalus]

Or as food, analogous to "tidbit." Something organic, at any rate.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Attalus
Bacchus' comment that sending a Nazgûl to Isengard if Saruman had the Ring would have been bad for Sauron was interesting, and I had never thought the matter through. The Nazgûl would have come under Saruman's spell, and doubtless have much to say of Sauron's secrets.
_____________________________________

I don't think so. In "Letters" #246 JRRT says

I do not think they could have attacked him (Frodo) 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.

[Bacchus]

But, Tuor, the context of that statement is that Frodo would not have been expected to be able to command the Nazgul, in part because he had not had time to train himself in "the domination of major hostile wills." Saruman is a whole different matter.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

It's true that Saruman would present a much stronger, and immediate, through his study of ring history,challenge to dominate the Nazgul, and it seems to be a debatable point, but
"Sauron, who still through their nine rings, which he held, had primary control of their wills." seems a rather definitive statement as to primary dominance of the nine.

Also, if Saruman could even to some extent use the Ring's powers, would Sauron have to foreswear use of the nine rings on the Nazgul, and if so would it matter? Perhaps long subservience to Sauron had so effected them they would still defer to Sauron. And then again

(Remember the Whoopi Goldberg character in "Ghost",I think that's the name of the movie). Imagine the list of topics people would have for Tolkien to clarify.

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
"Sauron, who still through their nine rings, which he held, had primary control of their wills." seems a rather definitive statement as to primary dominance of the nine.

Yes it does. But as I recall, there is additional context limiting this case to Frodo at the Sammath. More later, after I have a chance to look it up.

Also, if Saruman could even to some extent use the Ring's powers, would Sauron have to foreswear use of the nine rings on the Nazgul, and if so would it matter? Perhaps long subservience to Sauron had so effected them they would still defer to Sauron. And then again

This line of argument is parallelled in the Alternate history thread. My thought is that the safest course of action for Sauron might be to destroy the Nazgul, possibly by destroying the Rings themselves.

(Remember the Whoopi Goldberg character in "Ghost",I think that's the name of the movie). Imagine the list of topics people would have for Tolkien to clarify.

Lord, that would be a long chat. Fun, though.

[Attalus]

As far as I can read Sauron's character, he would not preemptorily destroy such useful servants, but try to find an alternative method to control them.